Marvel Swimsuit Special References

Especially for male characters where I have the odd feeling that the cartoonists who worked on those magazines likely used what seemed like gay porn magazines as well as their more ‘tasteful’ counterparts (whatever that meant, which would’ve included the likes of Dianora Niccolini but who knows) it does make you wonder about whether if male characters do get objectified. They do but it happens very rarely, let alone in earnest due to immense pressures.

On one hand you have the pressure to do male nudes (and likely a lot of superhero cartoonists would’ve been desensitised to this) yet on the other hand avoid depicting male nudes in the same way their female counterparts are. I admit doing similar things too and likely I get the impression Marvel cartoonists were in a double bind when doing those things. I won’t be surprised if a Marvel cartoonist or two bothered to upload the very references used.

Some of which might even be smutty to some individuals but unsurprisingly considering what they’re told to do. Even if they’re edited in their final forms, it should be unsurprising if they were already doing a lot of male nudes (even acknowledging certain media) when charged to do those things.

Considering the odd possibility

Whilst it’s debatable whether if male characters do get objectified, when it comes to depicting superheroes and the like a good number of cartoonists would’ve been really desensitised to male nudes. Perhaps much moreso than male readers do. I could be projecting but the number of superhero cartoonists who do bother to collect or reference media with male nudes could be higher.

I suspect if Marvel Swimsuit Special and the like are any indication, if male cartoonists did in fact use media featuring male nudity as references for male characters there then one wonders if they’re going this far to objectify them. Maybe not entirely given the double bind between having to depict such images and still not offending other people. That’s going to be a tough act but I won’t be surprised if they even managed to balance this at times.

As well as them being more desensitised to male nudes than most people would realise.

The possibility of certain references

Like I said in one of my documents, I have the odd feeling that superhero cartoonists working on Marvel Swimsuit Specials would’ve likely referenced from any media featuring male nudes (Dianora Niccolini, Playgirl) though I could be projecting this is a logical possibility. Very likely to the point where unlike superhero readers, a good number of superhero cartoonists would’ve been unphased by male nudity.

But they’re also caught in a double bind between having to depict male nudity and not making it as degrading or objectifying as what women get to the point where it has to be a delicate balance. Even Boris Vallejo and his ilk likely know this well too. This might extend to other cartoonists working on muscular men to the point where they likely keep a lot of sketches of male nudes and use media with male nudes in it.

Whether if male characters do get objectified or not’s debatable but if those working on Marvel Swimsuit Specials, even in their edited forms, one would wonder if they went so far to find media that they likely have prepared sketches based on those references before doing the real thing.

Supernormal Stimulus

Or the tendency to exaggerate to make it easier to sexualise. I mean it does make sense that anything disproportionate seems easier to sexualise, especially if it’s an erogenous zone. It’s like having huge muscles but small genitalia. Even if steroids aren’t involved, if you have huge muscles your penis doesn’t seem that large anyways. It gets dwarfed.

(The sort of thing some have been pointing out and should a study state that most black men aren’t well-endowed, even most black athletes actually have small genitalia then that’s still proving my point in some way.)

But in a weird way it seems more proportionate. A good number of smut, whenever it does sexualise buff men at all, don’t just give them huge muscles but also blow the genitalia out of proportion. It’s also very in-line with the supernormal stimulus as it involves exaggerated erogenous zones. If that’s the case, it makes sense really.

It’s proportions, people

There was a study on Greek statues stating that their genitalia seems small because they shrink due to extensive athletic activity. Whether if it’s true or not, that’s up to anybody’s guess (though should a study state that most black men aren’t well-endowed and athletes less so, that might prove the point right in some way). If you have huge muscles, even if you don’t do steroids, your genitalia will still seem small.

That’s the nature of proportions. When you start bringing up statistics and the odd epiphany that most Sub-Saharan African men aren’t well-endowed (athletes moreso), then that’s still proving my point right that a naturally well-endowed huge muscled man’s going to be rare. (Logically and strangely enough, at any rate, a not-so fit skinny man would seem more well-endowed). Again that’s the nature of proportion.

Enlarge the muscles and genitalia seem to shrink, steroids or not. That’s the nature of proportions where if you enlarge something, it’s going to make another seem smaller. And something most don’t get at times.

The weird thing about proportions

When it comes to supernormal stimulus, if you make certain body shapes or organs (especially the erogenous ones) proportionate they start to look kind of…meh in some regards. It’s like having huge muscles but small genitalia. Even if steroids aren’t involved, they’ll still look small anyways. (If exercising does make genitalia shrink, then that’s still proving my point right regarding huge muscles.)

Or for another matter, apple and pear shapes. Though it’s possible to have an hourglass figure, at other times when it comes to having a big butt and hips your chest seems either proportionate or somewhat smaller. If you have a big chest, you seem to have a flatter butt and narrower hips. That’s the weird thing about making such anatomies proportionate.

It doesn’t seem sexy, it’s now how they are and why they’re like this.

It ought to be called dingo eyes

Though cats’ eyes can make themselves appear narrower, they’re anatomically big and round which would make cat’s eye makeup a misnomer of sorts. (That is winged eyelined makeup designed to make eyes look narrower.) Dogs, by contrast, can have narrow almond eyes especially if they’re of the dingo or pariah dog variety.

Much like wolves. In fact the average dog’s more likely to be a pariah or dingo type. Some dogs seem to have permanent ‘cat’s eye’ eyeliner around their eyes. All the more a reason to parsimoniously call it ‘wolf’s eye’ if dingo eyes and dog eyes aren’t catchy enough. Maybe calling it winged eye makeup does it better.

That is without bringing up too much attention to actual canine and feline eye anatomy so.

The funny thing

The funny thing about doing anatomy is that everything isn’t always what it seems to be. While building muscle can alter bone density and structure but there’s almost always going to be a body type that can naturally respond to muscle building real well.

You can tell it not only from bone thickness but also from skeletal type and natural mesomorphs, when fairly fit, have balanced physiques perhaps moreso with a protuding ribcage. A natural ectomorph that bulks up a lot give the illusion of being bigger than it really is.

It’s telling that the ribcage is not as protuding that it makes the rest look bigger. Kind of amusing how some people who are naturally muscular who still exercise but don’t do bodybuilding have very aesthetic physiques. Some ectomorphs who exercise a lot whilst bodybuilding can become freakishly and unexpectedly large.

It’s the illusion that makes it look bigger or smaller than it really does.