The curves themselves are excessive, but look at the outfits and your argument comes tumbling down. Male superheroes are rarely portrayed in a sexually suggestive manner. Female superheroes see physically impossible cleavage and tons of skin as par for the course.
The exaggerated features make male superheroes look powerful, while female superheroes look like playboy bunnies. It's like you're supposed to identify with the former and lust after the latter — they're both drawn to male sensitivities.
Male superheroes are portrayed as powerful, older, athletic, and rich. Those attributes are also the exact same attributes that dating services announce as the stereotypical attributes women look for in men.
When comic want to side-kick people should laugh at, they often reverse those attributes. A meek, young, unathletic and poor male is the steriotypical joke for a superhero.
So I find male superheroes are exaggerated portrayed in a sexually suggestive manner in comic books, maybe even more than Female superheroes. At least they don't try to reverse the female stereotype so people can laugh at it.
What do you really expect? Comic books are overwhelmingly read by men. Men who generally -- and don't downvote me, you know it's true -- don't get much female attention. Of course the authors are going to spice them up a bit for their intended demographic.
Men have comic books, women have romance novels (and don't tell me the covers for those books aren't intended to sexualize men and titillate their audience). It's not a crisis, it is what it is. Sex sells, BOTH ways.
It's not that simple. This is a cultural issue. Go outside the US and see what comics sell.
The best selling comic in Norway for decades was Donald Duck.
These days the most popular comics in Norway are Pondus - a comedy series about a pub landlord (previously bus driver) and his friend who sells music (after previously spending years on the dole) - and Nemi, a series about a 20-something female goth, written by a woman. While Donald Duck still sells fairly well.
The best selling French-language comic is usually Spirou, a periodical that features mostly comics targeted at children.
You'll find country after country where the most popular comics have little to no sexualized content.
Now, I enjoy US superhero comics too, but as I noted elsewhere: There's been a drastic change in them to in the last 20 years or so. They used to target boys, not men. And they used to be a lot more innocent.
Sure, they probably target their core audience, but the thing to keep in mind, and that it seems like Marvel at least may be waking up to: Maybe this focus on "men who don't get much female attention" is why the comic audience in the US is so tiny compared to the comic reading audiences in Europe or Japan for example?
> You'll country after country where the most popular comics have little to no sexualized content.
First of all, you're making the assumption that our popular comics are popular because of sexualized content (i.e., no MJ with big tits = no one is gonna read Spiderman; doubtful).
Second: Japanese Manga. When you put it in perspective, a couple scantily-clad women, eh... could be a lot worse!
> There's been a drastic change in them to in the last 20 years or so. They used to target boys, not men.
You might want to dig up some of your old comics. The women were always drawn "sexy", it's just that the boundaries of good taste have shifted. You can get away with things in terms of sex and violence that you never could decades ago.
And is it really puzzling why comics are targeting men more? It's because they're the only ones left reading comic books! Kids don't read them and don't care.
> Second: Japanese Manga. When you put it in perspective, a couple scantily-clad women, eh... could be a lot worse!
There's tons upon tons of manga that never so much as touches on sexual themes. It's a wide and diverse medium. This is like suggesting that because porn exists, all video is porn.
> First of all, you're making the assumption that our popular comics are popular because of sexualized content (i.e., no MJ with big tits = no one is gonna read Spiderman; doubtful).
No, I am not. I am pointing out there is a correlation between sexualized content and sales numbers in the US today. In fact, I've pointed out elsewhere that perhaps this is one of the reasons the US comic audience is so small:
The main titles have narrowed their focus even more compared to the 80's and are now overly sexualized and aimed squarely at men in a very narrow age bracket. It's worth considering in that context that their sales numbers in Europe have plummeted, and that most of the Marvel titles are now relegated to English-language imports in comic stores, whereas in the 80's and into the 90's they were translated into far more languages and did well in many other countries. E.g. growing up in Norway, I could buy Spiderman, Hulk, Batman, X-Men and Superman at least in translated versions in any grocery store, with additional ones popping up for shorter runs now and again. These days you only see shorter runs that survive on the hype around the movies now and again. Meanwhile comics as a whole are still doing well in Europe.
