Do sexy costumes undermine a female character's credibility?

[pitbull in a skirt]

In regards to superheroes (or the "sci fi" genre in general) does the excessive cleavage, short skirts, tight clothing, etc. puts down the legitimacy of a female character, or is that a complaint that some feminists make too much of a big deal of? After all, there's plenty of beefcake male characters in the genre who are shirtless many a times too. Would you answer no, ONLY if the clothing is moderately sexy? Clothing that is too revealing can turn the character too much into a sex symbol to where you rarely do see real character? What do you think? What are some costumes have female characters can you think of that you believe were appropriate, sexy but not trashy, and/or too sexy (I know, how is that possible?)

Some examples from a girl's point of view.

Red Sonja (Comics) - The barely there bikini is way too sexy, and its obvious the chain mail is a fetish. Which by the way, is supposed to be protecting exactly what, anyway?

http://thequarterbin.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/redsonja3.jpg

Red Sonja (Movie) - Far more respectable, and still leggy enough for the fanboys to be satisfied.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2366/2667072428_52284b6efb.jpg

Elektra (Comics) - She might as well be wearing lingerie. I shouldn't be able to see her buttcheeks.

http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc75/jasonmuzie/Elektra-2.jpg

Elektra (Daredevil movie/Self titled movie) - As far as the black costume, obvious cleavage is obvious, but its sexy and manageable to really fight, or simply just walk in. The one below from her own movie looks more like the comics, its attractive and practical, and its not overtly sexy. No massive cleavage like the other one.

http://splicedwire.com/05reviews/elektra.jpg

[pitbull in a skirt]

Catwoman

(Comics) - There's been several of them ranging from black, gray to purple, and they have all been extremely form fitting, but she has always remained completely covered.

(Batman Returns movie) - Being skin tight and of 'shiny' material, its obviously meant to be a fetish, sexy and seductive (which is a big part of her characterization) the main attractive of Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman was her amazing performance.

http://www.geocities.com/%7Etalotta/Batman/returns3.jpg

(Self titled movie) - The leather costume not only bares most of her midriff, but a whole lot of cleavage. Even the pants has huge rips all over them (clever though, you must admit) showing a lot of her thighs and legs. The terrible characterization (do cat powers really make you bipolar? why does she keep apologizing for everything?) and lack of personality explains why the costume was made to be so revealing.

http://www.moviecitynews.com/Notepad/images/2003/halle.JPG

http://www.bigmoviezone.com/filmsearch/movies/movie_images/catwoman_halle.jpg

[StoneGold]

Except your first example is pretty terrible, as both the comics versions tend to be better than the movie.

[pitbull in a skirt]

^Well, they're just examples and an excuse to post pictures. :) Not my main point of this thread.

Wonder Woman (Comics) - She's wearing a bathing suit with boots (and in the earlier version she's wearing a flowing knee length skirt, or shorts shorts) and while I don't think its practical, its not particularly sexy either.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FR87g-YIx2s/SbCM32hmmEI/AAAAAAAAIxU/Zsi1_BtQ9fY/s400/sensation+comics+wonder+woman+cover+94.JPG

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/40/78877-123027-wonder-woman_super.jpg

(TV Show) - Now I know many people find Wonder Woman and/or Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman hot. But the granny panties and the awkward way it fits her, it just looks so odd to me I don't its sexy, let alone too sexy. :redface:

http://www.myavidgolfer.com/resources/Lynda-Carter_Wonder-Woman_664.jpg

[bubbasu]

Yes, I feel sexy costumes undermine a female characters credibility. A long time ago (the 90's) I had a boyfriend that was a complete and total fanboy. We went comic-shopping every payday. He never cared much for Susan Storm. But, oh boy, when they changed her look, her costume and every thing, he could not stop talking about her. It was a bit sickening. She was, after all, a comic book character. When he asked me to style my hair after hers, I split. It was too much. But my point is, her sexy new look made him forget about her 'powers'. Goodnight.

[pitbull in a skirt]

Hercules the Legendary Journeys/Xena: Warrior Princess

Over all, I have to say while the female characters in Xena do have fairly sexy costumes, and they make no means about exploiting that at times, I don't think it was that distracting.

The Xena from Hercules slightly differs from the Xena in her own show. Her character herself is strangely different when first introduced; while she is still blood thirsty and rough around the edges, she's also more feminine and seduces Hercules' friend, Iolaus. That was a little odd combination that I personally don't think mix well. After that initially episode, she is portrayed more ruthless, and there was less focus on her sexuality.

Her costume design is basically the same in both shows, but it originally was more Greek (i.e. her boots are laced up). Still, she's no more covered up than the Greek/Roman soldiers seen in the show. They wore skirts too, you know. But she has absolutely no protective armor that a warrior of her kind would/should be wearing.

Now she has a breastplate, which was a good idea, but during its first season, having all that cleavage spill out of her leather bodice of it kind of ruins the whole point. The skirt was also a lot shorter in the first season. It has been toned down since than.

http://i26.tinypic.com/i78yt3.jpg

Callisto. ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS! It contains every sex fetish cliche; leather, chain mail, midriff, push up bra, hooker boots, etc. However, because she is the arch enemy her personality has to be established to be effective, and she was a worthy opponent for Xena. I personally don't find her to be intended to be sexy (I know others do though, apparently) but for a warrior, for that much skin to be exposed is hard to take seriously. It doesn't help that she is also very skinny.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8896/cally3pc2vm5.jpg

The Amazons - The amazons in this show are known for their rather skimpy clothing (not all, but many of them) but I suppose we're supposed to be under the presumption that they don't have the means for armor.

Gabrielle - I lose count on how many costumes she wore, but they do get smaller. I don't find her particularly sexy, so its hard to say, but because of the actress' legit muscular frame, on any other character, I would say its an excuse to show some skin. Her hair is also cut short, I guess to appear more butch or 'tough'.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/floetic_justice/xenasigns/gabquestsarcoph2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v53/floetic_justice/xenasigns/reneeoconnor0129iy.jpg

[bigbluntz]

Personally I think it depends on the writers.

[mgs]

For me, it depends. I mean, a good example of a female, 'put on display' yet did not discredit her at all was slave Lea. I mean, she was the victim of circumstance and all. It was handled tastefully, imo.

But of course, the writing comes into play, etc. From my little knowledge of Power Girl, I've seen her handled horribly, yet, I can pretty much enjoy when Amanda Conner draws her, and she's just the artist, so there's another pov on this thing.

I think there are so many times when it was handled horribly and times it was handled nicely, but so many can be blamed or praised that I think this is a case-by-case thing.

[Jettison]

No....though this is a great excuse to post images of sexy costumes.

http://www.impawards.com/2005/posters/sin_city_ver3.jpg

[The Black Guardian]

Honestly, I find the idea that it undermines credibility to be sexist.

[Mike Pothier]

Although I'll admit females got it worse, its not like the average superhero with bulging muscles is setting a much better standard for the males.

[stealthwise]

Although I'll admit females got it worse, its not like the average superhero with bulging muscles is setting a much better standard for the males.

Except that a muscular build lends itself well to the idea that that male can punch the other male into oblivion, hence the "credibility" part of the original post.

A woman who has EE breasts that are flopping out the sides (thinking more early 90s badgirl stuff, less so the pictures posted here), doesn't lend itself to that so much. As someone pointed out above, it's hard to be seen as a credible threat when you're essentially wearing a bathing suit.

Part of it is a gender concern, but mostly it's a practicality thing.

[Arvandor]

No, it doesn't.

If it's written well, and acted well, you'll ignore the impracticality of the costume, or it will even benefit the story.

If it's written and acted badly, then the costume will help bring it down. But it will only be an excuse, not the cause.


Either way, a sexy costume is neither a benefit nor a hindrance in itself.

[titanfan]

You pointed out Red Sonja, but (as mentioned) Conan himself wears nothing but a loincloth most of the time. (And is often in beefcake poses during his comic) All warriors dress like that it seems....

The answer is generally no. What's wrong with looking sexy and doing your job?

[Goshin]

look at storm and wonderwoman for the last few decades they was the first ones to bear that much skin

[RolandJP]

Do sexy costumes undermine a female character's credibility?

Only if they work for Fox News.

http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n271/Freedonian/Hooters20girls20on20Fox20round20-1.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_auA_TzZloGs/Sc1eHGLoClI/AAAAAAAABcs/bdWJRwwFh8o/s400/megyn-kelly-sexy-legs-6.jpg


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff98/Sandman090/Julie%20Banberas/PDVD_297.jpg


http://blogs.abc.net.au/articulate/images/2009/01/09/20090110stone_2.jpg

[Blaise]

I don't think outfits need to be completely sexless, but they should be plausible for the character's lifestyle. I have trouble accepting a non-invulnerable, athletic heroine who wears high heels, a swimming costume, and has cleavage spilling out everywhere with no support, for example. That undermines her credibility because she is going to be handicapped for the sake of looking sexy. On the other hand, there are female characters who wear sexy, tight-fitting costumes that allow them to do their job without being unneccessarily gratuitous or interfering with their performance.

[Jared]

You pointed out Red Sonja, but (as mentioned) Conan himself wears nothing but a loincloth most of the time. (And is often in beefcake poses during his comic) All warriors dress like that it seems....


But in the first movie, Conan wore armor or furs as befitting the situation. Of the REH stories that I've read, he simiarly dresses for the enviornment.

Hercules and Xena were deliberatly campy. If you can't take the costumes seriously, that's OK. Xena's signature weapon is even more ridiculous than her outfit. BTW, Hudson Leick was the hottest woman on television for a few years there. Whatever happened to her?


