Originally Posted by Contagioned
Okay, say you're the character designer of Riot. You need to make an attractive male for them that is simply an object to look at, like all the women in this game apparently.
Will you not give him muscles and a possible six pack? None of the characters in LoL are Marcus Fenix status, anyways.
Also, Gambit has a six pack in almost every rendition (BEYOND athletic, mind you), Nightcrawler is pretty muscular in most renditions (at times beyond athletic), and David Bowie's weird always.
And your whole paragraph about the article argues that "males are shallow and women aren't," which isn't relevant.
Why not just make him pretty? Good eyes, shapely features, stylish hair, snappy outfit?
No, I wouldn't. Not every guy has time to do his sit-ups, you know. :P
The point of Gambit and Nightcrawler is interesting, because it illustrates both that this issue of inappropriate representation (to the character) is also present in male characters and calls to attention that the same problems we have in games are just as prevalent in comics, and have been from the start.
Well, it wouldn't be that the argument "isn't relevant." That may not be the correct word to describe what you mean. If we're assuming that that is indeed the subtext to the article, then it would be that it "isn't correct." But the problem isn't that men are shallow or women aren't or whatever. Everyone is shallow and likes to look at pretty things. The problem is that in a male dominated industry (on both the side of the creators as well as the consumers), everything is dictated by this male viewpoint which isn't even correct necessarily. Male characters get variety and traits that support them, while female characters are generalized and objectified. BUT ALSO, male characters are stylized in a way that men assume
is attractive and women are stylized in a way that men like to stare at while sitting at their computers at night.