So the arguments suggesting that skimpy female warrior outfits make sense in the context of a character have been around almost as long as the outfits themselves… Not surprisingly, usually the reasoning behind the costume seems to get invented after the costume is already established.
Today I decided to take a look at one of characters famous for supposedly having a ‘reason’ to be half-naked on not one, but at least two levels – Starfire.
The costume(s):
First let’s look at her costume out of context… The original one looks pretty awful, right? Impractically skimpy and, depending on the artist, the torso part ranges from somehow plausible (with a help of double-sided tape, at least), to outright damn impossible. Still, reflective of what superheroes looked like back in the 80s. It’s not like her male colleagues didn’t have their share of silly-by-today’s-standards costumes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m quite sure the old version would also score some major bingo points, but this is just beyond any possible level of defying physics and common sense. BABD has nothing but utter respect for the cosplayersthat somehowmake this costumeactually work (especially the nipple-pieces).
Oh, and the way she was written upon her first appearance after the DC reboot (the infamous Red Hood & the Outlaws #1) does not help the case. AT ALL.
Which brings us to…
The “context”
As mentioned earlier, Star supposedly has good reasons to dress the way she does. There may be more, but the two most frequently brought up are:
Her alien powers are fueled by exposure to sunlight
Big part of her character is having an agency over her sexuality
We poked the first one a few times already, so let’s get it out of the way quick: SAME FOR SUPERMAN. And if I’m not mistaken, unlike Supes, Starfire is not 100% invincible on top of her strength. I challenge anyone to find us canon evidence that Kryptonians somehow don’t have to be half-naked to absorb sunlight through skin, but Tamaraneans do. Bonus points if you prove that it’s so totally not because the major character from Krypton is a man, while the major character from Tamaran is a woman.
The second one is a ride, as I have a very basic familiarity with the old Titans comics, let alone post-reboot ones, but fortunately I’m not the first person to talk about the subject of Kory’s depiction, so I had some broader frame of reference. I’ll link the sources in the last section of this post.
That said, even if we agree that the revealing costume is expression of Kory being in charge of how sexual she is, the post-reboot comics failed spectacularly at conveying it in a sensible way the old comics did. The batshit redesign, the art that contorts her spine and shoves her boobs and buttin every scene possible, the writing that turned her basically into a living sex doll (an idea so bad that it got subsequently retconned); all of those things were carefully crafted NOT to put some interesting spin on the established character, but to suit the tastes of DC’s supposed target audience: unimaginative, perpetually horny straight boys.
There’s nothing wrong about Starfire being sexy and openly sexual. But how does one turn a character like this:
Into someone who joylessly asks people she barely likes for a hookup out of boredom?:
And again, why would any of the above mean she, a superpowered alien warrior princess, should fight crime and villainy in “clothes” that are the superhero equivalent of Scarlet Blade armor? How is her sex life the “context” for her superhero looks? With the old costume at least it can be argued she’s showing off her body, which she’s very comfortable with (canon in comics), with the new one… she only gets cold in her shoulders and feet? And alien fashion defies physics? IDK
Shortpacked! (itswalky) sums up the problem with New 52 depiction of this character (and DC’s bizarre confidence in it) perfectly in this comic strip (rebloggable version here).
Now, to clear you minds, I recommend you guys to check out theliberationofmanfire, a blog dedicated to showing us what Starfire and other comic superheroines would be like if they were redone as equally scantily-clad and sexualized male characters (and yes, that tumblr does precede thehawkeyeinitiative).
Further on the matter:
Linkara’s (@atopfourthwall) video review of Red Hood and the Outlaws #1 – for those who don’t want to be directly subjected the awfulness of that comic (skip to 27th minute if you want to hear only the comments regarding the sexualization controversy)
PS: Funny that Starfire’s official bio seems to not have been updated with anything since the start of New 52 in 2011. Probably because of neglect, but I like to think that official Teen Titans site just prefers to ignore post-reboot Starfire’s design and personality.
edit: Updated link to Linkara’s review, due to Blip being dead and the last link, due to Chez Apocalypse site remaining in the limbo.