No discussion of hot newswomen is complete without photos of CNN's Robin Meade.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_57MxrRTWSZs/SOI8G5ahvlI/AAAAAAAAAR0/ZY5JZp3sweY/s400/robin_meade_0180_nl.jpg

http://images1.fanpop.com/images/photos/1500000/Robin-Meade-Expressed-Podcast-Stills-robin-meade-1530722-453-600.jpg

[FeminineMystique]

In regards to superheroes (or the "sci fi" genre in general) does the excessive cleavage, short skirts, tight clothing, etc. puts down the legitimacy of a female character, or is that a complaint that some feminists make too much of a big deal of? After all, there's plenty of beefcake male characters in the genre who are shirtless many a times too. Would you answer no, ONLY if the clothing is moderately sexy? Clothing that is too revealing can turn the character too much into a sex symbol to where you rarely do see real character? What do you think? What are some costumes have female characters can you think of that you believe were appropriate, sexy but not trashy, and/or too sexy (I know, how is that possible?)

Some examples from a girl's point of view



From this girls point of view a revealing costume definitely isn't a negative for a female character:biggrin: But "Trashy" is such a meaningless phrase darling and there's no such thing as being "Too" sexy:wink:

Seriously, I think if someone has a trouble taking a character seriously based on how sexy they are or aren't shown to be, their the ones who have the problem, not the character

[kalorama]

Does it undermine credibility? Well, that depends on whose credibility you're talking about. Personally, I find the bigger violation to be that of the internal logic and consistency that a fictional story backdrop needs to foster credible suspension of disbelief.

In other words, it's drilled into our heads that street-level, hand-to-hand, no-power crime fighters like Batman, Robin, Nightwing, Vigilante, Punisher, Arsenal, and Green Arrow are wearing bullet-resistant, fire-retardant, flexible body armor that covers most of their vital organs when going up against gun-toting mobsters and sword-toting ninjas. But, at the same time, parallel female characters like Black Canary and Huntress go up against the same mobsters and ninjas wearing the functional equivalent of bathing suits and belly shirts. That makes it kind of hard to buy into the idea that there's any kind of logical structure or rules governing what happens, which makes it harder to buy into the unbelievable stuff that goes on. And, o course, It also plays into and reinforces the stereotype that women will gladly sacrifice practicality and function in order to look good, even if it endangers their lives.

[joemagnum611]

No sexy costumes don't undermine a female villain or hero. If the kick ass then they kick ass and that's that. Nothing wrong with a little T & A to go along with your ass kicking.

[Assassin Spider]

At least in Black Canary's case these days, her costume is more like an armless and legless bodysuit instead of a swimsuit and she does wear a pair of gloves with it to better facilitate riding motorcycles and punching people in the face. The practicality issue is still there, but I personally justify the purpose of the costume as "distraction," i.e. the crooks aren't going to be able to aim properly if they're too busy checking out your legs to focus. While that's still "fanservice bait," it has a purpose in that it's using men's "natural" tendency to be distracted by a sufficiently attractive woman against them should they take up a life of crime and happen to run into a sufficiently attractive woman who can kick their asses.

Huntress has no actual justification, but aside from the Jim Lee costume, she was fond of full-body costumes and has reverted to that mode of dress since 2006. To be fair, though, unless you're a telekinetic who can deflect bullets with your mind, or your reflexes are so fast you can dance between bullets, or you can really bounce bullets off your skin, or you're functionally immortal and thus it doesn't matter if you get hurt, it's not a good idea to go into crime-fighting without physical protection.

[Mia]

I said depends. If the situation calls for it and skin needs to be shown (ie. woman going for a swim so she is in a bathing suit). Otherwise it just looks out of place and unecessary.

My philosophy is I always go with 'less is more'. I far more enjoyed Daniel Craig decked out in Brioni suits, in Casino Royale, than scenes of him shirtless.

[stealthwise]

No sexy costumes don't undermine a female villain or hero. If the kick ass then they kick ass and that's that. Nothing wrong with a little T & A to go along with your ass kicking.

That's a commonly accepted viewpoint, which is valid in its own escapist-entertainment viewpoint way, but it doesn't work for a lot of people, many of which are women that have trouble getting past some of the BS they see on screen.

Movies are often mysogynist enough on their own, adding a skimpy costume doesn't help. In some extreme cases, it'd be like Spider-Man having no shirt and wearing a speedo while fighting crime. It might look hot (from a female/homosexual viewpoint), but it'd be hard to take seriously. Thankfully many of the female costumes are a bit more realistic than that.

[kalorama]

The practicality issue is still there, but I personally justify the purpose of the costume as "distraction," i.e. the crooks aren't going to be able to aim properly if they're too busy checking out your legs to focus.

No matter how many times I hear that theory, it never fails to sound incredibly lame. The very fact that they're shooting in the first place indicates they value their own survival and freedom over copping a peek, at which point copping a peak ceases to be an issue.

[pitbull in a skirt]

From this girls point of view a revealing costume definitely isn't a negative for a female character:biggrin: But "Trashy" is such a meaningless phrase darling and there's no such thing as being "Too" sexy

Oh, it is? :wink:


Hercules and Xena were deliberatly campy. If you can't take the costumes seriously, that's OK. Xena's signature weapon is even more ridiculous than her outfit. BTW, Hudson Leick was the hottest woman on television for a few years there. Whatever happened to her?


They had their campy moments, but I don't consider the show to be as campy as people make it out to be. But anyway, I never said her costume was ridiculous to begin with. The chakram was bad ass, I don't know what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakram

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/6665/89450celebritycityxenaw.jpg

Don't find Hudson Leick to be hot at all. She hasn't done anything recently besides a guest star on CSI a few years back, and some lame National Lampoon movie.

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/4127/008otmhudsonleick004369.jpg

[pitbull in a skirt]

That's a commonly accepted viewpoint, which is valid in its own escapist-entertainment viewpoint way, but it doesn't work for a lot of people, many of which are women that have trouble getting past some of the BS they see on screen.

Movies are often mysogynist enough on their own, adding a skimpy costume doesn't help. In some extreme cases, it'd be like Spider-Man having no shirt and wearing a speedo while fighting crime. It might look hot (from a female/homosexual viewpoint), but it'd be hard to take seriously. Thankfully many of the female costumes are a bit more realistic than that.

Well, I thought the scene of Christian Bale fighting shirtless in Batman Begins could have been a little longer :redface:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/7885/begins1054652672.jpg

[kalorama]

Don't find Hudson Leick to be hot at all. She hasn't done anything recently besides a guest star on CSI a few years back, and some lame National Lampoon movie.

THe last thing I saw Hudson Leick on was the pilot episode of Tru Calling, a few years back.

[Chiasm]

Absolutely it undermines the credibility of the female characters as it turns them into masturbatory fantasy material for the stereotypical sci fi / comic book fan. The best female characters in sci fi / comics are the ones who are sexy without some male creator forcing them to dress like a stripper. Characters like Buffy from BTVS: most of the time when she was slaying it was in normal clothes and the only time she dressed sexy was for a reason not to go to battle. And in no way did it make Buffy any less sexy (unless you don't happen to like Sarah Michelle Gellar to begin with) - she didn't need the stripper outfit to look good while slaying. Other good examples of female characters who didn't have to look slutty: Zoe from Firefly (no surprise she too was by Joss Whedon since he's a creator who understands how to make strong women without slutifying them), Jenny Sparks from the Authority, and Kitty Pryde (her costumes are always practical).

[ddqfpluskick]

I would say there is a fine line between sexy and slutty and I think when that line is crossed or even hinted on it kills the character.

[MythicBrawn]

The impracticality of the female character's costumes is what makes them lose credibility. Red Sonja and the metal bikini is clearly sex over function. WW's current costume is also impractical for fighting. A lot of women's costumes aren't necessarily sexy, but that's how they're drawn. I thought it was interesting reading Moonstone complain about her Ms. Marvel costume and Danvers was supposed to be a feminist. I think costumes can still be sexy and functional. Women at workout facilities are a good example of that. Their outfits can make them look good, with everything still staying in place, despite all the activity.

[FeminineMystique]

Oh, it is? :wink:


To me it is, yes. It's just a derogatory word used by people who have some kind of problem with the way people dress.

I've worn outfits that make Red Sonja look modest:wink: I don't consider them "Trashy" and neither do the people I know.

I would say there is a fine line between sexy and slutty and I think when that line is crossed or even hinted on it kills the character.

I don't think that line exists:biggrin:

[Black Atom]

Comicbook costumes are inherently absurd. A normal person with the ability to rationalize real life from fantasy views them in a different context and with different expectations than they do real-world fashion. And Wonder Woman's costume, for instance, isn't even really super-sexualized. She wears more or less what gymnast does. No one watches olympic swimming and gets a boner. Or maybe they do, but that person should get out more.

[kalorama]

Wonder Woman's costume may not be sexualized when compared to gymnasts, but last I looked most superhero comics aren't populated with crime-fighting gymnasts. When compared with the costumes of her male peers (Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Aquaman, et al), her costume is clearly (and, if you know anything about her creator, intentionally) sexualized.

[MythicBrawn]

It always strikes me as funny to see WW standing with her male counterparts. They are all covered from head to toe and she is essentially wearing a bathing suit. And, I don't think I've ever seen a gymnast in the top that she wears. It just wouldn't work for any activity that requires a lot of movement (like fighting).

[Libaax]

I think it does because i know i cant take Red Sonya,Witchblade comic versions seriously because its not sexy, its slutty. Its too much.


Wonder Woman suit is classy in comparion.

Elektra costume looked good in Frank Miller early 80s days but the newer version that show too much of her ass is silly,lame.

The movie version is much better even if the movie sucked...

[FeminineMystique]

Wonder Woman's costume may not be sexualized when compared to gymnasts, but last I looked most superhero comics aren't populated with crime-fighting gymnasts. When compared with the costumes of her male peers (Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Aquaman, et al), her costume is clearly (and, if you know anything about her creator, intentionally) sexualized.

