IT’S UP TO THE ARTISTS AND WRITERS
I dedicate this reblog to anyone who thinks that we object to women showing some skin by principle… No, we don’t. Just as we do not think covering everything up is a universal solution to the problem sexist costume designs.
The way a character is framed (visually and story-wise) makes a world of difference between just having a questionable costume and being outright objectified.
And as much as bikinis, bathing suits, cheerleader outfits etc. remain a silly wardrobe choice for an on-duty warrior/crimefighter, above here we have small sample of evidence that pants or full-body suits can actually look worse.
Let me refer back to @pointlessarguments101’s article that I quoted waaay back:
Putting a female hero in pants does not mean she is somehow protected from an artist positioning her primarily for the male gaze. For example, Marvel Comics recently began a new ongoing called Fearless Defenders which stars Valkyrie and Misty Knight. Both of these characters wear pants and, yet, I lost count by about page five of how many times Misty’s ass took center stage in any given panel. Basically, where there’s a male gaze will, there’s a male gaze way — pants or no pants, tights or bared legs.
more on costume design | more on character design | more about the iconic example: Starfire
This week’s throwback: the significant difference between sexualization and showing skin. Yes, amazingly, they are not and never were the same thing.
We talked lately about how presentation/framing of the character via such things as posing and camera angles is what ultimately decides whether or not the character is objectified.
Skimpy costumes, of course, more often than not also serve female sexualization more than anything. Still, there are certain, very limited circumstances that can justify something as absurd as chainmail bikini.
Not to mention all the various non-bikini forms of partial nudity that are decidedly non-sexual and equivalent to many shirtless male power fantasies.