BvS The Wonder Woman Costume Thread - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]469611[/split]

 

[slumcat]

Would you like to see a sexy cleavage baring costume or a more demure one?

Do you want the swim suit finish or pants?

 

[regwec]

I think a black cloak similar to this (only with a hood) would be better suited and wouldn't stand out as much

I actually really like the costume to the left just needs better straps and perhaps some accessories that might make her flesh less easily targetable like the arm bands and choker.

A hooded black cloak? Eh. It doesn't really seem to echo anything from the character or her heritage to me.

Well, yeah. I'm saying I think it would be better if it was just a solid color. Some kind of pattern feels like it's a little bit too much for me.

Just on the trim, then.

 

[bluerayer]

Found these images of Wonder Woman wearing a cape:

 

[The Question]

A hooded black cloak? Eh. It doesn't really seem to echo anything from the character or her heritage to me.

Yeah, it feels a little bit too "Vampire: The Masquerade," which is the wrong kind of Urban Fantasy for Wonder Woman if you ask me.

Just on the trim, then.

Maybe. I feel like just having a solid color would work better. Any kind of pattern just seems unnecessary to me.

 

[haephestus]

Re: Cape/Cloak

I don't mind the addition of a cape for ceremonial purposes or formal functions. I think it would help to establish a "regal" Wonder Woman. The "cape" could even be draped over the front of Wonder Woman's costume for formal occassions to appear like a Grecian dress, but could then be quickly discarded to reveal Wonder Woman's "warrior/superhero" costume underneath if the need arises.

It's kind of the same way that Wonder Woman's trenchcoat seems to function in her stand-alone comic book. When she's out and about in public, Wonder Woman wears her tiara in her hair and wears a long-sleeved trenchcoat over her "standard" costume.

I'm not a fan of a cape when Wonder Woman is knowingly heading into battle. And I'd like Wonder Woman's "default" costume to be as visually distinctive from Superman's costume as possible. Given they already share a similar colour palette with red, blue and gold, I would definitely omit a cape for Wonder Woman.

 

[InJustice]

The WW art just reminds me of this POS

As Question said, it's the wrong side of urban fantasy.

 

[jaymes_e06]

A bright blue cloak might stand out in a crowd....

just sayin.

 

[bluerayer]

The design on the right is all matrix-y...

 

[jaymes_e06]

It's just the one on the left covered with a jacket and some "things" on the shoes.

 

[MrsKent26]

Eh, not fond of the cloak/coat. But a cape could be cool.

 

[LaughingMage]

You're missing the point. Those images I posted aren't designed to show what male characters would wear if they were sexualized. They were made to show that there is a problem with how many female costumes are designed. They just put female costumes on males to show how silly they look on males. And you know what? They look just as silly on females. That's the point. The images are simply pointing out how female costumes are designed and how female characters are posed. It also makes fun of some of the excuses people use to justify these costumes.

Oh and why are they so „silly“ and what is the problem with how it is designed? Right, sexualizing“ the character according to some feminists. So don't pretend it is not about perceived „sexual objectification.“

Besides, they don't look as silly on females as on males since most of them are designed after actual female articles of clothing. Be it bathing stuff or female gym wear (outdated female gym wear, I give you that). Supergirl's classic duds, for example, have very close resemblance to female tennis wear from the 80. However, putting that on a male makes it look silly.

It's like putting a man into an evening dress, in most cases it looks just stupid on him, yet good on a woman. Men and women are kinda different and you can't simply extrapolate things from one sex to the other in most cases. There is a legitimate argument that can be made about sexual representation in comic art but not by simply using female sexual imagery with male characters. To make the argument coherent you have to present male sexualized imagery.

As for the motivation of using these costumes. It's the same reason why the males are drawn with them. Because it is supposed to show off some idealised form of the perfect human body. When you take a closer look Superhero costumes are pretty much glorified body paint, which leads us back to the same topic about male objectification. The aesthetic is again, muscular men dressed in skimpy trunks. Look at Superman's classic duds, The suit has no dimension to it. It might as well be a cape, boots and trunks.

But lets take a look at "modern" Super heroine costumes. I think, they objectify women even more to a degree. Take Cat woman or Captain Marvel or heck, Wonder Woman with her skin tight pants. You know what they look like? Like fetish wear. Like skin tight rubber and spandex cat suits or leggings. They are not only sexualising, they are outright fetishizising the character. Considering that one of the purposes of these kind of outfits is ACTUAL objectification in BDSM play, it doesn't make things better. I mean look at Pfeiffers Catwoman. Does that costume de-sexualize her because she's covered almost head to toe? She looks like a friggin' dominatrix for christ's sake. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ukw8jKzu1qgquvwo1_1280.jpg

And yes, Hathaway also looks like a dominatrix. Even the 60's Catwomen did.