Starfire being a very sexual character who comes from a culture that isn’t shy either about sex or nudity? GREAT.
Starfire expressing her views on nudity through a skimpy fetish costume? SURE, WHY NOT.
Said costume being so over-the-top sexualized and physically impossible that it breaks the reader’s immersion? NOT GOOD.
Starfire wearing said costume to fly in the sky and fight villainy (which, mind you, includes super futuristic technology, other superpowered aliens, magic users and demons)? NOPE NOPE NOPE.
So the arguments suggesting that skimpy female warrior outfits make sense in the context of a character have been around almost as long as the outfits themselves… Not surprisingly, usually the reasoning behind the costume seems to get invented after the costume is already established.
Today I decided to take a look at one of characters famous for supposedly having a ‘reason’ to be half-naked on not one, but at least two levels – Starfire.
The costume(s):
First let’s look at her costume out of context… The original one looks pretty awful, right? Impractically skimpy and, depending on the artist, the torso part ranges from somehow plausible (with a help of double-sided tape, at least), to outright damn impossible. Still, reflective of what superheroes looked like back in the 80s. It’s not like her male colleagues didn’t have their share of silly-by-today’s-standards costumes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m quite sure the old version would also score some major bingo points, but this is just beyond any possible level of defying physics and common sense. BABD has nothing but utter respect for the cosplayersthat somehowmake this costumeactually work (especially the nipple-pieces).
Oh, and the way she was written upon her first appearance after the DC reboot (the infamous Red Hood & the Outlaws #1) does not help the case. AT ALL.
Which brings us to…
The “context”
As mentioned earlier, Star supposedly has good reasons to dress the way she does. There may be more, but the two most frequently brought up are:
Her alien powers are fueled by exposure to sunlight
Big part of her character is having an agency over her sexuality
We poked the first one a few times already, so let’s get it out of the way quick: SAME FOR SUPERMAN. And if I’m not mistaken, unlike Supes, Starfire is not 100% invincible on top of her strength. I challenge anyone to find us canon evidence that Kryptonians somehow don’t have to be half-naked to absorb sunlight through skin, but Tamaraneans do. Bonus points if you prove that it’s so totally not because the major character from Krypton is a man, while the major character from Tamaran is a woman.
The second one is a ride, as I have a very basic familiarity with the old Titans comics, let alone post-reboot ones, but fortunately I’m not the first person to talk about the subject of Kory’s depiction, so I had some broader frame of reference. I’ll link the sources in the last section of this post.
That said, even if we agree that the revealing costume is expression of Kory being in charge of how sexual she is, the post-reboot comics failed spectacularly at conveying it in a sensible way the old comics did. The batshit redesign, the art that contorts her spine and shoves her boobs and buttin every scene possible, the writing that turned her basically into a living sex doll (an idea so bad that it got subsequently retconned); all of those things were carefully crafted NOT to put some interesting spin on the established character, but to suit the tastes of DC’s supposed target audience: unimaginative, perpetually horny straight boys.
There’s nothing wrong about Starfire being sexy and openly sexual. But how does one turn a character like this:
Into someone who joylessly asks people she barely likes for a hookup out of boredom?:
And again, why would any of the above mean she, a superpowered alien warrior princess, should fight crime and villainy in “clothes” that are the superhero equivalent of Scarlet Blade armor? How is her sex life the “context” for her superhero looks? With the old costume at least it can be argued she’s showing off her body, which she’s very comfortable with (canon in comics), with the new one… she only gets cold in her shoulders and feet? And alien fashion defies physics? IDK
Shortpacked! (itswalky) sums up the problem with New 52 depiction of this character (and DC’s bizarre confidence in it) perfectly in this comic strip (rebloggable version here).
Now, to clear you minds, I recommend you guys to check out theliberationofmanfire, a blog dedicated to showing us what Starfire and other comic superheroines would be like if they were redone as equally scantily-clad and sexualized male characters (and yes, that tumblr does precede thehawkeyeinitiative).
