thanks for the promote brotherman!
i didnt know that was an actual cookbook and vegan to boot! i just thought it was hilarious.
thanks for setting me on the straight and real.
keep it sexy brother!

Doing things first usually pans out better most of the time. Unless it's sexy time with your lady friend

I always find it odd that, if a woman is seen as 'sexy', suddenly that's a putdown and a limitation of all they can be instead of a bonus on top of the wonderful people they are (or aren't). I just don't get it.
Sexy women are sexy women, not JUST sexy, empty headed sex toys. What's the problem with that?
If J-Lo was JUST a sexy object, she would not also be a multi-multi-millionaire superstar.

True, I think the intention behind the two covers is very different, even if the results are similar. In the Spider-man cover, he looks like a spider who has already wrapped up his helpless terrified prey. And if you know about spiders you know what happens next, it's pretty nasty. The real spider in the lower right corner helps drive home the impression.

Where as with the Spider-woman cover I don't have any real doubt that Milo Manara was trying to make her sexy; that's kind of his thing. He's best known as an erotic artist and his artwork ranges from pinup girl to pretty hardcore porn (which I enjoyed as a young man). Check out his Wikipedia page and the first thing you'll see is that that pose is not one he's new at drawing.

I think where critics go wrong is the idea that sexiness implies sexism. If she were both drawn as sexy and being degraded or made fun of that would qualify as sexism. But there's got to be some room for sensuality without automatically feeling it's a personal insult to all women.

@SDGundamX and addressing the devil's advocate rather than 'you'...

Spiderman's head is also raised (the same angle of their face is shown) and his back is arched, and i think that's clear when they are side by side. If anything i think spiderman's left leg is poorly drawn and his backside does need to be more in the air, whereas spiderwoman is a more human-like natural position for raising a knee over a ledge with your chest close to the ground. Remember that they are different artists bringing their own styles to a particular genre, they both have their own personalities and methods/methodologies. Furthermore, how much of an arch difference is necessary or acceptable and who makes those rules? Surely we must draw men and women differently so that we know whether the character is male or female (do we have too few fem superheroes is another question), and as a species we have different shapes. Surely amongst all these factors we must accept that the spiderwoman is a reasonable artistic recreation of the spiderman pic? If not, why not, taking all of those factors into account (and i can probably list more)? Basically we're asking the question "what is art?" here.

So that's why i think it's impossible for anyone to say the pose is sexual but the creator. No one questioned whether the spiderman pose was overtly sexual until someone drew spiderwoman doing "the same" (for argument's sake) thing. To a bunch of people who do not automatically see women as sexual objects (and i consider myself among that bunch), her pose is not sexual because the context isn't sexual. The question of sexuality arises when someone looks at the pic and goes "Gee, if i were levitating several hundred meters in the air directly behind her and she wasn't wearing any pants, she'd be 'presenting' to me for a split second."

So the ultimate level of 'equality' (or whatever) would be a world in which anything, in its particular context, is legal and absolutely ok. But of course, we can't depict nude youngsters in cinema even in the context of a bath for good reason, which let's generalise to all potentially difficult subjects (like sexism, racism, etc.) and call the "no one's perfect rule" - we can't trust everyone to keep things in context.

Our supposedly greatest form of organisation and problem solving - national governments, the pillars of our society - can't sort their proverbial arses from their proverbial elbows; if they're not perfect, how can we trust all of society to be?

In conclusion - i suppose we need a certain level of sexism or reverse-sexism that hopefully keeps us balanced between short-changing the future prospects of young girls in favour of young boys because of a biased society, and treating other people unfairly because of an over-zealous pursuit of what seems to be impossible.

One way of helping this is by very carefully checking the facts, the context and the meaning of what someone says before saying things like "sexist" or "mansplaining" or "racist". Always react as slowly as you may, that way you can be more or less enraged in your response depending on new info!

Edit: Want to add that if i had a pic of myself in that spidey pose, i'd be pretty happy putting it up on an eharmony profile or something - it is a 'sexy' pose, it looks good, he looks lean and strong and fit. I don't like this idea that women don't have sexual urges or that lean, fit men aren't sexy to women. It's possibly sexist to assume that! He's kind of presenting too, from a certain position...

Stupid sexy Flanders! has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

Absolutely. What these people seem to be saying it it's OK for SpiderMAN to pose like that, so OK they didn't even notice it, but if SpiderWOMAN does it she's being a provocative whore that needs to be slut shamed.

totally reminded me of this....
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Stupid-sexy-Flanders

Much better than their usual 'sexy young woman wears inappropriate clothing and then we judge some random old guy for looking or not looking at her'. This wasn't creepy at all, just fun.

because they're inundated with dudes calling them sexy as if they are a sex object. being able to differentiate between you saying someone is sexy but also meaning they're a rad human and you saying someone is sexy but just meaning you wanna fuck them is pretty much impossible if they don't know you. generally speaking calling someone sexy should be reserved until after you've established that you're not a dickhead.

