The Gaming Den

Chamomile wrote:

Prak_Anima wrote:Ok, so she's sexualized. I don't recall dissenting against that (though I may just be forgetting my own words). But again, my real question is, why is that an issue?

Makes her harder to take seriously as a character, makes her appear significantly more vulnerable, less competent, less like a villain and more like the kind of Bond girl who won't survive Act III.

You think Harley's OLD costume made her look less vulnerable and more competent than this one?

That's...interesting. I don't think she was ever intended to look tough or competent at all.

EDIT: The new costume, whatever else it is, is clearly a more aggressive look.

I don't like it, mind, because I liked her old costume, it was cool. But I don't think of the new one as particularly sexual.

Prak wrote:Ok, so she's sexualized. I don't recall dissenting against that (though I may just be forgetting my own words). But again, my real question is, why is that an issue?

Prak wrote:Look, I don't actually see a huge problem with it. If anything the problem lies in the fact that only the female characters are sexualized. I think the use of sexuality by female characters fits a strong minded woman who knows what's going on. Is it deplorable that a male heavy corporation is more likely to let a woman in if she's good looking? yeah, a little bit. But it goes the same way in the other direction. Humans are sexual creatures and have a little bit of a tendency to treat attractive people like objects. Whether that's a woman executive treating a studly delivery boy as a toy, or a male executive treating a sexy woman as a porceline doll. But using that to your advantage, as most female comics characters do, and almost no male comic characters do, isn't wrong, it's smart, and if you have the body and confidence to do it, then why not?

Prak wrote:And once again, what the fuck is wrong with sexuality? No one has answered this one. So she is sexual, so she is willing to reveal some (to others a lot of) skin. So fucking what?

Prak wrote:What the fuck is it with this continuing Madonna and the Whore medieval fear of female sexuality bullshit?
http://www.toplessrobot.com/2011/06/har ... _squad.php [Topless Robot, Questionable FW, Harley Quinn's post-reboot costume]

Seriously, I don't get it. Namor runs around in a speedo, and that's fine. Martian Manhunter's costume is a bondage harness, boots, and a speedo, and that's fine. Harley Quinn puts on short shorts, thigh highs and a corset, and she's a slut? what?

This is one of those scenarios for me where I have an instinctive reaction, and putting words to it is a lot tougher (and not necessarily a good thing). So I've pondered this line of questioning for the last few days...

Reading over your comments, something struck me. You're talking about Harley's costume change as though she were the one deciding to change her clothes.

She's not.

She's a character who doesn't make decisions about her own appearance. Instead, people at DC make decisions about her appearance based on what they think will make them money. Since the target audience of these comics is predominately male, Harley ends up wearing an outfit that shows off her boobies... Not because she's a proud, strong woman embracing her sexuality, but because her boobs are a marketing technique that screams, "buy me."

And that's why, in superheroine world, you can only be awesome if you're strong, proud, and hot. Don't even bother trying if you don't look good - you have no reason to be strong and/or proud unless you can wear Lara Croft's clothes. Beauty is a prerequisite for superpowers.

Personally, I understand that companies - not just comic books - use tits and ass as billboards for selling their products. But as a woman, when I see something successfully marketed in a way that doesn't imply I have to look like that to be awesome, it makes me feel a lot better about being myself.

Maj wrote:And that's why, in superheroine world, you can only be awesome if you're strong, proud, and hot. Don't even bother trying if you don't look good - you have no reason to be strong and/or proud unless you can wear Lara Croft's clothes. Beauty is a prerequisite for superpowers.

Personally, I understand that companies - not just comic books - use tits and ass as billboards for selling their products. But as a woman, when I see something successfully marketed in a way that doesn't imply I have to look like that to be awesome, it makes me feel a lot better about being myself.

Doesn't this sort of dodge the question of the idealized character, though? All of our favorite actors and actresses are extremely physically attractive, and virtually everyone prefers attractive characters to unattractive characters. All the "awesome" male superheroes are also super-humanly attractive.

echo

Maj: Out of curiosity what do you think of the recent Slut walks? I've had a couple of my friends take part. Really, I would as well. But I've had others, wife included, who think it's a step in the wrong direction.

It kinda goes with the idea that companies sell products through sex.

