Who knew?

that the stance is significantly different to her that it also denotes sexism.

Not that pigeon toedness is somehow itself sexist.

sex goddess type. right? not like you could not figure this out and give a serious or informative comment. but instead, you chose to share only snarky.

hm

weak & submissive, ready to be rescued and daddy-dominated by a big, strong man.

Standing pigeon-toed like that is a way of signalling helplesness and Lolita-like pseudo-shyness of the sort intended to be sexually alluring. It presents the same sort of sexual signals that Britney Spears' schoolgirl plaid skirt and pigtails do in that early video of hers.

we are quickly moving from 1 to 3

are given a waist that is humanly impossible with the set of 'girls' they give them, and the huge hips they draw on them.

The problem with these images is that little girls seeing them as they grow up, actually grow convinced that this is the ideal, their eyes believe these characters more than reality, and soon they're seeking to emulate these characters at their local doctors' offices.

At their local doctors' offices they seek the unattainable waist by taking weight loss (anorexia) medication, and then, having achieved a tiny waist - which ONLY goes along with no chest and no hips - they seek to implant some foreign material into their chest in an attempt to look like, yes, A CARTOON CHARACTER!

Hollywood is filled with these artificial women who attempt to look like cartoon characters, and now they are seen all over the place.

They're anorexics with implants. Pathetic, really. That's why it's important to discuss these things, so the mythology of the cartoon character female with almost no waist and a massive chest and hips is finally seen for what it is: the living of a lie.

All those resources and all that energy devoted to superficial BS. It is literally insane.

Imagine that money going to truly needed things.

Precisely.

It makes me want to scream when I see women encouraging it. Drives me absolutely nuts.

Between porn, men's magazines, Hollywood, TV, movies, and all the Barbie-like cartoon characters being manufactured by the plastic surgeon factories, neither men nor women know what women's real breasts look like, what women's real waists look like, what women's real bellies, and real faces are like.

The "ideal" look for women has become something rather scary, with a face like injected, plumped up, cut and sewn, like something out of Madame Tussaud's Wax Museum, breasts that look like Jai Alai balls, and waists as emaciated as if they'd been transplanted from a frikkin' corpse. It's the new Frankenstein Monster ideal of beauty for women. Some scary shit!!! I swear to God I don't know how men don't shriek and run away in horror. I guess their eyes have gotten used to surgically-altered Frankenwomen.

The hubs and I like to play co-op video games, usually of the fantasy/RPG style. The female characters (which, you're lucky if there's more than one) usually ridiculously drawn, and even in a game where armor is important, they are almost always shown with bare midriffs and short shorts until you get to the absolute highest armor class.

eventually.

Hopefully soon.

The guy has sharp edges on this waist and pecks. That would look freaky in real life.

I disagree the woman looks like she is experiencing sexual pleasure. They both seem to have bored, or neutral expressions to me.

if women found sharp pecs hot, and that's why he was drawn that way. I suspect it was rather due to laziness on the artist's part.

he drew the man that way.

But then the original poster pointed out that because those versions of sexualization (with the woman being significantly hypersexualized and objectified relative to the male) are pervasive, our culture's "default mode," laziness naturally leads to such sexism, just because when we're being lazy, we go on autopilot and drop into our culture's default mode. (The phrasing of this point is mine, not hers--but it is the point she is making.)

Really an interesting discussion, and not something I've ever noticed - I mean, I figure it out when half the characters are ~naked and the other half aren't, but the differences that still exist when everyone is near-naked have eluded me...

The issue is not the third set of images, its the first set and how to get to 2 or 3.

?w=204&h=409

The artists comments are:

I contemplated ways in which I could make a man more ridiculously sexualised.

But this is a 15min doodle and I didn’t really bother with it, so I got lazy with the “sexy” guy (he was drawn the last). He got a neutral stance and a half-assed face.

Hell, his legs are terribly terribly drawn. But I just didn’t care enough to fix anything.

So here’s your reason for the man being the way he is.