And male characters AREN'T sexualised? Batman is muscular, sexy and dressed in that skintight spandex...(Drifts off into pleseant mental images for a while) Superman has the body of a god. Catman spends half his time completely naked. Male AND female characters are sexualised for the purposes of fanservice (Which means double the pleasure for this fangirl:biggrin: )

[FZ1]

Real world analogy: Women's Olympic-caliber beach volleyball. Elite athletes, next to naked, totally hot and bringing home the gold. Betty Grable painted on the fuselage of B-25s probably won WWII.

Take Kerri Walsh. Champion. Patriot. Proud Bearer of Olympic Gold Butt Cleavage:

http://sports.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/kerri_walsh8.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3075/2757909732_68f17e0db5.jpg

http://www.lolbadonks.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/kerri-walsh-with-bush.jpg

Don't even get me started on the pole vaulters.

[Libaax]

Bad example i have never seen Olympic champions with tong that get stuck in their ass...

Or ones that have barely a bikini where the breast is hanging outside...

Its those comics version that hurt credibility.

[RolandJP]

To me it is, yes. It's just a derogatory word used by people who have some kind of problem with the way people dress.

I've worn outfits that make Red Sonja look modest:wink: I don't consider them "Trashy" and neither do the people I know.



I don't think that line exists:biggrin:

I would just like to say I support your stance. :biggrin:

[Corrina]

. No one watches olympic swimming and gets a boner. Or maybe they do, but that person should get out more.

Um, you know some of those male swimsuits really go down quite far.

The guys are nicely in shape.

Boners don't apply for me but, damn, those swimmers are nice to look at.

ETA: Can't take Red Sonja seriously. One, she's swordfighting and failing to protect her most vital organs. That just make her really, really dumb.There's a reason chest armor has been in use since ancient times. Two, chain mail bikini bottom? Chain links? Considering her time period, I imagine she's not waxing and, well, hair getting stuck in that thing is gonna HURT.

[Jared]

Swimmers and beach volleyball players are hardly the best examples. In their fields, their minimalist attire actually makes perfect sense.

[howyadoin]

Considering her time period, I imagine she's not waxing...Jeez, Corrina. Way to ruin the fantasy.

[FZ1]

Swimmers and beach volleyball players are hardly the best examples. In their fields, their minimalist attire actually makes perfect sense.

Nonsense. Check out track and field, ice skating, Danica Patrick, whatever. Just Google gold medalist high jumper Amy Acuff. Make sure you do an image search after checking off "no filters" on the preference page.

Gold medalist Amanda Beard went full Brazilian in Playboy.

In the comics, we're talking about what they used to call "good girl" art, which are just illustrations--lines on paper. One swoop of the pencil and you have butt cleavage in the comics, ala Humberto Ramos doing Tigra in Avengers:Initiative.

The funny books are pretty lame compared to real life. Take a stroll down South Beach in Miami, or bicycle through the Tiergarten in Berlin. There ain't an illustrator out there who doesn't think pin-up legend Gil Evren was a god.

[Zeke T Grimm]

Reading this thread, I have a confession to make: I'm the guy who designed the outfit that Saturn Girl of the Legion of Super-Heroes wore in the Seventies. I wasn't conscious of it at the time, but, I now realise it was a variation of an outfit that Diana Rigg wore as Emma Peel in the British TV series "The Avengers."

I've had two kinds of Legion fans come after me since that outfit appeared:

1) The fanboys who don't quite worship me, but tell me I did things for them in their puberty.

2) The fans who demand to know what I was thinking, didn't I know that Imra Ardeen wasn't THAT kind of girl, and can I imagine what kind of thoughts she'd be picking up while wearing THAT outfit, and the Legion should never been changed from what it was when I began reading it, and ...

You get the idea.

[Acecool]

It depends. There are two sides to this story.


The first argument is that what a woman wears should not take away from her character. When a character is wearing pretty much nothing for the sake of having people salivate over the character and the character isn't more than a picture on a page, then that is sexist. It objectifies the female form.

The other argument is that a woman should not be forced to hide from her own sexuality. Some of these sexy costumes could be just another aspect of the character, they they have the confidence to wear what they are wearing without fear. For example, with red sonya, if a warrior goes into a primal battle with very little armor and a sword, that shows extreme confidence in her ability and adds depth to the character. It also shows that she knows she looks good and isn't afraid to show it.

The synthesis of these two arguments is that it depends on the writing. Sexy for the sake of sexy isn't a bad thing. Being comfortable with sexuality isn't a bad thing. Sexuality is actually a personification of power and confidence. Objectification is more likely a bad thing.

I also object to the notion that fetishes are automatically a bad thing. That is a different topic altogether.

[FZ1]

Reading this thread, I have a confession to make: I'm the guy who designed the outfit that Saturn Girl of the Legion of Super-Heroes wore in the Seventies. I wasn't conscious of it at the time, but, I now realise it was a variation of an outfit that Diana Rigg wore as Emma Peel in the British TV series "The Avengers."

I've had two kinds of Legion fans come after me since that outfit appeared:

1) The fanboys who don't quite worship me, but tell me I did things for them in their puberty.

2) The fans who demand to know what I was thinking, didn't I know that Imra Ardeen wasn't THAT kind of girl, and can I imagine what kind of thoughts she'd be picking up while wearing THAT outfit, and the Legion should never been changed from what it was when I began reading it, and ...

You get the idea.

You based Saturn Girl on Diana Rigg? I loved Saturn Girl. And Emma Peel had a nuclear impact on my adolescence. That is so cool. I never put the two together (though that would have been a blast). Any Emma-influenced art of Saturn Girl you have laying around? Cheers.

[Donald M.]

It's possible for a costume to be both sexy and practical. When this is the case, I don't think it takes anything at all away from a female character's credibility. There's a big difference between female character expressing their femininity and fetishizing them, which is what ridiculous outfits like the ubiquitous chainmail bikini do.

[Acecool]

It's possible for a costume to be both sexy and practical. When this is the case, I don't think it takes anything at all away from a female character's credibility. There's a big difference between female character expressing their femininity and fetishizing them, which is what ridiculous outfits like the ubiquitous chainmail bikini do.

The underlying assumption of your argument is that fetishes are inherently bad. This is tantamount to saying "it is ok to be sexy, but only in the confines of what I believe to be ok".

[Corrina]

Nonsense. Check out track and field, ice skating, Danica Patrick, whatever. Just Google gold medalist high jumper Amy Acuff. Make sure you do an image search after checking off "no filters" on the preference page.

Gold medalist Amanda Beard went full Brazilian in Playboy.


However, I'll point out that these people aren't engaged in full on contact sports like fighting.

Fencers and those shooting rifles aren't doing so in bikinis, nor are the martial artists.

Now, the boxers are but the idea with that seems to be to expose the body to blows, rather than protect them.

[The Blinkmeister]

Reading this thread, I have a confession to make: I'm the guy who designed the outfit that Saturn Girl of the Legion of Super-Heroes wore in the Seventies. I wasn't conscious of it at the time, but, I now realise it was a variation of an outfit that Diana Rigg wore as Emma Peel in the British TV series "The Avengers."


LOL! Would that be this costume by any chance (the only memorable one she wore):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxSpTKE5Jno

[The Blinkmeister]

As regard to the question, I believe it depends on how the writer deals with that female character. If there isn't a lot of depth behind those sexy costumes then obviously all credibility is lost.

Here is a perfect example of a female character who isn't defined by her sexy customes (though she does tend to wear them quite often):


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8dEqahvqXNg/SkBMdhfSjsI/AAAAAAAABJY/xDyW-CVhtR8/s400/burn-notice26.jpg

[howyadoin]

LOL! Would that be this costume by any chance (the only memorable one she wore):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxSpTKE5JnoI thought it was just Byrne and Claremont who ripped that off.

[Donald M.]

The underlying assumption of your argument is that fetishes are inherently bad. This is tantamount to saying "it is ok to be sexy, but only in the confines of what I believe to be ok".

Well, no it isn't. We're talking in the context of female fictional characters in mainstream media here.

Fetishes aren't inherently bad, obviously, but they have their place and all too often it isn't the place they're being used.

Catwoman's outfit in almost every incarnation has been extremely fetishistic, but it works for the character. (Well, maybe not the Halle Berry version of the costume. That thing's just ugly.)

By comparison, Red Sonja's chainmail bikini is totally ridiculous and impractical as something a warrior would wear and exists solely to titillate the reader. Combine this with the element of her story where she can only sleep with any man who defeats her in single combat and a strong female warrior is reduced to a Hyborian cock tease.

[Donald M.]

LOL! Would that be this costume by any chance (the only memorable one she wore):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxSpTKE5Jno

I don't think so.

Here's what Saturn Girl was wearing in the 70's:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Saturngirl.jpg

And here's the outfit that likely inspired it:

http://www.massmurdermedia.tv/images/emma%20peel

[Jared]

Nonsense. Check out track and field, ice skating, Danica Patrick, whatever. Just Google gold medalist high jumper Amy Acuff. Make sure you do an image search after checking off "no filters" on the preference page.



What Danica Patrick wears for an FHM shoot, or even just strolling the boardwalk, has nothing to do with what she wears at her day job.

Someone who isn't sword/bullet proof, whose business is beating up bad guys, would be ludicous to do so while wearing a bikini. Of course, in comics people can have such impossible levels of skill that they seemingly don't need any protection. Hell, Batman himself sometimes wears no armor, even post-crisis.

At a bear minimum, I'd expect that a well-endowed woman in any kind of fight really wants to be wearing a sports bra, or something that functions like one.