Further on the matter:
Linkara’s (@atopfourthwall) video review of Red Hood and the Outlaws #1 – for those who don’t want to be directly subjected the awfulness of that comic (skip to 27th minute if you want to hear only the comments regarding the sexualization controversy)
PS: Funny that Starfire’s official bio seems to not have been updated with anything since the start of New 52 in 2011. Probably because of neglect, but I like to think that official Teen Titans site just prefers to ignore post-reboot Starfire’s design and personality.
edit: Updated link to Linkara’s review, due to Blip being dead and the last link, due to Chez Apocalypse site remaining in the limbo.
Starfire being a very sexual character who comes from a culture that isn’t shy either about sex or nudity? GREAT.
Starfire expressing her views on nudity through a skimpy fetish costume? SURE, WHY NOT.
Said costume being so over-the-top sexualized and physically impossible that it breaks the reader’s immersion? NOT GOOD.
Starfire wearing said costume to fly in the sky and fight villainy (which, mind you, includes super futuristic technology, other superpowered aliens, magic users and demons)? NOPE NOPE NOPE.
The premise of asking for ultimate criteria of gendered power fantasy is kinda flawed… First, there are VERY different facets of indulging in the male fantasy. Let’s make it clear: strong, overly-muscular men aren’t the only representation of male power fantasy, they’re just the most obvious one, cause they’re extending the stereotype of maleness to ridiculous degrees. They appeal to the deep-rooted societal notion that male = stronger, that’s why to make the character seem powerful the designers exaggerate the “manly” aspects of the him.
But when it comes to female characters, it gets complicated. The thing is, our culture tends to view things almost exclusively from the (straight) male point of view. Men try to extrapolate their own experiences onto us and assume that how they feel is how we feel. That’s why conventional female “power fantasy” either emulates the male one (butch warrior woman) or (more often) assumes that female power comes from controlling sexual availability to men. That’s where the sexy femme fatale warrior stereotype comes from. Men imagine that the only area where women can be in total control is sex.
Going back to the male power fantasy, it’s important to realize how Buff Warrior Dude type basically comes down to eliminating the fear of ever being threatened by other men. Notice how Sexy Warrior Babe type, instead of eliminating the fear women have (of being overpowered, assaulted etc.), feeds onto the fear men have (of being rejected and/or sexually controlled by women).That’s why villainesses are very likely to be portrayed in most sexual characters. This disingenuous female power archetype is the result of filtering everything through male perspective.
To create a genuine power fantasy, female point of view must be applied and male one must be deconstructed. We can’t latch onto the simplistic and hurtful notion that associates maleness with strength and femaleness with weakness. I touched upon this recently, but the genre of magical girl narrative is one of the basic deconstructions of that: the powers, weapons and outfits of the heroines are usually designed to be as girly as possible, so that monsters are defeated not with the male-coded brute strength, but with sparkly magic beams from pink, heart-shaped rods and jewelry. Things associated with the “weak” part of femaleness stereotype become the source of their power.
That said, it does not mean that no female character ever can find their strength in being butch or sexual. Just that those female power stereotypes (especially the sexual one) have so far been framed in how men see them and thus, problematic. Also, Sexy Warrior Babe type of character is vastly overused, so it’s really hard to to make it work without looking like you’replaying it straight. That’s one of the reasons this blog exists.
~~~~ Big thanks to our dear friend ami-angelwings for helping me to put our collective female perspective on the subject to words.
~Ozzie
(Disclaimer: wincenworks is a cishet male so can only give information from observation and received from women who have spoken about the issue)
Firstly, the story of a character who is so badass that they can run into fights with no protection and be assured of a victory without injury is a pretty boring story. There’s no tension or drama if the outcome is pre-ordained – even less so if it’s only pre-ordained to justify a costuming decision.
Secondly, the buff barbarian look isn’t about selling men a fantasy of being fit and attractive (Conan is traditionally not a pretty man, he often gets injured and he’s not above wearing armor) – it’s about recognized as physically powerful and coded as a great warrior and one who is above caring what regular think of them. Howard wrote about the appeal of this aspect at length in letters and at least one artist has already explored what Red Sonja might look like if she was given the same visual coding Conan is.