Maj, believe me, I know the feeling. Have you had to sit next to two friends you're attracted to, and hear them drool over Jeff Goldblum's acrobatics stunt double in The Fly? I have, and I hate it every time I hear women drool over some Adonis-bodied pretty boy because it will never be me. I've got a body more akin to Hephestus, and no trophy wife being told to marry me by her father (just as well, as under this analogy, she'd be cheating on me with my nephew). So I know exactly how you feel when comics are saying "If you don't look like a grecian statue brought to life, you don't exist" but I don't begrudge Martian Manhunter or Batman their bodies or costumes that coincidentally accentuate their chests and asses. (oh, and on a side note, I'm as jealous of Harley's body as I am that of pretty much any male comic character)

But that doesn't make me have a problem with characters in revealing outfits, just makes me jealous (not that I'm accusing you of such).

echo wrote:Doesn't this sort of dodge the question of the idealized character, though? All of our favorite actors and actresses are extremely physically attractive, and virtually everyone prefers attractive characters to unattractive characters. All the "awesome" male superheroes are also super-humanly attractive.

Perhaps I confused beauty and clothing aesthetic too much in my last post.

I get that superheroes are idealized people in fabulous shape - hence the muscles and chiseled physique. I actually don't have too much of a problem with that. I also understand the general idea that movement in loose clothing can be constricting (though what's up with capes I'll never know), so I can accept the skin tight outfits. Yet women who work out and are extraordinarily physically fit tend to not have a big butt and bouncing boobies, and the idea of shrinking clothing as an improvement to sexiness is just sad.

Not all super-heroines have that drastic of a costume change, but I think Harley's is clearly a case of more boobies = more money.

Cynic wrote:Maj: Out of curiosity what do you think of the recent Slut walks? I've had a couple of my friends take part. Really, I would as well. But I've had others, wife included, who think it's a step in the wrong direction.

It kinda goes with the idea that companies sell products through sex.

Oh, the SlutWalks. I remember reading about those, and I think the point is a good one: Walking around in [next to] nothing is not permission to be raped. Bear with me here because I'm going to wander a bit.

A few years ago, I read Cities of Salt, by Abdelrahman Munif. One of the lines in it was particularly memorable.

Cities of Salt wrote:What the emir was saying could not be believed, a man could not imagine such a thing: real naked women, wandering among men on the deck of the ship? How could the men stand to have them walking around and coming near without burning up, without exploding like gunpowder, without sticking themselves like tent pegs into every crevice of those warm beautiful bodies?

The line shows the mentality of the male Arabs listening to a tale of American visitors. To someone who is used to women being completely smothered in fabric, showing a little ankle is scandalous, let alone something like a bikini. Something similar happened with the Flappers last century. Girls ditched the Victorian floor-length dresses for alternatives that came to their knees! And the result was [debatably] being called something akin to a prostitute.

We look at both of those scenarios and can laugh because women wear far less than that now and we're all just sort of used to it. Our standards of what constitutes "slutty" changes over time.

I think it will happen again, but it can't be something limited to the beautiful - it has to be accepted as normal by a large majority of people. So long as society has issues with stuff like breastfeeding or old boobs or ugly boobs, the battle will be uphill. Women who wear revealing clothing will continue to be labeled sluts because boobs have the defined purpose of titillating, and advertising based on the billboard boobie theory will continue to sell products.

I also don't think that the language is conducive to including women who support the idea but don't like being called a slut. A slut is woman who sleeps around. I don't personally care if that's someone's thing, but it's not mine. I don't like being addressed as "Miss" because I'm married and damned proud of that, and I don't like being called "slut" because I'm not. So participating in something called SlutWalk is not anything I want to be associated with.

While I think that SlutWalk has a good purpose, I don't think it will do any good - precisely because the language of the movement is in the terms of the exact problem. I perceive the actual problem as a redefinition of modesty and the idea that women who wear less aren't intent on titillation, not that sluts are people, too.

You think Harley's OLD costume made her look less vulnerable and more competent than this one?

Yes. She wasn't significantly competent/tough, but the implication of vulnerability was subtle. Much like the Joker himself is subtle. He isn't splattered with blood or wearing the teeth of his enemies as a necklace or covered in skulls. He's wearing a purple zoot suit and facepaint. There's restraint on the artist's part in order to better convey the character.

Maj wrote:While I think that SlutWalk has a good purpose, I don't think it will do any good - precisely because the language of the movement is in the terms of the exact problem. I perceive the actual problem as a redefinition of modesty and the idea that women who wear less aren't intent on titillation, not that sluts are people, too.

You are wrong. Of course you think that, because you are not a slut, and you don't care about sluts.

You perceive the problem as a redefinition of modesty, I perceive the problem as modesty. It's okay to not be modest. Some people wear less clothing to look attractive, and the thing where people treat that as bad is in fact a problem.

Kaelik wrote:It's okay to not be modest. Some people wear less clothing to look attractive, and the thing where people treat that as bad is in fact a problem.

Since I don't see the concept of modesty disappearing any time soon, then the only recourse is to change what "modest" means. What we label immodest and use to define a woman as a slut must be made normal.