That said, some tribal warriors did (and do) enter battle naked, to freak out the enemy and show off their...courage. The Gauls were big fans, IIRC. Don't know of any cases where it'd be commonplace for the womenfolk, though.

Fiona from Burn Notice, when she knows she's going to a gunfight ahead of time, will often gear up with a bullet proof vest. Whereas some comic (and anime) characters seemingly think the way to prepare for battle is to put less on.

[kalorama]

And male characters AREN'T sexualised?

Of course they are. But the issue is one of degree and intent.

Batman is muscular, sexy and dressed in that skintight spandex...(Drifts off into pleseant mental images for a while) Superman has the body of a god.

Agreed. But that just makes my point. By the very nature of the way they are drawn, full body, form fitting superhero costumes have a component that emphasizes the characters' physical attractiveness. But for male characters (given that the vast majority of comics fans are and always have been male) that component is largely incidental to the greater goal of showing off their physical strength and power. By contrast, the preponderance of skimpy, flesh-revealing female costumes are an obvious, intentional attempt to draw attention to the female characters' sexuality so as to appeal to the largely male audience.

Catman spends half his time completely naked. Male AND female characters are sexualised for the purposes of fanservice

WOuldn't know about Catman, but even if that's true, that's one of him versus the immense numbers of female characters who are showing skin.

[howyadoin]

And male characters AREN'T sexualised?Well, most of them look like they don't have dicks.

[Zeke T Grimm]

I don't think so.

Here's what Saturn Girl was wearing in the 70's:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Saturngirl.jpg

And here's the outfit that likely inspired it:

http://www.massmurdermedia.tv/images/emma%20peel

Sorry, people, nice guesses, but both wrong. HERE's the outfit that was in my subconscious:

http://a.getbackimages.com/uri/w514_h676_cfalse_K0330231919/diana-rigg-on-the-avengers-/image/4/0/6/5/4065963.jpg

And, FYI, here's the outfit I designed when it FIRST appeared in Action Comics #467. Notice that it's RED, not pink, and the white trim on the boots.

http://morethanweimagine.com/podcasts/scans/lsh025.jpg

[FZ1]

Sorry, people, nice guesses, but both wrong. HERE's the outfit that was in my subconscious:

http://a.getbackimages.com/uri/w514_h676_cfalse_K0330231919/diana-rigg-on-the-avengers-/image/4/0/6/5/4065963.jpg

And, FYI, here's the outfit I designed when it FIRST appeared in Action Comics #467. Notice that it's RED, not pink, and the white trim on the boots.

http://morethanweimagine.com/podcasts/scans/lsh025.jpg

This is just an awesome insight into a creator's inspiration. Many thanks for sharing. (Hey, you selling any of the originals?"

[Donald M.]

Sorry, people, nice guesses, but both wrong.

Well, I was closer than the other guy! :tongue:

Seriously, that's pretty cool.

[RolandJP]

Thanks for the avatar

[pitbull in a skirt]

Whoa snap! I attracted a famous person to my thread.

Comicbook costumes are inherently absurd. A normal person with the ability to rationalize real life from fantasy views them in a different context and with different expectations than they do real-world fashion. And Wonder Woman's costume, for instance, isn't even really super-sexualized. She wears more or less what gymnast does. No one watches olympic swimming and gets a boner. Or maybe they do, but that person should get out more.

Us gymnasts don't wear tube top leotards, that would be a disaster on floor excercise :redface:

And male characters AREN'T sexualised? Batman is muscular, sexy and dressed in that skintight spandex...(Drifts off into pleseant mental images for a while) Superman has the body of a god. Catman spends half his time completely naked. Male AND female characters are sexualised for the purposes of fanservice (Which means double the pleasure for this fangirl )

But is it really the first thing one thinks of when they picture "Batman", "Superman", etc? No, we think of them as characters first. Not their appearance.

[dupersuper]

(TV Show) - Now I know many people find Wonder Woman and/or Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman hot. But the granny panties and the awkward way it fits her, it just looks so odd to me I don't its sexy, let alone too sexy. :redface:

http://www.myavidgolfer.com/resources/Lynda-Carter_Wonder-Woman_664.jpg

I agree those bottoms sucked, but when they showed her from the waist up...while running...:smile:

[Zeke T Grimm]

This is just an awesome insight into a creator's inspiration. Many thanks for sharing. (Hey, you selling any of the originals?"

Sorry, I'm not an artist. Showing how horribly long ago 1970 was, I used carbon paper (pause for the kids to go "what?"), traced the outline of a character and then drew my outfit on it. I'm afraid I had precious little artistic talent myself.

As for Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman outfit, I'm just about to start watching the complete original series on DVD. But I can remember that, when I first saw Wonder Woman in the comics in the early 1960s, she wore a pair of star-spangled shorts that I assumed was a girdle. (Another pause for the kids to go "what?")

https://www.newkadia.com/Covers/L/W/Wonder%20Woman%201942%20series/wonderwoman1942series146.jpg

[Chiasm]

Is anyone besides me horribly embarrassed by the swimsuit issues various companies have done which further sexualize the the heroines of the various companies? And then even further embarrassed to think that many of the fans are probably treating them like playboys which just further reinforces the bad stereotypes we already get pegged on us for being fans.

[Chiasm]

And male characters AREN'T sexualised? Batman is muscular, sexy and dressed in that skintight spandex...(Drifts off into pleseant mental images for a while) Superman has the body of a god. Catman spends half his time completely naked. Male AND female characters are sexualised for the purposes of fanservice (Which means double the pleasure for this fangirl:biggrin: )

There is reason for Batman to be muscular since he's in essence an Ultimate fighter and they are muscular as well. And his costume was made the way it is to look cool. If he looks sexy in it (I don't see it) thats merely a coincidence. Superman is supposed to be the strongest person there is and the muscles are a way of visually showing that. I don't know who Catman is (I'm a Marvel fan). Whereas with too many female characters its all about sexualizing them. Consider the evolution of one of the most debased female characters in Marvel: Psylocke. When she started out she was fully clothed character. Sometimes she was drawn with enormous breasts but they were completely covered and it was a very conservative costume for a female. Then she got even more practical and started wearing a full suit of armor - she was basically a purple version of Dr Doom. Then someone made the decision to slutify her and turn her into an asian hooker version of Elektra which is where she remains stuck at today. I'm not sure of that was Claremont's decision or Jim Lee's (Lee started on the book shortly before this occurred) but considering his later body of work in terms of objectifying women I'm thinking Lee had a hand in it.

[Arvandor]

Is anyone besides me horribly embarrassed by the swimsuit issues various companies have done which further sexualize the the heroines of the various companies? And then even further embarrassed to think that many of the fans are probably treating them like playboys which just further reinforces the bad stereotypes we already get pegged on us for being fans.

I just get annoyed by the ridiculous assumption (such as yours) that anyone who buys such comics could only possibly be using them to masturbate over.

It's a stereotype every bit as stupid and incorrect as assuming only dateless nerds read comics.

[kalorama]

I just get annoyed by the ridiculous assumption (such as yours) that anyone who buys such comics could only possibly be using them to masturbate over.

It's a stereotype every bit as stupid and incorrect as assuming only dateless nerds read comics.

Well, to be accurate, he didn't say that it was the only reason why anyone would buy them, just that it was the reason many fans bought them, which is probably true. But his larger point is the more important one: the impression (correct or not) created by such books does, in fact, play directly into the assumption that "only dateless nerds read comics."

[anavrin0901]

Wow! This is a very thought provoking topic. I guess it really does depend. I thought the new Catwoman suit was great, but ultimately the movie was a bomb. This one could go either way. I am afraid I am just rambling and not helping the topic any further. Ha ha.

[K'Nort]

Well, to be accurate, he didn't say that it was the only reason why anyone would buy them, just that it was the reason many fans bought them, which is probably true. But his larger point is the more important one: the impression (correct or not) created by such books does, in fact, play directly into the assumption that "only dateless nerds read comics."

Frankly, I'm having trouble thinking of alternate markets for the special swimsuit issues.

[Ayo]

Frankly, I'm having trouble thinking of alternate markets for the special swimsuit issues.

The articles and in-depth, behind the scenes character development, OBVIOUSLY.

[Athena Bast]

Absolutely it undermines the credibility of the female characters as it turns them into masturbatory fantasy material for the stereotypical sci fi / comic book fan. The best female characters in sci fi / comics are the ones who are sexy without some male creator forcing them to dress like a stripper. Characters like Buffy from BTVS: most of the time when she was slaying it was in normal clothes and the only time she dressed sexy was for a reason not to go to battle. And in no way did it make Buffy any less sexy (unless you don't happen to like Sarah Michelle Gellar to begin with) - she didn't need the stripper outfit to look good while slaying. Other good examples of female characters who didn't have to look slutty: Zoe from Firefly (no surprise she too was by Joss Whedon since he's a creator who understands how to make strong women without slutifying them), Jenny Sparks from the Authority, and Kitty Pryde (her costumes are always practical).

In the case for Kitty Pryde, she's Jewish so modesty is built in.

[FeminineMystique]

Wow! This is a very thought provoking topic. I guess it really does depend. I thought the new Catwoman suit was great, but ultimately the movie was a bomb. This one could go either way. I am afraid I am just rambling and not helping the topic any further. Ha ha.

If you mean the Halle Berry one: BIG NO. Nowhere near fetishy-y enough. Now the one from the second Batman film...:biggrin: :wink: THAT is how Catwoman should look in the comics.