> Second: Japanese Manga. When you put it in perspective, a couple scantily-clad women, eh... could be a lot worse!
There's a lot worse in Europe too. The point is not that there are no sex in European comics - there are European comics that are outright porn - but that the extremely narrow focus of the mainstream part of the US comic market is a US peculiarity. Like Manga is a Japanese peculiarity. But as someone else has pointed out: Japanese comics stores too has a much wider variety - Manga aimed at adults is not nearly as defining for the Japanese comic market as Marvel and DC superhero comics are for the US.
From a European point of view, going to a US comic store is like finding a section of a comic store isolated by itself. You go through all of the superhero comics - with a few other things - and then you wonder "where are the other sections? Where's the comedy stuff? Where's the rest of the newpaper strip collections? Where are the westerns? Where are the rest of the serious graphic novels?" And yes: "where are the 'adult' - as in fully of nudity - comics?"
> You might want to dig up some of your old comics.
I have. It's exactly why I wrote what I wrote.
> It's because they're the only ones left reading comic books! Kids don't read them and don't care.
> The main titles have narrowed their focus even more compared to the 80's and are now overly sexualized and aimed squarely at men in a very narrow age bracket.
They're aimed at the people who are left reading comic books: men who grew up reading comic books. Who are now adults. Kids don't read comic books and don't care to. It's been that way for quite a while. I'm willing to bet the comic book companies have done a little market research before going in this direction rather than intentionally alienating younger readers.
> and then you wonder "where are the other sections? Where's the comedy stuff? Where's the rest of the newpaper strip collections? Where are the westerns? Where are the rest of the serious graphic novels?
If those genres sold well, there'd be more of them.
> Maybe in the US.
Well, we're talking about comics in the US here aren't we?
> They're aimed at the people who are left reading comic books
Well, funnily enough we're having this discussion on a website devoted to startups. So think of it from a business point of view. What would any of us here say if someone described the current state of affairs and strategy for their startup as "we started off as a successful company but we've been bleeding users and losing demographics, so we're going to cater exclusively to those demographics that still use our product, even if it further alienates everybody else"?
Look at a good example of a company doing the exact opposite: Lego was in dire straits a while back, and managed to make a comeback by diversifying — getting into the video game market brought kids back, and made the bricks a viable business again.
"Oh we're catering to our core audience" at some point becomes an absurd argument.
> we started off as a successful company but we've been bleeding users and losing demographics, so we're going to cater exclusively to those demographics that still use our product, even if it further alienates everybody else
If your problem is intractable then it's probably a good idea. When your demographic is getting older and not being replaced by a younger generation you're in trouble. Comic books can't compete with tablets, phones, cable TV, etc. for the attention of kids. It's not like it was in the 80s and earlier.
The interesting thing about the comic book companies is they have a lot of IP that's part of the collective consciousness and they've diversified by making shitloads of movies and TV shows that are hugely popular. The comics though? Relatively speaking no one is reading them.
But accelerating the decline of your profitable niche by withdrawing from the niches that fed the creation of your current niche, is probably not good long term thinking.
In the case of comics, Marvel and DC has a market of 30's males now because they served the market of kids in the 80's and before.
If they want to retain that profitable niche, they better make sure they develop interest amongst younger readers.
Is it declining? It would seem to be growing, but mainly amongst a certain demographic (who happen to have a lot of disposable income).
As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, comics are no longer a mainstream entertainment medium compared to movies and videogames, so comic franchises are branching out into these areas.
And it's interesting to ask why, when kids elsewhere do, and when US kids used to.
> I'm willing to bet the comic book companies have done a little market research before going in this direction rather than intentionally alienating younger readers.