You should not look at a woman wearing next to nothing and say, "She's a slut." Period. Labeling a woman based on the square inches of her attire is disgusting. But loving sluts doesn't do anything to address the fact that women are still being labeled "slut" to begin with in response to their clothes.

So sluts shouldn't be raped because they're people, too. I agree with that. But why is it OK to call them sluts to begin with?

Going about it from the opposite direction and co-opting the word "slut" and changing it to mean a woman who wears as little as possible, doesn't change the fact that actually wearing next to nothing is still socially unacceptable.

Maj wrote:So sluts shouldn't be raped because they're people, too. I agree with that. But why is it OK to call them sluts to begin with?

Because some people are sluts, and that's not a bad thing.

Seriously, WTF.

Well, I guess racism isn't going to ever go away, so we should really just focus on redefining superior race to include Asians and Arabs.

Oh wait, that's not helpful at all. The thing where you are fighting super hard to make it totally okay to wear less clothing because "It's not like people who wear less clothing are doing it because they are one of those horrible shitty people that enjoy having sex!" is the dumbest thing ever, and it is terrible.

What you are saying is exactly 100% identical to saying "Not all brown people are as bad as Africans." Being African is not bad, and enjoying and wanting to have sex is not bad. Being a slut is not bad, so when you defend women who wear less clothing as being fine because they are not those bad people who enjoy sex, you are condemning all the people who do enjoy sex, and they don't deserve your condemnation.

Saying it's wrong to call someone wearing slutty clothing a slut is exactly like saying it's offensive to call a Korean Chinese, it implies there is something wrong with sluts/Chinese that makes it an insult to make the mistake.

EDIT: No one is trying to change the meaning of slut. It can still mean "someone who wants to have a lot of sex" the part that is pissing me off about you is that you are sitting here saying that it's okay to defend women who wear less clothing, but we definitely shouldn't do it in a way that also defends women who want to have sex, because those people are actually bad, and it would be wrong to associate someone of your good strong uplifting moral character with those trashy sluts who are good for nothing subhumans.

I don't really see how this is related to Slut Walks, except tangentially. Granted, all I've heard of them is hearsay, but isn't the point of Slut Walks that some police guy said "don't dress slutty to avoid being raped" and then everyone got all worked up over it? No one, except perhaps the police chief if you're a misanthrope/misandrist/just don't like cops, ever implied that sluts deserved to be raped, or that it's an unacceptable to sleep around a lot, or that people should be able to wear bikinis and thongs and not be called sluts, or whatever.

Chamomile wrote:I don't really see how this is related to Slut Walks, except tangentially. Granted, all I've heard of them is hearsay, but isn't the point of Slut Walks that some police guy said "don't dress slutty to avoid being raped" and then everyone got all worked up over it? No one, except perhaps the police chief if you're a misanthrope/misandrist/just don't like cops, ever implied that sluts deserved to be raped, or that it's an unacceptable to sleep around a lot, or that people should be able to wear bikinis and thongs and not be called sluts, or whatever.

Maj thinks it's bad to defend sluts as good people, and that instead we should just tell everyone that women who dress slutty are not actually sluts, and that's the reason that women who dress slutty are not bad people, because they are not actually sluts.

The implication of that defense, is of course, that sluts are bad people. As I just made fourteen analogous arguments that demonstrate how fucked up that kind of reasoning is, and how obvious the implication of sluts=bad she is making is.

The statements "But loving sluts doesn't do anything to address the fact that women are still being labeled "slut" to begin with in response to their clothes." and "But why is it OK to call them sluts to begin with?" only make sense if sluts are bad.

The problem is not that women who are not sluts are being confused with sluts. Just like the problem is not that Chinese people are being confused with Koreans.

The problem is that people, Maj included, think that being a slut is bad.

So it breaks down like this:

There is a woman, who doesn't wear a lot of clothing. This person may or may not enjoy having sex very much with multiple partners.

Lots of men, and even more women, will treat this woman like shit.

Maj thinks that people should not treat this woman like shit, because the fact that she is not wearing a lot of clothing does not necessarily mean that she enjoys having sex with multiple partners.

Maj also thinks it's okay to treat this person like shit (but not rape them, just socially ostracize and generally be a bitch to them) as long as it is in fact true that they enjoy having sex with multiple people.

Maj's solution to the problem of the woman getting treated like shit is to emphasize that this woman might not be a slut. Because to her, the problem is that non sluts are treated like sluts.

My problem is that people treat sluts badly. And yes, if they incorrectly identify someone who is not a slut as a slut, they will treat them badly too. But if we fix the problem of people thinking that sluts deserve to be treated badly, we fix the problem of the woman being treated badly.