There is reason for Batman to be muscular since he's in essence an Ultimate fighter and they are muscular as well. And his costume was made the way it is to look cool. If he looks sexy in it (I don't see it) thats merely a coincidence. Superman is supposed to be the strongest person there is and the muscles are a way of visually showing that. I don't know who Catman is (I'm a Marvel fan). Whereas with too many female characters its all about sexualizing them. Consider the evolution of one of the most debased female characters in Marvel: Psylocke. When she started out she was fully clothed character. Sometimes she was drawn with enormous breasts but they were completely covered and it was a very conservative costume for a female. Then she got even more practical and started wearing a full suit of armor - she was basically a purple version of Dr Doom. Then someone made the decision to slutify her and turn her into an asian hooker version of Elektra which is where she remains stuck at today. I'm not sure of that was Claremont's decision or Jim Lee's (Lee started on the book shortly before this occurred) but considering his later body of work in terms of objectifying women I'm thinking Lee had a hand in it.

I can honestly say when I look at Bruce shirtless or in that tight leather my first thought definitely isn't "Yeah, he's a great fighter":wink:

And again, I really wish people would stop using meaningless words like "Slut" to describe women who dress in ways they don't like. It's derogatory and offensive. There's no such thing as dressing "Slutty".

[kalorama]

And again, I really wish people would stop using meaningless words like "Slut" to describe women who dress in ways they don't like. It's derogatory and offensive. There's no such thing as dressing "Slutty".

Slut isn't a meaningless word. It's a word with a very specific, generally well understood and agreed upon meaning. As for there being no "no such thing as dressing "Slutty" . . . there is a certain type of dress (albeit a stereotypical one) often associated with the literal meaning of word.

[pariah-1972]

I really don't know it's hard for me to say but it's so rare to see a comic book character that's covered up that i'm almost not used to it.

I don't really like Power Girl and not just because of her costume.

It does make more sense when a character is bullet proof or invulnerable to some extent to expose more flesh.

[howyadoin]

There's no such thing as dressing "Slutty".What about "skanky"?

[Athena Bast]

If I could find my scanner I'd put up a page from Balent's "3 Little Kittens". After Kittens save the day one of the females in the crowd calls them out for dressing provocatively saying "It's clear you have a leather and vinyl fetish!" and one of them calls her out saying "Well, from where I'm standing it's clear you have a cotton polyester fetish!"

[pariah-1972]

If I could find my scanner I'd put up a page from Balent's "3 Little Kittens". After Kittens save the day one of the females in the crowd calls them out for dressing provocatively saying "It's clear you have a leather and vinyl fetish!" and one of them calls her out saying "Well, from where I'm standing it's clear you have a cotton polyester fetish!"Isn't this from the same guy who is renown for the "my vagina is haunted" comic?

[Jared]

http://www.coloredhumor.com/dave-chappelle/dave-chappelle-whore-s-uniform.html

[Libaax]

http://www.coloredhumor.com/dave-chappelle/dave-chappelle-superheroes.html

His bit about Wonder Woman is a great joke about the inert sexism they put in with female superheroes.

[DjMichael691]

A comparison. Personally I would have prefered to see the traditional look.

[Libaax]

Traditional look you mean the early appereance of Elektra ?

Of course in thise case the movie version is more sexy,classy than the disgusting tong,overly sexy one from prolly 90s comics.....

[Kaos]

We don't have newswomen this hot in Britain.

[DjMichael691]

Traditional look you mean the early appereance of Elektra ?

Of course in thise case the movie version is more sexy,classy than the disgusting tong,overly sexy one from prolly 90s comics.....

What I meant was that I would have prefered to have had her in the costume that she appears in the comicbook. I don't think the movie version (in both Daredevil and Elektra) was any better than comic version and I don't think they should have changed it.
She pulls off the look and keeps true to the comic. It doesn't undermine her credibility as a female character at all.

[kalorama]

What I meant was that I would have prefered to have had her in the costume that she appears in the comicbook. I don't think the movie version (in both Daredevil and Elektra) was any better than comic version and I don't think they should have changed it.
She pulls off the look and keeps true to the comic. It doesn't undermine her credibility as a female character at all.

They had to change it because there was no way an actual flesh-and-blood woman could execute those acrobatic martial arts moves wearing the costume from the comics without falling out of it at every turn.

[Cloudman]

They had to change it because there was no way an actual flesh-and-blood woman could execute those acrobatic martial arts moves wearing the costume from the comics without falling out of it at every turn.

While keeping herself covered, you mean?

[Nevets F]

Is anyone besides me horribly embarrassed by the swimsuit issues various companies have done which further sexualize the the heroines of the various companies? And then even further embarrassed to think that many of the fans are probably treating them like playboys which just further reinforces the bad stereotypes we already get pegged on us for being fans.

Well for the Marvel Swimsuit issues, they included men and women. So it was totally equal.

[Libaax]

What I meant was that I would have prefered to have had her in the costume that she appears in the comicbook. I don't think the movie version (in both Daredevil and Elektra) was any better than comic version and I don't think they should have changed it.
She pulls off the look and keeps true to the comic. It doesn't undermine her credibility as a female character at all.

If you are talking about regular Elektra outfit the older where she didnt have a tiny tong then that would be better than movie version.

But the movie version is way better than the elektra outfit in that pic....

[Athena Bast]

Isn't this from the same guy who is renown for the "my vagina is haunted" comic?

Yup. I love it because it's just so ridiculous.

[pariah-1972]

Yup. I love it because it's just so ridiculous.I'm not sure how i feel since i haven't read it.


If it's intentionally silly i'm fine with it.

[Chiasm]

If you mean the Halle Berry one: BIG NO. Nowhere near fetishy-y enough. Now the one from the second Batman film...:biggrin: :wink: THAT is how Catwoman should look in the comics.



I can honestly say when I look at Bruce shirtless or in that tight leather my first thought definitely isn't "Yeah, he's a great fighter":wink:

And again, I really wish people would stop using meaningless words like "Slut" to describe women who dress in ways they don't like. It's derogatory and offensive. There's no such thing as dressing "Slutty".

The difference is that when you see a male character shirtless there is usually a semi plausible reason. Their shirt got ripped up in a fight, they are a swimming character like Namor, or its a prelude to a sex scene. Whereas with women they go to battle in the skimpiest of costumes that often couldn't show any more and still be legal, and oftentimes they are wearing heels. HEELS!!!!!!! As if you could actually fight in high heels. Its obvious skankifying (is that better than slutifying) by the artist and / or writer.

As for them dressing like that. If its scene appropriate then no prob. If the X-men are at the pool or the beach then its perfectly reasonable to see Psylocke in a bikini. If Peter and MJ are going on a date then its reasonable for MJ to be wearing a short skirt with cleavage. If the Avengers are about to fight the Masters of Evil then its not reasonable for Ms Marvel to go into battle wearing a thong and high heels.

[Major Comma]

It depends on the costume.

[Black Atom]

Wonder Woman's costume may not be sexualized when compared to gymnasts, but last I looked most superhero comics aren't populated with crime-fighting gymnasts. When compared with the costumes of her male peers (Batman, Superman, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, Aquaman, et al), her costume is clearly (and, if you know anything about her creator, intentionally) sexualized.

The Golden Age (since we're talking about the era of her creation) Atom did not wear drastically more than WW did. Neither did Robin. Hawkman went shirtless. The Spectre wore a speedo and pixie boots. The costumes were supposed to emphasize athleticism and were comparable to the garish and fanciful suits circus strong men wore. Not to say female comic characters aren't sexualized--they certainly are--but I don't think that can be applied to the same degree across the board since you have other influence there as well.

More to my point, the idea of a comic costume undermining the credibility of something that is inherently whimsical seems a silly thing to quibble about since all costumes are basically ridiculous. That's right, no matter how practical they try to make Batman's costume look in those new movies, it's still inherently ridiculous for a man to dress as a bat. Sorry, kids. A rational person suspends their disbelief because they know they're dealing with a fictional reality in which brightly colored and revealing uniforms are natural. We're anal retentive comic fans who complain about stuff like how much Spider-Man can or can't lift, so we tend to consider insane things like how "practical" a superhero costume should be because we want people to take this shit as seriously as we do. But the problem is that it probably shouldn't be taken that seriously to begin with.

[kalorama]

It has nothing to do with "practicality" or "seriousness." It has everything to do with maintaining internal logic and consistency in order to support the readers' suspension of disbelief when it comes to buying into the fiction world that comics (or any fiction) creates. The writers go to very specific lengths to spotlight the fact that urban vigilantes like Batman, Robin, Nightwing, Vigilante, Green Arrow, etc. are dressed up in bullet resistant, flame-retardant, flexible body armor, while their female counter parts are dressed up like cocktail waitresses and showgirls. On the one hand they're telling us it's dangerous out there and you have to protect yourself. On the other hand they're telling us that women are such airheads that they value their good looks over their lives. It does, in fact, undermine credibility. It undermines the credibility of the fictional environment that's been created, which undermines readers' ability to credibly suspend disbelief and lose themselves in the story. The problem isn't simply that they're sexualized, it's that they're sexualized in a way and circumstances that undermines their viability as smart, capable characters.

As for the examples you cite: Golden Age Atom? 50 years ago. Spectre? Basically a demi-god. Robin? Gave up the pixie boots 20 years ago. Hawkman? Immortal (and derives increased resistance and fast healing capabilities from the Nth metal in his costume). Black Canary? Still taking on gun-wielding mobsters and sword swinging samurai dressed like a playboy bunny.

[Black Atom]

It has nothing to do with "practicality" or "seriousness." It has everything to do with maintaining internal logic and consistency in order to support the readers' suspension of disbelief when it comes to buying into the fiction world that comics (or any fiction) creates. The writers go to very specific lengths to spotlight the fact that urban vigilantes like Batman, Robin, Nightwing, Vigilante, Green Arrow, etc. are dressed up in bullet resistant, flame-retardant, flexible body armor, while their female counter parts are dressed up like cocktail waitresses and showgirls. On the one hand they're telling us it's dangerous out there and you have to protect yourself. On the other hand they're telling us that women are such airheads that they value their good looks over their lives. It does, in fact, undermine credibility. It undermines the credibility of the fictional environment that's been created, which undermines readers' ability to credibly suspend disbelief and lose themselves in the story. The problem isn't simply that they're sexualized, it's that they're sexualized in a way and circumstances that undermines their viability as smart, capable characters.