Why would assume this, given how badly they've repeatedly misread their markets, and how badly they've been managed (e.g. Marvels bankruptcy)? They've over and over done stupid, short-sighted things to alienate both readers and collectors (e.g. their attempts to drive up sales from collectors with tons of variant covers) that publishers elsewhere have not. Not least their failure to get their titles more eyeballs by getting them into other sales venues (growing up Norway, I'd been reading comics for something like 10 years before I ever set foot in a dedicated comics store, as comics were everywhere so there was no need to).
And they're the ones that are small bit players of questionable success.
> If those genres sold well, there'd be more of them.
If those genres existed in reasonable numbers in English language translations, being sold in more places like the small number of comics stores, maybe the people who would have enjoyed them would realise that comics are for them too.
Sometimes developing your market means taking risks. The European publishers understands this. They are not just chasing the big successes and milking them dry. You won't see 5 Spiderman titles. Instead you regularly see variety magazines headlined by major, well-selling characters with guest series they hope to develop filling up a substantial portion of the magazines (the French language Pilote and Spirou perhaps being the most well known internationally), or short runs on entirely new series they are taking a gamble on.
Many, many of these titles are never profitable. Many of them are outright gambles that there's little expectation will be profitable. Many of them are only able to stay profitable because of the main title is a massive draw. But some of those guest series become breakout successes of their own, carrying magazines filled with new guest series continuing to develop new markets and new fan bases.
Both of the biggest Norwegian series at the moment started life as strips and then had bit-parts with a few pages here and there in bigger magazines, until they'd developed enough popularity. When they got their own magazines, they were initially propped up by "tried and true but not quite big enough for their own magazine" series.
Several current Norwegian comic artists started their careers submitting fan-art to magazines in the 80's, then got invited to publish a page or two, eventually got their own little series with a few pages in a bigger magazine each month, and ended up with their own magazines.
And if you think "that's fine, but it's not breaking new ground", consider that many of these series are very different from each other. You'd find cutting political satire alongside Beetle Bailey (Billy). There was comedic parodies in The Phantom (Fantomet). And so on. A lot of material that'd never have a market in the 80's, got a market because the publishers found it worthwhile to publish a few pages in not-very-related magazines to test the market and get reader feedback. Other material got a market because they "rounded out" magazines and draw fan bases that'd buy a magazine they'd not otherwise consider, even if a specific series will not stand on its own.
This is where you should look to figure out how to develop a culture for comics, as these are the methods that have been successful - even with potential markets a tiny fraction of the US -, while Marvel and DC and the smaller US publishers have struggled.
> Well, we're talking about comics in the US here aren't we?
Are we? I'm not, exactly because contrasting the US market to the European and Japanese markets reveal so many interesting differences that helps see the article in context.
> Kids don't read comic books and don't care to.
> And it's interesting to ask why, when kids elsewhere do, and when US kids used to.
Yeah, interesting question. I believe the reason is many more easily accessible alternatives for entertainment. Computer games are a major factor, but also a larger amount of animation and childrens tv.
My guess is that 18-35 year old single men who like superheroes outspend any other demographic by perhaps 10:1, presumably because they have the disposable income to do so.
And this is a huge problem for Marvel and DC, as if they don't address the decline in popularity with children, the US comics market is set for continued decline.
They can't continue to reap the benefits of that market segment if they don't ensure there's ongoing recruitment into it.
I think that was the point of the article. Comic book authors don't consider that women might want to read their books, and so they unwittingly cut women out of their audience.
Also, there's a difference between comics and romance novels. Comics are a medium, while romance novels are just one type of book. A book store will have many types of books including romance novels, but comic book stores may have just one type of comic, and it's usually for men.
> Comic book authors don't consider that women might want to read their books, and so they unwittingly cut women out of their audience.
I'm guessing Marvel, DC et al have done a lot of research over the years and found out yep, it's pretty much only males that read comic books. They've attempted female-targeted comic books over the years and they don't sell. Not really worth spinning your wheels on something that's not going to happen.
> A book store will have many types of books including romance novels, but comic book stores may have just one type of comic, and it's usually for men.
