>>116453890>a woman choosing to wear something herself to feel empowered and a man drawing a female character to appeal to the male gaze are two extremely different thingsYou wouldn't mind elucidating how they actually differ, right? If it's so obvious you'd think someone would explain exactly how, because so far you just made an unsubstantiated claim without backing it :*(
So yes, I have heard that one before, but unfortunately it has never been anything more than an arbitrary rule set by folks with a moral agenda.
>they wear full-coverage clothing and sports bras that flatten and firmly hold the breasts in place for a reason.I suspect this is a troll, because it's as if you didn't read my posts that you're replying to. But It is definitely possible that such a rabid critic would sloppily butt-in with points that have already been refuted in the very thing they're replying to.
>>116454193 Already caught that male supers don't wear at all practical real-world clothing either.
>you believe you know women better than women themselves doWhat are you going on about here? This is the entitled attitude I've seen a lot from the critics, they think just because they speak for women, and often are themselves women, that they own some special intellectual property rights to the depiction of the female form. Well, newsflash, you don't. You don't get to set arbitrary rules around any gender forms you want just because you feel entitled to it. Do feminists want equality or for women to receive privileged treatment?
If these examples of female physical attractiveness as a focal point are damaging to women because of the affect on men in their views of women, what is the difference between a real woman on the street drawing that attention to her body or the depiction of a sexy woman in a fiction? It could be argued that the example of the real life woman is actually worse than the latter, and that the former is permissible. That would be arbitrary, though, same as the former