As for the examples you cite: Golden Age Atom? 50 years ago. Spectre? Basically a demi-god. Robin? Gave up the pixie boots 20 years ago. Hawkman? Immortal (and derives increased resistance and fast healing capabilities from the Nth metal in his costume). Black Canary? Still taking on gun-wielding mobsters and sword swinging samurai dressed like a playboy bunny.

Black Canary hasn't worn the bunny costume in a decade. Similarly, Batgirl is clothed from head-to-toe, as is Catwoman. You could level that complaint at Huntress (who actually took a big step backwards in that regard) I guess, but really once we get into specifis, I'm not sure which characters we're talking about.

If we go back to the era these costumes were originally created, Batman was just a dude in tights. All that silliness about him having body armor or whatever was trumped up later for the sake of fanboys who turned into fanmen and, for some reason, outgrew their imagination. Superhero costumes for both men and women were meant to be colorful and embelmatic first and foremost. Considering most male heroes were fighting crime in bright longjohns, drop-kicking people in high heels didn't seem exceptionally impractical by comparson. Thinking Batman's story is more believable because he supposedly wears bulletproof body armor (despite, of course, his costume looking amazingly like a plain ol' pair of tights) is ridiculous. Either you believe these people have a clearly superhuman and illogical ability to do what they do night after night and not get killed or not.

[howyadoin]

Black Canary hasn't worn the bunny costume in a decade.http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/40/190102-19108-114209-1-black-canary-weddin_super.jpg

[FanLove4Blade]

I really can't keep quiet on this one. Being that i am female, and interested in these topics, I have too much of an opinion. :tongue:

I think it only undermines a female or a male character when they are wearing revealing clothes for example when kicking ass. But who realistically is going to buy into that? They're going to wear stuff that willprotect them. So making a female superhero wear a costume like that while doing her job as a hero is going to take from her credibility and people wont notice her mind. They'll either be rolling their eyes at the un realism of it or else they'll be eyeing her physical attributes.

I remember reading comments from people on imdb.com website about Blade Trinity. and some wrote that their complaint about the movie was that jessica biel didnt have revealing enough clothes. Their reasoning for they should have put a skimpier costume on her by saying 'well wesley took off his shirt in parts one and 2 for the girls' Yeah, but blade was near death and was having his blood harvested at the time. he wasnt fighting vampires with a skimpy costume on or going shirtless. Whereas Jessica biel wasnt captured, didnt have her blood harvested, and was fighting vampires. and they wanted more skimpy clothes on her. Wtf! Yep. Try again, O Logical ones. Good night.

[Eliseu Gouveia]

Depends on how the character´s written.

Look at Dr. Manhattan and the Hulk (or the Silver Surfer, if you wanna go there), they´re naked as it gets and you still buy them as powerful, god-like creatures.

[Alex Dragon]

If we go back to the era these costumes were originally created, Batman was just a dude in tights. All that silliness about him having body armor or whatever was trumped up later for the sake of fanboys who turned into fanmen and, for some reason, outgrew their imagination. Superhero costumes for both men and women were meant to be colorful and embelmatic first and foremost. Considering most male heroes were fighting crime in bright longjohns, drop-kicking people in high heels didn't seem exceptionally impractical by comparson. Thinking Batman's story is more believable because he supposedly wears bulletproof body armor (despite, of course, his costume looking amazingly like a plain ol' pair of tights) is ridiculous. Either you believe these people have a clearly superhuman and illogical ability to do what they do night after night and not get killed or not.

The voice of reason.

The reason the women in the superhero/action genre dress the way they do is simple...it's entertainment aimed mostly at boys/men. Many guys tend think having huge muscles is badass and having shapely women showing skin is sexy/cool.

I guess I can understand why this topic comes up so often. Lots of women/girls don't get it and don't like and people who tend to see sex in everything (in a negative way) like to complain about this subject. Then there's the people who like to try and take one aspect of a mostly absurd subject (superheroes and action stars) and want logic in one area while ignoring the rest of the illogical/absurd trappings.

To be honest, some of the arguments presented here don't make much sense. For example: Huntress has/had her bare midriff exposed and that doesn't make sense for someone who is a fighter. You mean a a kick in the stomach hurts less when there's a piece of cloth between the blow and her skin? You mean if you're wearing a shirt a punch in the stomach isn't as leathal as if you're shirtless? So Iron Fist would be far less vunderable if his costume covered his chest?

No comicbook or movie super heroine will ever "spill out of their costume" because the artist or director won't ever let it happen. These are crafted stories not recording reality. You'll never see what you're not supposed to. If you're reading or watching certain heroines worrying or waiting for something to fall out, you seriously need some sort of help.

Skin doesn't always equal sex. Showing bare legs or arms or midriff doesn't mean you're less capable. It doesn't mean you're less of a threat. A girl in a mini and a thong is just as likely to kick your ass as a girl wearing a girdle and loose fitting jeans.

[Black Atom]

http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/40/190102-19108-114209-1-black-canary-weddin_super.jpg

...Those fishnets are actually a super-sophisticated vibramantium alloy weave.

[howyadoin]

To be honest, some of the arguments presented here don't make much sense. For example: Huntress has/had her bare midriff exposed and that doesn't make sense for someone who is a fighter. You mean a a kick in the stomach hurts less when there's a piece of cloth between the blow and her skin? You mean if you're wearing a shirt a punch in the stomach isn't as leathal as if you're shirtless? So Iron Fist would be far less vunderable if his costume covered his chest?A layer of leather or ballistic nylon would offer more protection than nothing, yes. That's why bikers wear protective gear made of those things.

[howyadoin]

P.S. As for Iron Fist, he's got the power to heal his own wounds, and he's been building up his tolerance to pain since he was ten years old.

[kalorama]

Black Canary hasn't worn the bunny costume in a decade. Similarly, Batgirl is clothed from head-to-toe, as is Catwoman. You could level that complaint at Huntress (who actually took a big step backwards in that regard) I guess, but really once we get into specifis, I'm not sure which characters we're talking about.

So Batgirl and Catwoman don't apply. Good for them. But that doesn't alter the fact that scores of others do. Coming up with isolated examples that don't fit the pattern doesn't mean there is no pattern. And the style of Canary's suit has changed, but it's still a sleeveless one piece with fishnets, just like it was 30 years ago.

If we go back to the era these costumes were originally created, Batman was just a dude in tights. All that silliness about him having body armor or whatever was trumped up later for the sake of fanboys who turned into fanmen and, for some reason, outgrew their imagination. Superhero costumes for both men and women were meant to be colorful and embelmatic first and foremost. Considering most male heroes were fighting crime in bright longjohns, drop-kicking people in high heels didn't seem exceptionally impractical by comparson.

But we're not talking about "the era these costumes were originally created." We're talking about the here and now.


Thinking Batman's story is more believable because he supposedly wears bulletproof body armor (despite, of course, his costume looking amazingly like a plain ol' pair of tights) is ridiculous. Either you believe these people have a clearly superhuman and illogical ability to do what they do night after night and not get killed or not.

Don't tell me. Tell the people who write the stories. They're the ones who go through the trouble of setting up rules and parameters governing the world they created. Once they do that, then good storytelling dictates that they follow their own rules. Failure to do so undermines the credibility of the story structure they create. If they don't want us to notice the incongruity and ask questions, then they shouldn't have raised them by making such a big deal out of Batman and Co. needing body armor for protection.

[7thangel]

Isn't this from the same guy who is renown for the "my vagina is haunted" comic?
i edited out the name
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z158/7th_angelz/Tarot53e-1.jpg

i always find the choice of making a near butt naked female heroes ridiculous

[kalorama]

For example: Huntress has/had her bare midriff exposed and that doesn't make sense for someone who is a fighter. You mean a a kick in the stomach hurts less when there's a piece of cloth between the blow and her skin? You mean if you're wearing a shirt a punch in the stomach isn't as leathal as if you're shirtless?

Maybe. Maybe not. But I guarantee you, a bullet to the stomach will almost certainly hurt less if there's a layer kevlar between the bullet and her skin. A lesson you'd think the Huntress would have learned given that, prior to donning the belly-shirted ass-kicking nun costume, she'd been shot in the stomach at close range at least twice (that I'm aware of).

[Athena Bast]

Ya know, in hand to hand combat, I wouldn't want to loose fitting clothes just because it gives the opponent something to hold on to and toss you around with and use against you.

In that regard, Black Canary's and Wonder Woman's outfits are highly practical.

It's all the yahoos in capes that are the stupid ones.

[kalorama]

Ya know, in hand to hand combat, I wouldn't want to loose fitting clothes just because it gives the opponent something to hold on to and toss you around with and use against you.

In that regard, Black Canary's and Wonder Woman's outfits are highly practical.

The bodysuit and the leather jacket: possibly. The fishnet stockings (for a marshal artist who's often throwing kicks at armed opponents): not so much. As for Wonder Woman: There's nothing practical about a woman built like that engaging in any kind of athletic pursuit wearing a strapless bustier.

[dupersuper]

As for Wonder Woman: There's nothing practical about a woman built like that engaging in any kind of athletic pursuit wearing a strapless bustier.

Yes...very impractical...but the best part of the 70's series...:biggrin:

[pariah-1972]

I wonder if she ever fell out of it during the show.

Hmmm

[Frank]

I think it IS distracting. I could never buy Terry Ryan has an intelligent, credible character in Star Trek because of her gigantic boobs and too tight on her body outfits.