Bikini armor on fictional women doesn’t project this, because after decades of it’s being used for senseless titilation, for Ms Male Characters and damsels who are to be rescued by manly men. They’re not designed with the intention of anything done, or having other primary traits other than “sexy” by Male Gaze standards.
This leads to (in case you missed it, at the top of the post you’re replying to):
See female power fantasy characters are meant to reflect female fantasies and it turns out women are people. So their fantasies tend to be more complicated than “look sexy to the assumed straight male audience and be do something badass to justify my position as ‘strong’ character”.
Thus a female character is more likely to read as a female power fantasy characters if she looks more like:
That said, many characters who are wearing outfits that are not particularly power fantasy inducing have become female power fantasies to certain groups of women via particular traits, their personalities and their stories.
None of these function on the half-arsed justification of “I mean can’t a woman who is attractive and so skilled she can kill enemies without armor be a fantasy for women as well.“ They tend to be things more like “I’d like to treated with respect regardless of my body or how I dress, be feared by tough guys and able to smack them down if they threaten me.”
Most women, in my experience, are not really that adverse to the idea of having or wearing awesome armor which is why our “positive examples“ posts tend to get lots of love and we get awesome asks like this one from yondamoegi :
So in summary, the primary flaw with your argument is that women shouldn’t be expected to be for men’s benefit. The secondary flaw is that women actually aren’t expected to wear armor more than they are bikinis so have no reason to wish they could be free of armor.
– wincenworks
Bringing this back as a reminder that a muscle men with their big barrel chests on display are not equivocal to wispy women in metal lingerie. There’s a massive gulf between a character being powerful in a way some people will find sexy, and being sexualized in a way marketing will claim is “empowering”.
So I hear you say that nearly every muscular man in media is a male power fantasy so I have been meaning to ask what is a woman power fantasy. I mean what criteria have to be met for a power fantasy for women since for a man the criteria is to be fit and attractive to look as said from your post here that Dolph Lundgren Ax here and Conan. I mean can’t a woman who is attractive and so skilled she can kill enemies without armor be a fantasy for women as well.
The premise of asking for ultimate criteria of gendered power fantasy is kinda flawed… First, there are VERY different facets of indulging in the male fantasy. Let’s make it clear: strong, overly-muscular men aren’t the only representation of male power fantasy, they’re just the most obvious one, cause they’re extending the stereotype of maleness to ridiculous degrees. They appeal to the deep-rooted societal notion that male = stronger, that’s why to make the character seem powerful the designers exaggerate the “manly” aspects of the him.
But when it comes to female characters, it gets complicated. The thing is, our culture tends to view things almost exclusively from the (straight) male point of view. Men try to extrapolate their own experiences onto us and assume that how they feel is how we feel. That’s why conventional female “power fantasy” either emulates the male one (butch warrior woman) or (more often) assumes that female power comes from controlling sexual availability to men. That’s where the sexy femme fatale warrior stereotype comes from. Men imagine that the only area where women can be in total control is sex.
Going back to the male power fantasy, it’s important to realize how Buff Warrior Dude type basically comes down to eliminating the fear of ever being threatened by other men. Notice how Sexy Warrior Babe type, instead of eliminating the fear women have (of being overpowered, assaulted etc.), feeds onto the fear men have (of being rejected and/or sexually controlled by women).That’s why villainesses are very likely to be portrayed in most sexual characters. This disingenuous female power archetype is the result of filtering everything through male perspective.
To create a genuine power fantasy, female point of view must be applied and male one must be deconstructed. We can’t latch onto the simplistic and hurtful notion that associates maleness with strength and femaleness with weakness. I touched upon this recently, but the genre of magical girl narrative is one of the basic deconstructions of that: the powers, weapons and outfits of the heroines are usually designed to be as girly as possible, so that monsters are defeated not with the male-coded brute strength, but with sparkly magic beams from pink, heart-shaped rods and jewelry. Things associated with the “weak” part of femaleness stereotype become the source of their power.
That said, it does not mean that no female character ever can find their strength in being butch or sexual. Just that those female power stereotypes (especially the sexual one) have so far been framed in how men see them and thus, problematic. Also, Sexy Warrior Babe type of character is vastly overused, so it’s really hard to to make it work without looking like you’replaying it straight. That’s one of the reasons this blog exists.
