Dude, you really need to watch more porn.

[nenena]

Recently, a rather confused blogger was unable to tell the difference between fetish lingerie and Wonder Woman's iconic outfit. For anybody else who may be confused, here is a brief guide:

These are a woman's lacy underthings:

These are NOT a woman's lacy underthings:

Clothing is a form of expression. It communicates. And the way that clothing works - its message and its purpose - relies on a LOT more than just how much skin it covers. For example, Emma Frost, when she wears her laced-up fetish lingerie and nothing else*, is broadcasting one message:



And Wonder Woman, when she wears her chest armor and star-spangled bottoms, is broadcasting a different message:



Frankly, I'm confused as to where the source of confusion is. Well, okay, I can see some of the confusion. Wonder Woman's outfit may not be underwear, but it IS rather impractical for superhero-ing purposes. Her outfit would work for figure skating, swimming, or just hanging out on the beach on a hot summer day. But as a superhero outfit, it leaves her way too vulnerable to, say, killer bees. And it definitely serves as a telling example of the sexist double-standard in superhero wear. Name me an iconic male superhero with bare thighs whose outfit leaves his neck and shoulders exposed. Off the top of my head, the only example that even comes close is the classic Robin outfit, the exposed thighs of which once upon a time caused a great deal of gasping and pearl-clutching. Because Robin is a boy, and boys can't show skin!

(ETA: Challenge met and matched in comments! Beast runs around naked from the waist up. But then again, he's covered in blue fur. Likewise, we've got the Hulk, but the reason that he's wearing very little clothing is that he tends to shred his normal clothes when he transforms. Finally, we've got Namor, a "normal-skinned" superhero who exposes most of his skin. But I'd question how iconic of a character Namor is, especially since he seems relatively unknown among non-comic readers. Any other takers? Plastic Man covers his shoulders and arms, but curiously leaves his legs and chest bare. And then there's Hawkman! But although his chest is mostly bare, his legs are still completely covered. And finally, we've got Martian Manhunter! Although, like Robin, he's mostly covered up now.)

BUT. Impractical though her outfit may be for Wonder Woman's purposes, it's still NOT underwear. And it's definitely NOT fetish lingerie. At the very worst, it's a leotard with some nominal boob armor. Not underwear.

And... Would you argue that the following items of men's clothing are a) interchangeable, b) worn under the same circumstances for the same purpose, or c) intended to communicate the same message?













I would hope not. It doesn't matter that all of the above items of clothing share the same basic parameters of form. They are clearly different articles of clothing for different purposes. Can you tell which ones are underwear, and which ones aren't? Among the underwear, can you tell what is fetish gear, and what isn't? Yeah. Kind of hard not to tell.

It seems rather simple to me. A swimsuit is not a corset is not lingerie is not a superheroine outfit (unless you're Emma Frost and still stuck in the 1970s). This should be obvious. And really, it's pretty fucked-up to say that just because a woman is exposing a certain amount of skin, it's the same as if she's wearing fetish lingerie. That's a curiously prudish thing to say, coming from a blogger who normally casts himself as crusading against prudishness. Honestly now. Have we never been to a beach, or what?

Next, our very confused and fashion-challenged blogger concluded that, because Wonder Woman's outfit looks like fetish lingerie to his inexperienced eyes, Wonder Woman can never be "immune from being sexualized by the male gaze."

First, I have to question how he's using the phrase "sexualized by the male gaze" here.

Does he mean that men are unable to not think sexy, sexy thoughts whenever they see Wonder Woman's star-spangled derriere? Well, okay, whatever. But that doesn't matter. Nobody cares who you fantasize about in your own head. Believe it or not, feminists are not interested in being thought police.

What matters is what you say and do to women in the real world. How you interact with real women. And how you write and draw fictional women. There is a difference between "attraction to" and "sexualization of". Just like there is a fundamental difference between "sexy" and "sexualized." This page shows the APA definition of "sexualization." It's a good clear definition, for discussion purposes. And please do note that "sexualization" should in no way shape or form be conflated with "sexuality."

SEXY is what a person IS. SEXUALIZATION is something that is done to a person**. Sexualization is almost always an act of sexism.