[Jared]

We don't have newswomen this hot in Britain.

Why do you think we rebelled? Foresight.

About that "haunted vagina" pic. That's not a real caption, right? It had to be photoshoped as a joke, surely. That can't be real.

If Huntress were in her own little world, or even if she were just character unrelated to the Bat-mythos, her mid-riff costume might be easier to buy. But she's not, so it just seems absurd that Bruce never called her an idiot and told her to put some damn clothes on.

think it IS distracting. I could never buy Terry Ryan has an intelligent, credible character in Star Trek because of her gigantic boobs and too tight on her body outfits.

And the thing is, that the Starfleet uniforms for the rest of the cast were already quite form-fitting. She could have worn something like that, perhaps a bit more casual, like what the girl she replaced wore. But no, instead it was a catsuit.

[dupersuper]

I think it IS distracting. I could never buy Terry Ryan has an intelligent, credible character in Star Trek because of her gigantic boobs and too tight on her body outfits.

It's Jerri Ryan, and though hot, I wouldn't say her boobs are huge.

[dupersuper]

I wonder if she ever fell out of it during the show.

Hmmm

I demand an outtakes clip!! Or I would if I hadn't downloaded some old movie clip starring her boobs. I love the internet.

[Arvandor]

I think it IS distracting. I could never buy Jeri Ryan has an intelligent, credible character in Star Trek because of her gigantic boobs and too tight on her body outfits.

Which character came across as more intelligent to you? Seven of Nine in her sexy borgsuit?

Or Janeway (or as she's known on the Rumbles board, Wrong-Way Janeway)?

[Phil Clark]

Ya know, in hand to hand combat, I wouldn't want to loose fitting clothes just because it gives the opponent something to hold on to and toss you around with and use against you.

In that regard, Black Canary's and Wonder Woman's outfits are highly practical.

It's all the yahoos in capes that are the stupid ones.

I said NO CAPES!!! :biggrin:

http://policyeconomist.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/edna_mode.jpg

[C-Cool]

Which character came across as more intelligent to you? Seven of Nine in her sexy borgsuit?

Or Janeway (or as she's known on the Rumbles board, Wrong-Way Janeway)?

F that!

I, like others, wouldn't care about what the woman's wearing. If it ain't Janeway, it's the right way.

Considering Janeway was in Star Trek Voyager, I wouldn't belittle the borg woman in the catsuit in comparison.

[Black Atom]

A layer of leather or ballistic nylon would offer more protection than nothing, yes. That's why bikers wear protective gear made of those things.

But those guys have the nuisance of real-world physics to worry about. Comicbook characters do not.

[Chiasm]

As an only occasional reader of Avengers I discovered a pleasant surprise this week when I picked up the New Avengers book: they are deskankifying Mockingbird a bit. She used to have one of those skank type costumes that absolutely drove me nuts with the thong bottom and heels but now she is actually fully clothed, she's wearing pants, and her uniform looks a lot more like something you might actually wear in combat. She's still sporting lots of cleavage but overall its still a big improvement.

[Black Atom]

So Batgirl and Catwoman don't apply. Good for them. But that doesn't alter the fact that scores of others do. Coming up with isolated examples that don't fit the pattern doesn't mean there is no pattern. And the style of Canary's suit has changed, but it's still a sleeveless one piece with fishnets, just like it was 30 years ago.

Well, that's why I asked. Who exactly are these 'scores' we're talking about?

And Canary used to have cleavage and high heels. Sure here arms and legs are still out but it's still a world of difference from her old suit, where all she needed was a cottontail to serve drinks at Hef's place (not that it mattered to me, really). And her last costume covered her head-to-toe.

But we're not talking about "the era these costumes were originally created." We're talking about the here and now.

I don't see how you can talk about one thing without the other. Superhero costumes were intended to be colorful, memorable and to embody the themes of the given character. And, yes, in the case of women, sometimes to titilate. It's a conceit of the genre that you openly subscribe to when you pay the cover price. In the scheme of things, Black Canary not having sleeves is a lot less stupid than Batman's excessive cape. The obsession with practicality came along later and culminated in the awful belt, pouch & jacket fest of 90's superhero
costumes.

Don't tell me. Tell the people who write the stories. They're the ones who go through the trouble of setting up rules and parameters governing the world they created. Once they do that, then good storytelling dictates that they follow their own rules. Failure to do so undermines the credibility of the story structure they create. If they don't want us to notice the incongruity and ask questions, then they shouldn't have raised them by making such a big deal out of Batman and Co. needing body armor for protection.

Superhero comics that spend an overt amount of time on such explanations seem self-conscious about their own legitimacy. It's like the author is trying to sell me on the fact that comics are okay to read because there's pseudo-scientific explanations for stuff I'm perfectly willing to believe in anyway. Generally, I avoid those stories altogether.

[Black Atom]

I think it IS distracting. I could never buy Terry Ryan has an intelligent, credible character in Star Trek because of her gigantic boobs and too tight on her body outfits.

I would make an exception here, just because Star Trek generally tries harder to maintain fidelity with how things work in the real-world (at least in the later series). In the context of that show, Seven-of-Nine "uniform" seemed a little out-of-place. Yet it still didnt' really bother me greatly or get in the way of me thinking she could be intelligent. That seems a little sexist, actually.

[kalorama]

There was really nothing out of the ordinary about Seven's uniform in the context of the show. She didn't wear a Starfleet uniform because she wasn't a Starfleet officer. Her suit was form fitting, but then so were the Starfleet uniforms (at least relative to what actual military/astronaut personnel would wear). It also covered up pretty much her entire body, so they weren't going out of their way to put on a peekaboo show. Also, if memory serves (and it often doesn't) the explanation given for the suit in the show was that it was designed to somehow promote dermal regeneration after they pulled all of the Borg tech out of her body so, in that context, a form-fitting suit that covers all of her exposed skin does make some internal sense.

[howyadoin]

Also, if memory serves (and it often doesn't) the explanation given for the suit in the show was that it was designed to somehow promote dermal regeneration after they pulled all of the Borg tech out of her body so, in that context, a form-fitting suit that covers all of her exposed skin does make some internal sense.There ya go - internal logic. That's the key to this whole discussion.

[kalorama]

Well, that's why I asked. Who exactly are these 'scores' we're talking about?

I really doubt I need to start a list (and since I generally avoid comics featuring them, I tend to only know a lot of them by appearance anyway). If you read comics I'm pretty sure you've seen a lot of them.

And Canary used to have cleavage and high heels. Sure here arms and legs are still out but it's still a world of difference from her old suit, where all she needed was a cottontail to serve drinks at Hef's place (not that it mattered to me, really). And her last costume covered her head-to-toe.

A costume which I quite liked. A costume that they quickly discarded so they could get her back in the fishnets.

I don't see how you can talk about one thing without the other. Superhero costumes were intended to be colorful, memorable and to embody the themes of the given character. And, yes, in the case of women, sometimes to titilate. It's a conceit of the genre that you openly subscribe to when you pay the cover price. In the scheme of things, Black Canary not having sleeves is a lot less stupid than Batman's excessive cape.

Regardless of how and when it came into play, it did come into play and has pretty much become a standard part of the current story landscape. And, again, you keep debunking adjectives that have nothing to do with my argument. "Stupid" "practical" "excessive." None of that plays into anything I've been talking about. Yep, Batman's cape is ridiculous from any real world perspective. But from the internal perspective of the fictional world he inhabits, it's been explained as having many functions. Again, that's the standard I'm approaching it from: internal storytelling logic. There's no internal logic behind Canary fighting crime in fishnet stockings.


The obsession with practicality came along later and culminated in the awful belt, pouch & jacket fest of 90's superhero costumes.

Would those be the same 90's that also produced a slew of wretched "good girl" artists who's defining creative characteristics were their ability to design women's costumes that covered little other than primary and secondary sex characteristics and draw women in ridiculously contorted positions that allowed them to simultaneously display their breasts and their butts full on to the camera at the same time? (Yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't have to list names.)

Superhero comics that spend an overt amount of time on such explanations seem self-conscious about their own legitimacy. It's like the author is trying to sell me on the fact that comics are okay to read because there's pseudo-scientific explanations for stuff I'm perfectly willing to believe in anyway. Generally, I avoid those stories altogether.

As is your right. But that still doesn't alter the fact that such an approach has increasingly become the foundation on which much of this stuff is built. And once that foundation is established, arbitrarily ignoring it only calls attention to it.

[7thangel]

About that "haunted vagina" pic. That's not a real caption, right? It had to be photoshoped as a joke, surely. That can't be real.






it's real.

chris's invincible super blog has some special blogs just about tarot (and a couple other crap titles) amongst the regular blogs of comics

http://www.the-isb.com/?p=980

[Jared]

There was really nothing out of the ordinary about Seven's uniform in the context of the show. She didn't wear a Starfleet uniform because she wasn't a Starfleet officer. Her suit was form fitting, but then so were the Starfleet uniforms (at least relative to what actual military/astronaut personnel would wear). It also covered up pretty much her entire body, so they weren't going out of their way to put on a peekaboo show. Also, if memory serves (and it often doesn't) the explanation given for the suit in the show was that it was designed to somehow promote dermal regeneration after they pulled all of the Borg tech out of her body so, in that context, a form-fitting suit that covers all of her exposed skin does make some internal sense.


Oh sure, the doctor clearly had her health in mind when he designed this (http://languageisavirus.com/startrek/layouts/startrek/seven-of-nine-2.jpg).

It is very cold in space, obviously.

[Athena Bast]

Why do you think we rebelled? Foresight.

About that "haunted vagina" pic. That's not a real caption, right? It had to be photoshoped as a joke, surely. That can't be real.