Men and women shop at book stores, so there's that. Comic book stores (are there more than a couple hundred left in the US anyway? Who cares) are really only frequented by men because WOMEN DON'T CARE ABOUT COMICS. No amount of hand-wringing over this issue is going to change it. Sometimes it really just is "men do this, women do that". It doesn't need to be over-analyzed.
Sure, they've attempted female-targeted comic books. They were bland, pandering, and universally sucked. They thought they knew what women wanted, and they don't.
If they want more female readership, here's all they need to do: Make the same comics you've been making, just without the giganto tits and sexy poses. Women enjoy comics for the same reason as men: great art, great story lines, and lots of action. It's the sexualization of female characters that excludes them.
> I'm guessing Marvel, DC et al have done a lot of research over the years and found out yep, it's pretty much only males that read comic books.
When the vast majority of their output is targeting a mostly male demographic, and being sold almost exclusively in an environment that attracts mostly men, that may be so. But it is a situation of their own making by making their product offering so niche.
> are really only frequented by men because WOMEN DON'T CARE ABOUT COMICS
... in the US. Unsurprisingly, given that they mostly sell products not targeting women... in the US.
Basically, if they want to change that and widen their market - which is clearly possible - given that this is a US pecularity - they need to be willing to invest in it over time. Their alternative is to fade into irrelevance, given that they've managed to even lose a lot of the younger demographic too in the US.
> When the vast majority of their output is targeting a mostly male demographic, and being sold almost exclusively in an environment that attracts mostly men, that may be so. But it is a situation of their own making by making their product offering so niche.
I think you've got the order of things mixed up. No company intentionally wants to cut their customer base in half. They've tried to attract female readers. They'd be stupid not to! Women just aren't attracted to comic books.
And don't forget that comics _used_ to be sold in book stores, gas stations, etc. Now they aren't. You know why? Because across the board hardly anyone, relatively speaking, reads comic books. They're niche because they're just not that popular in general.
> ... in the US. Unsurprisingly, given that they mostly sell products not targeting women... in the US.
Because in the US, women don't care about comic books. It's a chicken and egg debate for the ages, clearly.
This is the same kind of thinking when men says "Women just aren't attracted to science or computers". Ignoring all the social cues that discourage women from those activities.
I think you're missing the point that in other parts of the world people (kids, adults, men, women) do read comic books. In those other parts of the world, where comic books are read by all sorts of people, they are not so overtly sexualized as those in the USA.
Maybe you're right that non-young-male-Americans are genetically incapable of liking comic books as a medium, but it seems more likely that Americans are no different from Europeans, and would like comics if they just made comics for them.
> Maybe you're right that non-young-male-Americans are genetically incapable of liking comic books as a medium
It doesn't have to be genetics. It could just be that the opportunity for a cultural development that would favor broader popularity of comic books in the US was missed -- the development of that culture is not independent of things like the currently existing set of other media options, pre-existing cultural perceptions of pictorial media, etc.
The cultural popularity and associations of particular art forms are path dependent.
> but it seems more likely that Americans are no different from Europeans
Huh? There's tons of ways in which Americans are culturally different from Europeans. Is it so crazy to think comic book tastes might be one of those differences?
> And don't forget that comics _used_ to be sold in book stores, gas stations, etc. Now they aren't.
Most of the general book stores I've been in recently say you're wrong.
Also, kids used to not have ubiquitous, interactive, 3D, pocketable animated stories, so, you know, the competition for comic books has changed.
Complaining that comic books have become less ubiquitous are more alternatives have become ubiquitous is like complaining that radio dramas no longer have mass market appeal.
I wasn't arguing that sex doesn't sell both ways. Was just disabusing the OP of his notion that comics are not highly sexualised.
Still, there's plenty of novels for all sorts of audiences. Both the titillating kind (swing both ways), and otherwise. It's just a shame that the superhero comic format, which does appeal to a wider audience than just male teenagers, caters almost exclusively to that one group.
The exaggerated features make male superheroes look powerful, while female superheroes look like playboy bunnies. It's like you're supposed to identify with the former and lust after the latter — they're both drawn to male sensitivities.