Reddit feminist logic, topic: Sexualized male vs sexualized female characters.
Feminist (after seeing sexualized male characters): Not the same, those are so tasteful. I need to see ass cheeks. They draw the rock hard abs to show how strong the dude is. It’s nice, but it’s not the same.
Me: So what you seem to believe is the following:
A woman in less covering clothing can never convey strength, confidence, or other positive traits while men always can and do.
X body part isn’t showing, so it doesn’t count.
It’s not the same because vague, unmentioned reasons.
All three are wrong, and the first one is especially problematic if that’s what you believe about women.
I didn’t say that in my first, second, third, or fourth sentence. It’s an assumption you made that turned out to be false. In this situation yes; ass is not the same as abs. The muscularity of the men is there to show off their strength, training, potential fighting ability, etc. Not because the artist thought it was hot. I specifically mentioned the strength aspect of my view. That is neither vague nor unmentioned.
So in summary their big statement to refute my point was to confirm everything I said, stating that sexualized men are displays of strength always, every time, while women are displays of weakness. That they believe parts of men’s bodies “can’t be sexualized,” and their reason for why remaining vague and unmentioned. This somehow proves me wrong.