Nope actual line. There was a bunch of sexy undead nurses who died and had certain things transplanted into other people and we going to kill them, iirc. And yes, one of them was a vagina.

[Black Atom]

I really doubt I need to start a list (and since I generally avoid comics featuring them, I tend to only know a lot of them by appearance anyway). If you read comics I'm pretty sure you've seen a lot of them.

Well, my list would probably come out different than yours. We'd probably disagree on what constituted a really "sexy" costume and what didn't, for one. Like I don't really consider Wonder Woman's costume all that sexy.

A costume which I quite liked. A costume that they quickly discarded so they could get her back in the fishnets.

You say that like it's a negative. Fishnets are really the trademark of that character's design. Without them, she's a generic blonde heroine. It's a bit like bagging on Superman's red trunks (and people certainly do).

Regardless of how and when it came into play, it did come into play and has pretty much become a standard part of the current story landscape. And, again, you keep debunking adjectives that have nothing to do with my argument. "Stupid" "practical" "excessive." None of that plays into anything I've been talking about. Yep, Batman's cape is ridiculous from any real world perspective. But from the internal perspective of the fictional world he inhabits, it's been explained as having many functions. Again, that's the standard I'm approaching it from: internal storytelling logic. There's no internal logic behind Canary fighting crime in fishnet stockings.

It just seems like splitting hairs is all. You don't really need an explanation to think Batman's cape is acceptable, do you? I mean we pretty much accept that it's a convention of the genre. And it looks cool. Various writers have enriched the world of comics by giving us explanations for things we're really just supposed to take for granted, but some go overboard. If someone explained that Black Canary's stockings were made of a polymer that made bullets bounce of her legs, does it suddenly make her wearing them more believable? I'm only speaking for myself here, but it just seems easier to believe superheroes wear crazy costumes and run with that in all its directions.

Would those be the same 90's that also produced a slew of wretched "good girl" artists who's defining creative characteristics were their ability to design women's costumes that covered little other than primary and secondary sex characteristics and draw women in ridiculously contorted positions that allowed them to simultaneously display their breasts and their butts full on to the camera at the same time? (Yeah, I'm pretty sure I don't have to list names.)

In a lot of those cases, they were sexualized by the way they were drawn than their costumes specifically. During this era most of the X-Women, for example, were pretty covered up.

As is your right. But that still doesn't alter the fact that such an approach has increasingly become the foundation on which much of this stuff is built. And once that foundation is established, arbitrarily ignoring it only calls attention to it.

Maybe you're being too general. For instance, the internal logic that governs Batman's adventures shouldn't apply to Dr. Strange. That's why, earlier, I tried to think of similar heroines for an accurate comparison and I can't think of too many "street-level" heroines who wear grossly impractical or revealing gear (though it's obvious relative). In most cases that jump to mind where a writer (say, Greg Rucka) has made the effort to construct the kind of world you're talking about, it applies across the board.

And it's not really that I'm ignoring that this happens. I can acknowledge it and just not really care. For instance:

There was really nothing out of the ordinary about Seven's uniform in the context of the show. She didn't wear a Starfleet uniform because she wasn't a Starfleet officer. Her suit was form fitting, but then so were the Starfleet uniforms (at least relative to what actual military/astronaut personnel would wear). It also covered up pretty much her entire body, so they weren't going out of their way to put on a peekaboo show. Also, if memory serves (and it often doesn't) the explanation given for the suit in the show was that it was designed to somehow promote dermal regeneration after they pulled all of the Borg tech out of her body so, in that context, a form-fitting suit that covers all of her exposed skin does make some internal sense.

Sure, that's a fair enough explanation and I can play along for the sake of my enjoyment of the show. But I'm a grown-up and I know cynical producers slapped her in that thing purely for titilation. Thing is, I'm perfectly willing to play along without the explanation.

[Alex Dragon]

Maybe. Maybe not. But I guarantee you, a bullet to the stomach will almost certainly hurt less if there's a layer kevlar between the bullet and her skin. A lesson you'd think the Huntress would have learned given that, prior to donning the belly-shirted ass-kicking nun costume, she'd been shot in the stomach at close range at least twice (that I'm aware of).

But when you start down this trail of logic then you have to address or wonder why all superheroes/heroines don't wear Kelvar. There are plenty of costumed heroes that wear traditional spandex. There are plenty who have arms and sometimes legs exposed and seem to do just fine. When you have one or two that "need" to wear kelvar you have to question why the others don't. If Huntress wears it is it because she needs it because she isn't as good as the ones who don't? You start applying logic to this stuff and there's a dominio effect that ends up with the conclusion that they should all be wearing armor like Ironman and packing guns. It's best to not even go down that road.

Why should Huntress worry about exposed skin when a character like Elektra doesn't? And if you start in saying Elektra should be covered up then you have to ask why any martial artists aren't all covered up? Do they teach martial arts in kelvar?

One of the reasons I don't like Batman in the comics wearing kelvar or whatever special material is because now you have to wonder why he needs it but someone like Green Arrow doesn't.
I kinda understand why they gave Batman armor in the movies (but wish they didn't). Now if any other heroes were to ever show up in a Batman movie if they weren't wearing armor it would seem ridiculous.

[Athena Bast]

Bruce Lee was shirtless in many of his movies and he still kicked tonnes of ass.

[dupersuper]

Bruce Lee was shirtless in many of his movies and he still kicked tonnes of ass.

Here here! 7 of 9 should be shirtless!

[FeminineMystique]

i edited out the name
http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z158/7th_angelz/Tarot53e-1.jpg

i always find the choice of making a near butt naked female heroes ridiculous

Ah yes, from Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose. Comics fandom is never going to let the writer forget that one line. It's like Frank Miller with "The Goddamn Batman"

[FeminineMystique]

Slut isn't a meaningless word. It's a word with a very specific, generally well understood and agreed upon meaning. As for there being no "no such thing as dressing "Slutty" . . . there is a certain type of dress (albeit a stereotypical one) often associated with the literal meaning of word.

Let me clarify: I know it has a meaning: its just that the meaning of the word is so bloody stupid. It's used in a wholly derogatory way when its meaning isn't anything bad at all.

Suggesting that there's something bad about a woman whose highly sexual or dresses in a deliberately sexy way offends me both as a woman and as a human being in possesion of more than half a brain cell. There's nothing wrong with being a "Slut" as defined by the common meaning of the word. But the word itself is used as an insult and THAT is why I said it was meaningless. Because as an insult it doesn't work. Because it's just a way for sad, pathetic people to try and insult people whose actions or way of dressing they disagree with.

Slut and proud baby:wink:

[kalorama]

Let me clarify: I know it has a meaning: its just that the meaning of the word is so bloody stupid. It's used in a wholly derogatory way when its meaning isn't anything bad at all.

Suggesting that there's something bad about a woman whose highly sexual or dresses in a deliberately sexy way offends me both as a woman and as a human being in possesion of more than half a brain cell. There's nothing wrong with being a "Slut" as defined by the common meaning of the word. But the word itself is used as an insult and THAT is why I said it was meaningless. Because as an insult it doesn't work. Because it's just a way for sad, pathetic people to try and insult people whose actions or way of dressing they disagree with.

Slut and proud baby:wink:

Context is everything. I don't think anyone has a problem with women looking or being sexy, per se. The issue is with women (or men, for that matter) who do so in ways and situations where it's not appropriate. In those cases it is an insult, not so much towards how they look/act, but more so towards their lack of judgment, propriety, or common sense in determining what is and isn't the right time to show the goodies, so to speak.

[Jared]

Bruce Lee was shirtless in many of his movies and he still kicked tonnes of ass.


In martial arts fights, that makes sense. If Bruce Lee were playing a vigalante who stalks the streets beating up muggers and mobsters, he'd have the sense to armor up.

[Arvandor]

Ah yes, from Tarot: Witch of the Black Rose. Comics fandom is never going to let the writer forget that one line. It's like Frank Miller with "The Goddamn Batman"

I was offline for a few months, right about the time that issue was released, so I missed any uproar that may have been going round. Are you telling me people were bothered by that?

This is Tarot we're talking about! A comic where barely an issue goes by without the heroines stripping naked, scenes of lesbian sex and orgies and bondage, with art that is just a fraction short of being hentai.

Not a comic that is supposed to be taken seriously. I thought people knew that. But I love it. It's hilarious.

[FeminineMystique]

I was offline for a few months, right about the time that issue was released, so I missed any uproar that may have been going round. Are you telling me people were bothered by that?

This is Tarot we're talking about! A comic where barely an issue goes by without the heroines stripping naked, scenes of lesbian sex and orgies and bondage, with art that is just a fraction short of being hentai.

Not a comic that is supposed to be taken seriously. I thought people knew that. But I love it. It's hilarious.

You just PERFECTLY described why I love Tarot:Witch of the Black Rose so very much honey. :biggrin: :wink: I would tip my hat to its creator if I had one

Context is everything. I don't think anyone has a problem with women looking or being sexy, per se. The issue is with women (or men, for that matter) who do so in ways and situations where it's not appropriate. In those cases it is an insult, not so much towards how they look/act, but more so towards their lack of judgment, propriety, or common sense in determining what is and isn't the right time to show the goodies, so to speak.

Sorry darling, that word isn't in my personal dictionary.

As for the other matters, yes it can be argued it's just obvious fan service. But really, is there anything truly terrible about fan service? So long as the character has a personality and isn't JUST there to look pretty I've got no problem with it

[Frank]

It's Jerri Ryan, and though hot, I wouldn't say her boobs are huge.

Not huge, just gigantic.

Seriously the first time I saw Ryan on screen I said "Is this a joke? Are they trying to lure dumb people to watch Star Trek". I know Kirk used to have fine ladies on his tv show but this was way too obvious.