Maj's solution in defense of the woman is one that works cross purposes to the more important goal of protecting all women, both slut and non slut, from unjustly being treated like shit.

Of course, implicit in all this is the fact that I consider being a slut to be a good thing (or at least, a neutral thing) whereas Maj considers it to be a flaw, maybe one you tolerate in people, but still a flaw.

I got the arguments, I'm just not seeing the relevance to the Slut Walks.

I would rather just phase out use of the word "slut".

A female who enjoys sex or sexuality. Do we really need more (any?) derogatory words for that?

Fuckin Puritan legacies.

erik wrote:I would rather just phase out use of the word "slut".

A female who enjoys sex or sexuality. Do we really need more (any?) derogatory words for that?

Fuckin Puritan legacies.

There are people who like to be called sluts....

And we like those people.

I would like those people more if they would have more sex with me .

I have two big problems with Harley's costume. First, that top doesn't actually squeeze her boobs properly. I want a proper tight fit that accentuates them, not some clothing drawn over a nude. I mean, fuck- those breasts are just dangling like nothing is touching them.

Second, I recently saw an article here which says that the editors have proclaimed that female superheroes will wear more practical clothing- basically trousers. This is bullshit because it means that only villains can show their legs and be sexualised. As in, sexualised outfits are only for evil people and sexuality is evil.

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I would like those people more if they would have more sex with me .

Check out more fetish sites. I would suggest fetlife, it's like facebook (seriously) but for people to be kinky.

Parthenon wrote:Second, I recently saw an article here which says that the editors have proclaimed that female superheroes will wear more practical clothing- basically trousers. This is bullshit because it means that only villains can show their legs and be sexualised. As in, sexualised outfits are only for evil people and sexuality is evil.

Evil is Sexy.
And while I would have a problem with the implication that sexuality is evil, the good guys having prudish and puritanical morals is nothing new. Basically, I'm extremely used to the "Good is Dumb" trope and it applying to sexuality.

My problems with the costume basically amount to "It looks nothing like a Harlequin, and therefore is not something Harley Quinn should be wearing."

Kaelik wrote:My problems with the costume basically amount to "It looks nothing like a Harlequin, and therefore is not something Harley Quinn should be wearing."

Which is a fair problem, it's my problem with the superman reboot costume (below)

But I do feel like the new Harley costume is something she'd wear, though that may be due to the fact that it's definitely something a lot of the women I know who love Harley would wear.

Kaelik wrote:The problem is that people, Maj included, think that being a slut is bad.

No. I think actually being a slut is utterly irrelevant and not the issue at all.

But whatev... It's quite obvious that you've decided what I think and believe, so next time I'll just post fdlkjgha ldkfklah rfgkafdh gkljdfhg and let you translate from there. If nothing else, it will save me time.

Maj wrote:

Kaelik wrote:The problem is that people, Maj included, think that being a slut is bad.

No. I think actually being a slut is utterly irrelevant and not the issue at all.

But whatev... It's quite obvious that you've decided what I think and believe, so next time I'll just post fdlkjgha ldkfklah rfgkafdh gkljdfhg and let you translate from there. If nothing else, it will save me time.

I love it when people try to pretend they totally didn't say any of the things they said.

You just spent three posts whining about how terrible it is to call women sluts, and how you think the slut walk is bad because the important thing to get across is that people who dress slutty are not trying to titillate, and so shouldn't be thought badly of, and not that sluts are not deserving of condemnation.

This is my last post because I think you've pretty much forgotten what the topic is. It's SlutWalk, not sluts.

Women liking to have sex with lots of men has absolutely nothing to do with thinking that the amount of clothing a woman wears inversely correlates to rape (even though it actually doesn't). And it is precisely that confusion that is the problem with SlutWalk.

Accepting sluts as OK will not stop people from saying stupid shit like, "wearing skimpy clothes invites rape." The problem there is with the idea of skimpy clothes being bad, not being a slut.

Women (and guys) are free to sleep with whoever they want to. I don't care. Like I said before, I don't like being called a slut because I'm not one. But like I also said before, I don't like being called "Miss," either. That doesn't mean I hate single people.

Maj wrote:I think you've pretty much forgotten what the topic is. It's SlutWalk, not sluts.

So Slutwalk was the main topic of conversation for the last 5 pages, and Harley Quinn's outfit, and the gender issues of comic book women was just an aside that was thrown in the last paragraph of a post about slutwalk.

Or wait, it's the exact opposite, and the issue has been sluttiness and slutty dressing for the last 5 pages, with slutwalk showing up in five posts.