Nice. I never understood it when I said a woman was sexy they somehow heard 'you're a sex object, and nothing more'. Why can't they hear what I mean; 'on top of being the kind of human being you are, you are also sexy'?
That said, I've never 'catcalled' anyone. That always seemed like self defeating behavior to me, not a way to get a date.

You are correct, ma'am.

We had to make them that way because a lot of people view the VideoSift homepage while at work and they complained that a big, sexy video popped up unexpectedly for all their office to see.

Related Posts: Basrats and Bereta: Construction Cat Calls
I found that especially funny because of these "dress like a slut, get treated like one" type of responses here.
I know, the word "slut" isn't nice and I'm not good a political correctness (I actually loathe it) but maybe the problem is not with the word but with our associations with it.
You see, the problem I have starts with the idea that there's something wrong with sluts. As a man (and therefore certainly a pig, at least in my case) I enjoy sluts tremendously. They are women who share, at least in general terms, my sexual morals and enjoy their sexuality as much as I do (theirs and mine). I see nothing wrong with that. Sure, I dislike STDs as much as anybody but being slutty doesn't mean automatically being careless, just more at risk. Maybe I just don't understand men who like their female sex partners to be well behaved little princesses. They either prefer very conservative sex (you know, when blowjobs seem kinky) or they are strangely rapey. Maybe it's just our manly discomfort of loosing control over female sexuality.
Then there is this notion of dressing "like a slut". Sure, there is unappropriate clothing. I wouldn't go to a funeral in my Spongebob Squarepants pyjamas. But why is it in todays times, in the western world that is covered in billboards full of women in bikinis, so wrong to walk the street dressed in your best "sexy hooker" halloween costume? Are these women on the billboards, the ones who strike sexualized poses to sell me beer, dressed like sluts too? Is a bikini "slutty clothing"? I'm pretty sure my mom once wore one and yours probably too. As long as the important parts are covered, it should be fine.
The real issue, though, is the idea that anybody has a right to comment on that. Loudly.
If I have a right to comment sluttly clothing, can I also comment on other clothing that isn't the percieved norm? Do I get to shout ghost and terrorism related jokes at women in burkas? Can I yell at cops to come and strip-search me because I have a thing for uniforms? Should I yell at anyone with unfortunate clothing choices? "Hey lady, don't shake that ass, it's too fat for these pants! I don't want the Blob to escape!"
No, it's only sexually provocative clothing that gets these reactions. And that's why I like the video above so much, because it shows what kind of comments you get. It's never "young lady, I disagree with your clothing choice and insist you put on something decent!" nor "What a beautiful skirt, is it silk?"
It is always amused, approving and at the same time disrespectful and sexually dominant. Often gleefull and too often actually misogynistic.
These are never positive comments and even if the words seem positive, they're harassment. It's nothing but sexual harassment. Otherwise these men would be yelling "Young lady, I disagree with your clothing choice and insist you put on something decent!"
Dress like a slut, get treated like one, that's just a lame excuse for men trying to control female sexuality.
Personally, I think if you dress like a slut, I should treat you with respect and kindness. Because I want sluts to like me. I'm a pig.

#1 - she shouldn't have to put up with it
#2 - something about your argument is itching my brain, and replying is the best way for me to explore it

I think there is a meaningful difference between her and the examples you expanded on. Some fella with low hanging pants isn't trying to look low class. Somebody with tats isn't trying to look like a future fashion victim. A girl that dresses up sexy is usually trying to look sexy. There are a few that pretty much can't help it.

Imagine someone with has a bunch of tats of a band that you like. You can approach him about that, directly, out of the blue, and probably not get a negative response. You could even just holler from across the road, and it's just dandy.

Something makes it unacceptable to acknowledge that the girl did a great job of looking sexy.

The guy in a suit (1:07) was staring AT HER FACE. Why'd he get the slo-mo treatment and tagged as a creep?

His internal monologue could have been, "Ok so, power lunch with the boss at 1230, head over to the squash court for a couple rounds, swim a couple laps... HOLY SHIT! Is that Megan from Legal? Her hair looks amaz... oh wait, that's not Megan. Shit. Totally stared. Glad some undercover videographer didn't catch that and make me look like a total perv."

What I don't feel is fair is if the guy is hot, staring is sexy, if he isn't, it's harassment. It's only bad if it's not wanted. How the fuck is a guy supposed to know?

Most of the video's examples are SOLIDLY in the harassment borders. I just don't like how looking is bad unless the woman is attracted to the guy. That's just not fair.