If one would truly want to desexualize comic book imagery you would have to get away from the whole “tight costume” shtick. Heck, I think I know ONE female superhero of whom one could truly say she is not sexualized in any way, when it comes to her look.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/198ab2536607abf267caa137ce986c4d/tumblr_mq5tp7gsBQ1qg65vko1_400.jpg

As as for Tarzan. He isn't sexualized. He's idealized for men. All that oiled up muscle isn't sexualized for women (although some women may enjoy it anyways). It's a male power fantasy. That is the issue with some character depictions. Men are idealized and women are sexualized, both under the male gaze. Both the idealized male and over-sexualized woman are images that are targeted towards men. It's designed so men can picture themselves as this powerful, idealized male who gets all the babes. Tarzan would probably look very different if he was targeted towards and designed by a woman.

A yes, the all pervasive "male gaze" theory. Sorry, not gonna work. I don't buy modern feminist theory. Quite honestly, most of it makes my eyes roll with how ridiculously over the top it is. And I also hate to disappoint you with the "for men it's only meant to be powerful" shtick. As I stated before, I'm kind of more interested in the male sex and you know what you see when you look at mags and media targeted at "gays" in terms of sex appeal? The same kind of representation. Muscles, skimpy trunks, loincloth and so on and so forth. It's a bit of a cop-out that you want to separate "power fantasy" and sexual imagery when it comes to males because that IS part of what male sexual objectification is all about. Now, one could of course talk about the inherent homo eroticism in male sexual objectification but eh, that's a bit of a tangent but to state that representation of males like in the instances I mentioned is not sexual objectification is short sighted and narrow.

Though I do concede that both images are made by men. Which begs the question, what would sexualized imagery made by a lesbian look like. I got a hunch it won't be that different from what a heterosexual male might envision.

I also concede that the way female characters pose is pretty silly. THAT is where I see true sexualisation not necessairly in the outfit.

And you're right about female characters' bodies (and males too). They usually look the same. They're used to sell false ideals of the perfect female/male body. Maybe there should be a chubby superhero to represent a different body type. I'm not even joking.

And I being a bit chubby myself would NOT want that. Why? Because it's a ridiculous concept that reeks of political correctness. A fat Superhero would not be fat for long if he has to endure the physical challenges of the job. Provided, he survives long enough and doesn't get creamed during his first outing.

Though I do admit this is a bit of a tangent topic and since I do not want to derail the thread any further this will be my last comment made about perceived sexual objectification of comic book imagery

 

[The Question]

A yes, the all pervasive "male gaze" theory. Sorry, not gonna work. I don't buy modern feminist theory. Quite honestly, most of it makes my eyes roll with how ridiculously over the top it is. And I also hate to disappoint you with the "for men it's only meant to be powerful" shtick. As I stated before, I'm kind of more interested in the male sex and you know what you see when you look at mags and media targeted at "gays" in terms of sex appeal? The same kind of representation. Muscles, skimpy trunks, loincloth and so on and so forth. It's a bit of a cop-out that you want to separate "power fantasy" and sexual imagery when it comes to malest because that IS part of what male sexual objectification is all about. Now, one could of course talk about the inherent homo eroticism in male sexual objectification but eh, that's a bit of a tangent but to state that representation of males like in the instances I mentioned is not sexual objectification is short sighted and narrow.

Though I do concede that both images are made by men. Which begs the question, what would sexualized imagery made by a lesbian look like. I got a hunch it won't be that different from what a heterosexual male might envision.

So, you're ignoring decades of scholarly research into the fields of sociology and psychology in favor of a hunch.

 

[bluerayer]

A fat Superhero would not be fat for long if he has to endure the physical challenges of the job. Provided, he survives long enough and doesn't get creamed during his first outing.

Wasn't there a fat superhero in the Legion of Super-Heroes?

Also, i seem to remember a fat spiderman?

 

[The Question]

Anyway, this is the kind of design I had in mind for the stars on Wonder Woman's pants:

 

[jaymes_e06]

So, you're ignoring decades of scholarly research into the fields of sociology and psychology in favor of a hunch.

Who's research?

 

[The Question]

Who's research?

Pretty much the entirety of Feminist academia and it's intersections with the fields of psychology and sociology.

 

[InJustice]

Oh and why are they so „silly“ and what is the problem with how it is designed? Right, sexualizing“ the character according to some feminists. So don't pretend it is not about perceived „sexual objectification.“

Who said it wasn't about perceived sexual objectification? A lot of concerns about Wonder Woman's costuming has risen over the concern that she might be objectified...

Besides, they don't look as silly on females as on males since most of them are designed after actual female articles of clothing. Be it bathing stuff or female gym wear (outdated female gym wear, I give you that). Supergirl's classic duds, for example, have very close resemblance to female tennis wear from the 80. However, putting that on a male makes it look silly.