You can argue that it is inevitable for men to sexualize women because of some (scientifically debunked, natch) biological drive to treat women like sex objects. Well, most men also carry a deeply instinctual biological drive to shit in their pants whenever they damn well feel like it, but they don't, because as a civilized society, we expect better of our members. Same with the sexualization of women. It is natural and instinctive for human beings to feel sexually attracted to each other. That's human sexuality. That's not the same as "sexualization." Nowhere does "I am attracted to this woman" translate to an excuse to treat her in a sexist manner. In fictional terms, nowhere does "this fictional woman is attractive" translate to an automatic excuse for lazy, clichéd, or sexist depictions of said woman.

Yes, a depiction of a fictional woman is an act. It is not a thought. And thus, it is possible for a depiction of a fictional woman to be sexualized. Why is that sometimes bad?

Long-established characters should, you know, ideally be written in character. For example, Tarot is a loves-to-be-skyclad huge-breasted witch who likes to have sexy, sexy adventures that usually end in nude fairy orgies. Wonder Woman is not. If you're writing or drawing Wonder Woman to look or act like Tarot, then YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. That is bad writing (and sexualization). And that is what most feminist fans of Wonder Woman object to.

The same way that he seems unable to distinguish between undergarments and other articles of clothing, our fashion-challenged blogger also does not appear to be very clear on the difference between "attraction" and "sexualization."

Oh, and to complete the trifecta, our fashion-challenged blogger also asserts that Wonder Woman fans who are upset about sexist depictions of her are "naïve." This goes back to the same old "Oh my gosh, you're surprised by this?!" reaction that makes me want to hit other bloggers over the head with a clue-by-four. Y'know, NOBODY IS REALLY SURPRISED when a comic book superheroine gets shat on. That doesn't mean that we aren't still ANGRY when it happens. Please stop saying that we are surprised (and by implication foolish and stupid) when this stuff happens. We aren't. We aren't surprised. But we're still pissed off.

Hmmm, I think that's it. Quite an impressive trifecta. And he managed to accomplish it in sixty words! Doubly impressive.



*Okay, she's also got a cape and boots and gloves. I guess the cape counts as something.
**I realize that, in the case of fictional characters, everything is by nature done to them. But, as long as it IS possible to depict a sexy female character who is not sexualized, I would say that the APA definition still works in the fictional realm.

BONUS EDIT FOR GREAT JUSTICE!

Actual quote from the same blogger's most recent post:

Really, if you seriously call what's going on in mainstream comics today "porn", you are a precious sheltered child who isn't grown-up enough to discuss comics with the adults. Oh, was that a bit condescending?

Yeah, it is a bit condescending, especially coming from someone who just said that Wonder Woman is wearing "a bustier and panties" because he's either blind, really really fashion-challenged, or a precious sheltered child who isn't grown-up enough to discuss comics with the adults.

EDIT #2: Added a picture of Flo Jo, because as zhinxy pointed out in the comments, Flo Jo is awesome.

EDIT #3: Our fashion-challenged Mouse has responded not once, but twice! And both times manages to miss the point by miles. Plus he goes on an entertaining mini-rant about the APA is using propoganda buzzwords to demonize his libido, or something. Repeat after me: This is NOT about what you do or don't find attractive. It's about how you treat women. Mouse was the one who said sexualized in his post. Sexualization is not about what you THINK of women; it is about what you DO to them. I think I made the distinction between "attraction" and "sexualization" pretty clear in my post, but Mouse continues to respond as if I'm criticizing him for what he finds attractive or sexy.

Right. I'm invoking the Three Post Rule now. I have no more interest in engaging with someone who is more interested in flashing his victim complex than he is actually engaging in a feminist discussion.

EDIT #4: Scott responds and the debate continues in the comments there.

EDIT #5: In the interest of fair discussion pointing and laughing, here's Mouse's third response.

EDIT #6: Another response from Scott.

EDIT #7: A great post by Kalinara on why Wonder Woman's classic costume is pretty damn sensible from an athletic standpoint.

Comments

Hey!

[(Anonymous)]

Don't nobody better say nothing bad about Namor!!

And how about Plastic Man. He had his thighs out and what appeared to be a mesh t-shirt.

Re: Hey!

[nenena.livejournal.com]

Ha! Plastic Man's costume is awesome. ^__^ He's been added to the list!