The Myth Of Muscles From Hugh Jackman...

But isn't the Hugh Jackman that represents the comic book character the one on the left.

So if I find one picture of a female dressed moderately on a magazine mostly designed towards men it would prove that females aren't sexualized? One is literally a muscle magazine, of course it shows his muscles. Cosmo is a magazine geared towards women purchasing it, yet shows sexy pictures of women on the front all the time. So is the sexualization of women just a female power fantasy?

I'm sure the poster is right about his comic book theory but the examples don't fit in my opinion. The Hugh Jackman on the left is there as Wolverine because it's a muscles magazine for body builders (bought by male and female body builders) and (unless Hugh goes around with prop claws now) they got a promo photo from the studio. The Hugh Jackman on the right is there as Hugh Jackman for the Good Housekeeping photo shoot. If the magazine on the right had got him on one of the few months over the last decade where he was working out like a crazy man to play Wolverine he'd have been in muscle mode and he'd have been on the cover of that publication as "beefcake" Hugh. So although again the poster is probably right with the theory I think if you need to demonstrate something about comic books you'd need to use comic books because this has holes in it.

Yeah except no one is making that argument. The argument is that the female characters give women an unrealistic expectation of what their bodies should look like (true enough) and the men in comics do the same thing for boys who become obsessed with building muscle mass.
I mean your premise is that "Women in comics are drawn to be attractive to men." What exactly is wrong with that absent the subsequent body issues?