Looks more feminine this way

In the case with superhero comics, for some cartoonists, giving female characters big breasts is sometimes just their way of making sure the characters look female because if they gave them well-developed pecs and smaller breasts they’d look androgynous. Not that busty muscular women can’t exist, the best example I can think of is Rasa von Werder/Kellie Everts. But she’s pretty much the only one I can think of at that, let alone one who isn’t fat but breasts have fat so a smaller chest often has less fat in it.

As I said before, big breasts might simply be their way of making sure they look female. But in the case with many very muscular women, they still have breasts though it’s tricky to pull off because of the way they look. Giving them fatty breasts is easier to draw, than it is to draw a muscular female chest. A muscular female chest is still female, but the breasts are shaped differently due to a combination of both well-developed pecs and low body fat. One of my siblings said that Lisa Lyon had square breasts.

They don’t have the rounded shape typical breasts have, so I guess they’d be really to pull off because of the way they’re shaped. Let alone without experiencing backlash, so it’s going to be tough trying to draw a very believably muscular woman without sacrificing something. Especially if she’s not particularly busty.

Backlash

Should a superhero actor get caught dead doping, it would reveal a damning secret for superhero films since they’re so reliant on muscular actors that one wonders if there are any shortcuts to get such a body. He would speak out about how men are increasingly objectified and why he wants to see more body diversity, though not without an accompanying backlash to what he’s saying. Male fans would say he’s become an SJW cuck and both straight and bisexual female fans say that he’s harshing on their squee or slut-shaming them for liking hot, buff men. He will get a lot of flack for saying this, should he get caught dead doping beforehand.

This would pressure companies to add more bodily diversity, if it does happen at all or something like that. But I think the backlash would form the most infamous part of this phenomenon, not just because straight fanboys will complain about how he’s encouraging emasculation but also because straight and bisexual fangirls will complain about their sex objects being taken away in some form or another. If he’s black, he’ll face twice the backlash. Whoever he may be, whatever ethnicity he is he will face backlash for complaining about something both fanboys and fangirls like very much.

One would wonder what would happen if somebody were to put out a video game full of muscular men now that this actor got outed for doping, it would be a very controversial game but one that attracts his detractors. Fanboys would have their non SJW heroes and fangirls would have their hot guys, it would be the perfect game for those two groups. Though to be fair, considering video games have a long history of objectifying women a lot, coupled with that there’s not a lot of hot guys in Western games so this game (if it ever comes to fruition at all) would fill in the gap.

Even then, I think if this actor ever gets caught dead doping and starts ranting about muscular guys coupled with such a video game coming out, on one hand it’s at the wrong place at the wrong time but on the other hand it would benefit a lot from his detractors.

Superheroes, sports and bodybuilding

This isn’t always the case for all superhero media, as there are some cartoonists who base them after actual athletes, but it did show up at some point. Especially when it comes to superhero comics having adverts featuring the late bodybuilder Charles Atlas, so much so that the writer Grant Morrison based Flex Metallo after him. When it comes to portraying superheroes (and supervillains), actors would have to work out a lot to play the part. Some would go so far to bulk up, even if they don’t always like it. Well in the case of Christian Bale for the film American Psycho, prior to portraying Batman, he had to work out a lot to play Patrick Bates.

He didn’t like the experience but had to anyways, which sets the tone for subsequent portrayals such as Batman in due time. Then again, there are actors with prior athletic experience which makes it easier to portray superheroes at all as with one of the Superman actors in the 1990s. I suppose these actors are the really lucky ones, not only do they have the genes for muscle building but also have enough athletic skill and talent to easily pull off superhero activities like lifting and running real fast.

In all honesty, Usain Bolt could be a better Barry Allen than Grant Gustin is if because he’s the real world’s fastest man. But he would also get a lot of flack for being black, far more than what Gustin got which is saying. Even if he’s not as fast as the Flash is, being a sprinter and full of fast-twitch muscles he’ll be faster than most people are. Same thing would happen if Barry Allen were played by Su Bingtian, who’s also a real sprinter and thus faster than Gustin will ever be. I guess this will unsettle certain people a lot.

As for Batman, in some portrayals he’s portrayed as really burly even though early on and even in the earliest live action productions he wasn’t that bulky, and still isn’t when portrayed by Robert Pattinson in The Batman. Nonetheless, there’s a tendency for some cartoonists to portray him as really burly compared to other Bat characters, though to be fair Nightwing has also been portrayed as burly at some point. But I still have no idea why would Batman be portrayed as really burly.

Reasons I will not get about Batman’s portrayals in any way, I also think it gets funnier when you realise that Nightwing does acrobatics a lot and judging by this video clip he could (or ought to have) big biceps as well. But when making Batman burly becomes a commonplace practice, regardless of what else he does which wouldn’t give him much time for bodybuilding in any way. It’s not that he lacks genetics for developing such muscles, I pretty much have no idea why he’s portrayed as this burly in some portrayals.

