>>77100073>>77100056It very much is. Men being muscular and manly and shit and women being lithe and sexy and shit can very much be equated, though it's dependent on the situation. In cape comics men do have quite a few scenes that are meant to be titillating to women and others that are intended to titillate homosexuals of both flavors. Even going back several years you find shit like this. Everybody loves Dick/Peter has been a running gag for literal years, and you can't say with a straight face that especially in those cases the artists aren't keeping women in mind. Well, women and gay men, though there's a bit of dissonance in what the groups typically like.
Regardless, if it's just her opinion, why is she acting like it's a bloody rebuttal. I don't school people on my intense love of steak when they say that chicken can make for an adequate dinner and I don't expect someone to attempt to rebut the statement that men are also objectified in cape comics by stating their opinion on what they wank it to.
Either she's attempting to make a broad statement to refute his complaint (in which case she's wrong) or she's just going on a self centered wank-fest, in which case she's a douche...and also wrong.
>>77100163That last bit, about the more female lewdness? That's really, really incorrect, at least if we're talking from an American point of view. I don't know shit about stats the world over, but here in Burger-stan we tend to sexualize men pretty heavily as well. Just in a different fashion because, again, sexual dimorphism.
>>77100176It's a colloquialism. When you refer to a thing and tack on "such as myself" you link yourself to the group and put forth yourself as a representative of said group and it's habits in regard to the current conversation. It's kind of a very common thing, just not necessarily phrased like that. It doesn't matter if you say woman, man, female, or male. That's not the important part of the phrase. Your interpretation is faulty.
