Actually no. This is the image (and the hypothetical version where the men pose as she does):
You're quite right. My apologies, I was working from memory and Black Widows pose in that one seemed to line up exactly with the pose I remembered causing all the controversy. They are actually very similar now that I see them side by side.
Black Widow is posed to appeal to men. Thor and the others are also posed to appeal to men. Her primary function is to look hot. Their primary function is to look badass; if they happen to look hot to certain people outside the targeted audience, that doesn't change the fact that it's not the primary purpose. Some people think feet are sexy. A character who is barefoot isn't necessarily being "sexualized" just because it strikes some people as sexy. Context has a lot to do with it.
You don't think the Black Widow pose was chosen to be badass? I mean, it's not like they have her laying seductively across a car hood wearing lingerie which would make your point to a tee. They have her in a battle pose designed to show off her unique weapon set (and I bet it was hard to find a dynamic looking pose when the weapon they chose to promote is essentially bracelets - sorry "wrist gauntlets"). Plus, as demonstrated by the parody poster, if she was facing the other way everyone could be complaining about how her pose was chosen to highlight her breasts.
And again, Black Widow's pose on the poster is one of a long string of female characters being forced to pose in absurd ways, and isn't the worst of them by far. It's easy to conclude this is blown out of proportion if you're only looking at the one, or I guess two, images in a vacuum. But what we're talking about is a clear pattern with a long and pervasive history.
Maybe this is why I'm having trouble following the train of thought where this image is concerned. It certainly seems like there is a problem within some movies and comics and people are using this image as the scapegoat to represent that problem. The thing is I don't think this is actually a particularly bad example of this. It seems like comics themselves are committing far worse crimes than this on a weekly basis. Almost any image of Powergirl would be a more compelling argument.
Sexy vs. sexualized is the difference between Taylor Lautner fixing a motorcycle in the TWILIGHT movies -- he wears a sleeveless shirt to show off his guns but otherwise fixes a motorcycle in a perfectly sensible way -- and Megan Fox fixing a motorcycle in TRANSFORMERS -- she wears a halter top and shortie shorts AND leans, rubs, and stretches against the thing so that the only thing you're thinking of is sex.
That's a valid point and a great example, but on the same token how is the fact that Lautner is shirtless in virtually every piece of promotional material for those films any different. In that case they're trying to appeal to a female audience with the idea of sex and do so by simply presenting him muscle clad, rugged and shirtless. The only purpose of that is for him to be sexy, and the fact that he's not actively gyrating does not make it less so. There's a reason those shirtless posters are in the bedrooms of thousands of girls across the world and it sure isn't because he's an amazing acting talent.
I feel like people are conditioned by society to find some thing sexy and some things not. The idealised male form is the sexualised male form. A male trying to do anything we associate with a sexy pose or movement would likely cause more comedy than it would actual titillation. The fact of that matter is that if your going to try to sexualise the male form in order to appeal to a certain audience then it seems like you're going to end up going to that same idealised version of the male and just showcase it.
And as a disclaimer all of this is of course just my opinion. I'm not trying to force it down anyone's throats, just put it out there for the purpose of discussion. Heck, I'd love for someone to change my mind.