Moving on from that, I think more superhero cartoonists need to take more cues from actual sports. Maybe they already do to some extent, but when some cartoonists habitually base characters after bodybuilders in physique it’s about time they actually vary the physiques. Well to an extent, when it comes to fitting the characters’ skills to actual bodies indulging in sports.

Good point

The Dark Side Of Hollywood Body Transformations
Mark Vazquez
6 months ago
The human body simply can’t do that with just “chicken and broccoli” and 2-a-days in a few months. Otherwise professional athletes (as opposed to professional actors) would make the same transformations routinely. But they don’t–or at least haven’t since steroid testing was implemented in major sports. Keep in mind, many of these actors are not even athletic to begin with; they were theater types who started working out later in life, who all of a sudden transform into a jacked beast with insane vascularity and single digit body fat in less than a year. And they somehow do it all into their 40s without getting injured?

Trevor Thiessen
4 days ago
Excellent point about these guys not being athletes, they’re thespians, they are not the most gifted genetically, compared to the athletic world. As a former college football player myself, i never took any PEDs but always had above average genes for building muscle and staying lean. Even then, theres absolutely no way you could do these kinds of transformations naturally. Getting that lean, yes. Adding muscle, much less 40 lbs of muscle at the same time? Absolutely no way.

There were some people on YouTube who pointed out that many, if not all, actors don’t have actual athletic ability and the right genes for quick muscle building. Some of these actors probably do steroids just so they can get buff though it could also be said of athletes as well. Nonetheless I also think that there are athletes and actors who don’t do steroids, though especially with the latter it takes a longer time to get this buff.

There are probably athletes who are hardgainers, but there are those who do get muscular fairly quickly and many athletes practise sports earlier so they get muscular earlier as well. Okay, not all athletes are really buff but they get muscular earlier from playing sports a lot at an early age. So they have conditioning since day one, any actor who’s been doing sports at an early age have a good chance of developing good muscle tone since muscle building declines with age.

People like Hugh Jackman not only were hardgainers but also never particularly athletic (and hardly ever that trained in any field that demands physical activity) so building on muscle would come harder for them than it would for anybody who constantly does physical activity, let alone since childhood. Somebody who had athletic training as a child (and teenager) would have an easier time gaining muscle relatively faster than somebody who didn’t.

If muscle building declines with age, those who’ve been doing a lot of physical activity (or a big degree of it) since childhood would have a better chance of developing serious muscle tone while those who don’t would have a hard time doing it. Though that doesn’t stop some athletes from doing steroids, there’s nonetheless pressure for both actors and athletes to get better in physical activity. So some take shortcuts, others do it the hard way.

I think it’s a combination of genetics and early in life training that makes the difference, somebody who’s both genetically and athletically gifted would gain muscle pretty easily. Somebody who’s a hardgainer and not athletic would have it harder. Of course, there are people who do things the quick and dirty way. They do themselves dirty by staking performance enhancing drugs, regardless of the nasty side-effects they have.

Batman then and now

When it comes to physiques, there’s a marked change in the way the characters are drawn. Some of it might involve bringing in greater realism and draftsmanship to illustrations, others involve a desire to make the character look more imposing. Other times it goes with the changes in expectations for men’s physiques. Batman’s no exception to this, when he first appeared in comics he did have his trademark costume but he was portrayed as leaner than he’d come to be depicted as in later stories. It could be that Bob Kane’s drawing skills weren’t that refined yet, but it does interest me that Batman wasn’t that swole before.

The lean Batman persisted for a few decades and the earliest actors to play Batman weren’t that super-muscular then either. Not that they weren’t fit, but they weren’t exactly that ripped either. Batman wouldn’t get really ripped and big until decades later, in fact some cartoonists have a habit of portraying Batman as bulkier than other superheroes are. Not that he ought to be thin, but if Batman does martial arts yet martial artists and boxers don’t have huge muscles then it seems they want him to look more powerful than he really does.

Christian Bale, one of the more recent actors to play Batman onscreen, had to bulk up to play the character as well as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho. But the surprising thing’s that Bale didn’t like working out (well at first), perhaps he would’ve been more comfortable smoking and eating but had to do it anyways to play the part. He’s not without a doubt a very dedicated actor, but the fact that Batman himself didn’t start out as that bulky suggests either changes in expectations for idealised men or a desire to make him look more powerful than he does.

Admittedly, there are some cartoonists who don’t go overboard with making Batman bulkier but it does suggest something in the way the ideal male physique has changed. Especially in comics where in tandem with improved drawing skills, the ideal male physique has changed. It’s gone from being simply fit to bulging muscles with pronounced abs, quads and traps. Not all modern cartoonists do this, but it does show you a desire to portray more visible muscularity.

