guardians_song (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
guardians_song) wrote2012-12-09 01:26 am
guardians_song) wrote2012-12-09 01:26 am
Entry tags:
A complaint about parodying "sexy" art through genderswapping:
Yes, it often looks ridiculous.
Some of the time, however, it looks ridiculous because male bodies do not have the parts the original pose was emphasizing.
If you take a picture of a superheroine striking a pose that emphasizes her cleavage and genderswap to a superhero striking the same pose, of course it will look absurd. He has nothing to emphasize, so he'll just be thrusting out his chest or leaning over for no visually-appealing reason. I suppose if you really have a pectoral-muscle fetish, it will be appealing, but it otherwise makes no sense. But it did in the original art.
Similarly, of course it looks stupid or absurd to most viewers if you swap a pose of a woman leaning over and exposing her [clothed/unclothed] buttocksand other parts to a passing character or to the viewer to a pose of a man doing the same thing, because most viewers are not turned on by what one might do to a man's posterior regions. (Heterosexual men take up 42-46% of the population and lesbians 4-5%. What I just said would be true even if 90% of heterosexual and bisexual women were turned on by spanking or pegging men.) However, I'm sure gay men with a preference for topping would have distinctly different opinions of male characters contorting themselves into strange and... anatomically creative poses to display their buttocks to the viewer.
And yes, outfits with "boob windows" or just-barely-nipple-covering shenanigans do look stupid on men - again, because people really don't give much of a damn about male cleavage. They do about female cleavage. This is not some great feminist insight.
Finally, to try to drag the focus off female-to-male switching for a moment - there is underwear for men that specifically emphasizes and props up the 'package' through... ingenious design. Would it look stupid on women? Certainly, since women don't have anything down there to prop up (except in possibly in the case of extreme hormonal abnormality). But I don't think anyone would crow about how brilliant and anti-sexist it was to realize women do not have anything to emphasize down there.
I'm all for criticizing dimwitted comic art, but one has to make sure the idiocies aren't introduced in the process of 'parodying' them. It doesn't do my opinion of one any favors if one can't even shoot fish in a barrel without throwing in half a barrel-full of already-shot fish first.
Some of the time, however, it looks ridiculous because male bodies do not have the parts the original pose was emphasizing.
If you take a picture of a superheroine striking a pose that emphasizes her cleavage and genderswap to a superhero striking the same pose, of course it will look absurd. He has nothing to emphasize, so he'll just be thrusting out his chest or leaning over for no visually-appealing reason. I suppose if you really have a pectoral-muscle fetish, it will be appealing, but it otherwise makes no sense. But it did in the original art.
Similarly, of course it looks stupid or absurd to most viewers if you swap a pose of a woman leaning over and exposing her [clothed/unclothed] buttocks
And yes, outfits with "boob windows" or just-barely-nipple-covering shenanigans do look stupid on men - again, because people really don't give much of a damn about male cleavage. They do about female cleavage. This is not some great feminist insight.
Finally, to try to drag the focus off female-to-male switching for a moment - there is underwear for men that specifically emphasizes and props up the 'package' through... ingenious design. Would it look stupid on women? Certainly, since women don't have anything down there to prop up (except in possibly in the case of extreme hormonal abnormality). But I don't think anyone would crow about how brilliant and anti-sexist it was to realize women do not have anything to emphasize down there.
I'm all for criticizing dimwitted comic art, but one has to make sure the idiocies aren't introduced in the process of 'parodying' them. It doesn't do my opinion of one any favors if one can't even shoot fish in a barrel without throwing in half a barrel-full of already-shot fish first.
no subject
no subject
To be fair, that might make for interesting crossdressing!fanart...Yep.
Can we have stalker!Soren? I think stalker!crossdresser!Soren would actually make for great crackfic...