~~~~ Big thanks to our dear friend ami-angelwings for helping me to put our collective female perspective on the subject to words.
~Ozzie
(Disclaimer: wincenworks is a cishet male so can only give information from observation and received from women who have spoken about the issue)
Firstly, the story of a character who is so badass that they can run into fights with no protection and be assured of a victory without injury is a pretty boring story. There’s no tension or drama if the outcome is pre-ordained – even less so if it’s only pre-ordained to justify a costuming decision.
Secondly, the buff barbarian look isn’t about selling men a fantasy of being fit and attractive (Conan is traditionally not a pretty man, he often gets injured and he’s not above wearing armor) – it’s about recognized as physically powerful and coded as a great warrior and one who is above caring what regular think of them. Howard wrote about the appeal of this aspect at length in letters and at least one artist has already explored what Red Sonja might look like if she was given the same visual coding Conan is.
Bikini armor on fictional women doesn’t project this, because after decades of it’s being used for senseless titilation, for Ms Male Characters and damsels who are to be rescued by manly men. They’re not designed with the intention of anything done, or having other primary traits other than “sexy” by Male Gaze standards.
This leads to (in case you missed it, at the top of the post you’re replying to):
See female power fantasy characters are meant to reflect female fantasies and it turns out women are people. So their fantasies tend to be more complicated than “look sexy to the assumed straight male audience and be do something badass to justify my position as ‘strong’ character”.
Thus a female character is more likely to read as a female power fantasy characters if she looks more like:
That said, many characters who are wearing outfits that are not particularly power fantasy inducing have become female power fantasies to certain groups of women via particular traits, their personalities and their stories.
None of these function on the half-arsed justification of “I mean can’t a woman who is attractive and so skilled she can kill enemies without armor be a fantasy for women as well.“ They tend to be things more like “I’d like to treated with respect regardless of my body or how I dress, be feared by tough guys and able to smack them down if they threaten me.”
Most women, in my experience, are not really that adverse to the idea of having or wearing awesome armor which is why our “positive examples“ posts tend to get lots of love and we get awesome asks like this one from yondamoegi :
So in summary, the primary flaw with your argument is that women shouldn’t be expected to be for men’s benefit. The secondary flaw is that women actually aren’t expected to wear armor more than they are bikinis so have no reason to wish they could be free of armor.
– wincenworks
Bringing this back as a reminder that a muscle men with their big barrel chests on display are not equivocal to wispy women in metal lingerie. There’s a massive gulf between a character being powerful in a way some people will find sexy, and being sexualized in a way marketing will claim is “empowering”.
There’s always space for yet another armor tutorial, right? (ﾉ´ヮ´)ﾉ*:･ﾟ✧
Note that the armor I drew would be worn around 15th century, the more into the future the less and less components knight’s armor had (i. e. in early 14th century instead of greaves a knight would wear long boots only; in 12th century knights didn’t wear plate breastplates and instead a chain mail only). Also the design of armor pattern changed by year and was different in every country (i.e. in eastern Europe armors, while still looking European, were heavily influenced by Turkey). so just make sure you always do research whenever drawing an armor. And one more thing to keep in mind is that armors were expensive, knights wearing a full plate armor weren’t an often sight.
Some links that may be useful:
Armour Archive (I strongly suggest to browse its forum, there is no country or period of which armor wouldn’t be discussed)
Therion Arms (armorer’s page; each accessory is photographed in big resolution and several time so it’s a nice page to use as reference for drawing)
Revival Clothing (another store, but both with medieval clothing and armors; I suggest to read the articles, they’re often supported with pictures)
How shall a man be armed? (youtube; another demonstration but with 4 different knights from different periods)
Bringing back this handy resource for how plate armor is actually worn on, also demonstrating how the major parts It’s particularly worth noting how the smaller bits tend to be layered over the major parts – thus ensuring effective layered protection and not having armor pushed into you by the enemy’s attacks. Unlike well… some designs.