It’s like the changes in bodybuilding where’s gone from being this muscular without steroids (and needing to make the pecs bigger) to bigger pecs and steroids for those who really want to take the extra mile. Not to mention when it comes to playing superheroes at all, it’s not enough to learn martial arts and sports to do the things superheroes do but also bulk up to look like them. Even then they didn’t always look like that before, it could be due to the cartoonist’s skill but it could also be that being merely fit was enough.

While Batman and Superman aren’t always portrayed as this bulky, in fact Christopher Reeves himself was merely fit rather than seriously ripped but was the most memorable Superman of his generation. It might be a sign of the times to be really ripped, but it does point out changes in idealised male bodies. That’s going from being merely fit to ridiculously ripped, it even affects cartoon characters like Batman for instance. This isn’t always the case for all cartoon characters, in fact the Jojo characters have gotten slimmer.

But I’m not going to doubt that there’s a change in the way superheroes are drawn, especially now that they’re drawn with more muscle definition than it has been in the past.

Temptations

My understanding is this: the religious person tries to abstain from vice as much as the bodybuilder tries to abstain from junk food and ill health. In the sense as trying not to give into something’s going to be hard anyways but it’s not unsuccessful. Though that also necessitates a greater need for austerity and self-restraint that I think even some Christian churhces and Christians don’t really understand.

Like if you admit that you’ve got problems that might interfere with a relationship and somebody didn’t really get what you’re going through, from my experience it’s ultimately going to be fruitless. Not everybody, even God’s going to tolerate your vices at times especially if you test their patience way too much (God especially if because he’s this impatient, tired and demanding).

You struggle not to draw nudes, you’d be better off learning to sew more often instead to stave off what you know to be shameful. But that necessitates further self-restraint, whether if one’s willing or not.

Fickle Beauty Standards

Not that there’s anything wrong with bothering to conform to a beauty standard or looking good but the biggest problem’s that it can be time-consuming and resource-consuming. Ironically it also results in a double bind as described by somebody else where women are expected to look in a certain way without trying too hard. For those who fall out of those standards, these are nearly-impossible anyways.

It’s also ridiculous why do women have to shave their armpits but very few men do and if they do, they tend to be athletes and bodybuilders (there’s a reason why women prefer athletic men, they’re not into men who don’t take care of themselves a lot). Even if it’s not a bad thing to shave armpits, it seems men are generally not pressured that much to look in a certain way. Those who do are exceptional.

Bodybuilders and the like aren’t any better but they’re one of those few demographics where men do get objectified (to some extent, depending on individual and division but it still counts). Something like shaving a lot to show muscle definition, getting symmetry and the like. It’s also not any less sexist or prejudiced in general.

(Objectifying men wouldn’t be any better either.)

It’s possible to shave body hair at will or sometimes due to practical necessitites though I think it’s more commonly practised among bodybuilders and a few select people of other sports. Ad infinitum with anything else. But it seems sometimes the need to conform to beauty standards can be pretty impractical in the long run.

Especially when you get to costs and the odd-fact that it can be time-consuming. It may be possible to find a way to shave your body hair (or make gym equipment on the cheap), at other times it’s just not worth it. (You could conceal body hair just by wearing more modest outfits or even bleaching it.)

There are women who do flaunt their arm hair without shame and there are men who’re attracted to hairy women (I’ve been to a website that does those things), which also isn’t any better either. But it does make you wonder why let’s say attraction to fat women is a fetish (though that too isn’t any better) but skinny women isn’t.

I’m not saying you should condone fat-chasers as you with fat-shaming. But it does explain why beauty standards are pretty ridiculous, whatever the preference just a few people fit the bill completely. There are a lot more black men with rather modest members than one realises. (There are black men who struggle with their body images too.)

Alternately speaking, you are not a ten to somebody even if you are considered beautiful elsewhere. Though Asian and African people do bleach their hair, it’s not really exactly an expected beauty standard not just because they do it at will but because blond hair isn’t really that prized in most of Asia and Africa to begin with. (Made worse by its inevitable otherness.)

It seems the high standards for beauty’s ridiculous anyways.

Kind of insecure

There was controversy over Batman’s portrayal in one comic book. It is wrong to sexualise certain characters meant for children but at the same time, most seem comfortable with nude or semi-nude women. Desensitisation people and why some people were right in criticising the latter. Admittedly, the likes of Boris Vallejo aren’t any better when depicting women.

But the fact that he does semi-nude (and sometimes nude) men gives me the impression of him being sometimes more comfortable with male bodies. (To be fair, he did bodybuilding before and possibly still does so he would’ve been fairly desensitised to nearly-naked and naked men by then.)

Maybe insecure’s not the right word but that they do seem startled by naked/semi-nude men as they’re not used to it.

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.

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.