It's like putting a man into an evening dress, in most cases it looks just stupid on him, yet good on a woman. Men and women are kinda different and you can't simply extrapolate things from one sex to the other in most cases. There is a legitimate argument that can be made about sexual representation in comic art but not by simply using female sexual imagery with male characters. To make the argument coherent you have to present male sexualized imagery.

This right here, quite frankly, shows you misunderstood MrsKent and others' concerns on the matter. We're not trying to say that Wonder Woman should have a male's costume in order to quell concerns of (over)sexualization. It's a matter of allowing one can take Wonder Woman seriously. Do you really believe that someone watching Wonder Woman in a one-piece is going to take her seriously amongst other her other superhero contemporaries, who I should re-iterate are dressed fine? A lot of people (mostly men) would either treat her as fap material, or just laugh at her attempts to be badass amongst men.

As for the motivation of using these costumes. It's the same reason why the males are drawn with them. Because it is supposed to show off some idealised form of the perfect human body. When you take a closer look Superhero costumes are pretty much glorified body paint, which leads us back to the same topic about male objectification. The aesthetic is again, muscular men dressed in skimpy trunks. Look at Superman's classic duds, The suit has no dimension to it. It might as well be a cape, boots and trunks.

Just because the suit doesn't have dimension to it, it doesn't mean that it should stay that way. Since then, there have been comic book films and related mediums that show the ways in which costuming can be treated almost linguistically (a sign of one's family crest, metaphor for one's heritage, metaphor for a literal emotion, etc.).

But lets take a look at "modern" Super heroine costumes. I think, they objectify women even more to a degree. Take Cat woman or Captain Marvel or heck, Wonder Woman with her skin tight pants. You know what they look like? Like fetish wear. Like skin tight rubber and spandex cat suits or leggings. They are not only sexualising, they are outright fetishizising the character. Considering that one of the purposes of these kind of outfits is ACTUAL objectification in BDSM play, it doesn't make things better. I mean look at Pfeiffers Catwoman. Does that costume de-sexualize her because she's covered almost head to toe? She looks like a friggin' dominatrix for christ's sake.

And yes, Hathaway also looks like a dominatrix. Even the 60's Catwomen did

If one would truly want to desexualize comic book imagery you would have to get away from the whole “tight costume” shtick. Heck, I think I know ONE female superhero of whom one could truly say she is not sexualized in any way, when it comes to her look.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/198ab2536607abf267caa137ce986c4d/tumblr_mq5tp7gsBQ1qg65vko1_400.jpg

So your response to the debate is to employ a false dilemma fallacy?

A yes, the all pervasive "male gaze" theory. Sorry, not gonna work. I don't buy modern feminist theory. Quite honestly, most of it makes my eyes roll with how ridiculously over the top it is. And I also hate to disappoint you with the "for men it's only meant to be powerful" shtick. As I stated before, I'm kind of more interested in the male sex and you know what you see when you look at mags and media targeted at "gays" in terms of sex appeal? The same kind of representation. Muscles, skimpy trunks, loincloth and so on and so forth. It's a bit of a cop-out that you want to separate "power fantasy" and sexual imagery when it comes to males because that IS part of what male sexual objectification is all about. Now, one could of course talk about the inherent homo eroticism in male sexual objectification but eh, that's a bit of a tangent but to state that representation of males like in the instances I mentioned is not sexual objectification is short sighted and narrow.

Though I do concede that both images are made by men. Which begs the question, what would sexualized imagery made by a lesbian look like. I got a hunch it won't be that different from what a heterosexual male might envision.

I also concede that the way female characters pose is pretty silly. THAT is where I see true sexualisation not necessairly in the outfit.

This part of your argumentation makes absolutely no sense. How can you say the male gaze theory doesn't exist or that feminism is a sham, yet you're well aware that 1) objectification exists and 2) objectification can seep into other sexualities? Which is it? You can't have it both ways if you're against one. Also, just because other sexualities have differing ways of objectifying someone, it doesn't mean that said objectification never exists.

Moreover, we're not saying that objectification exists solely on the outfit, it also comes through mannerisms, attitudes, etc. Which mind you, can still revert to old generation thinking about how women are expected to act.

And the question said it best, you're willing to overlook valid research material into this phenomenon all because you had a hunch?

Though I do admit this is a bit of a tangent topic and since I do not want to derail the thread any further this will be my last comment made about perceived sexual objectification of comic book imagery

It's more like you want to absolve yourself of facing potential critiques into your words from hypesters, due to the fact that the debate on objectifying Wonder Woman has framed the debate since the thread was first posted.

 

[MrsKent26]

Oh and why are they so „silly“ and what is the problem with how it is designed? Right, sexualizing“ the character according to some feminists. So don't pretend it is not about perceived „sexual objectification.“

Yes, it is sexualizing them, according to me and many feminists. I have never pretended it isn't about sexual objectification. That's my point. It is sexual objectification.

Besides, they don't look as silly on females as on males since most of them are designed after actual female articles of clothing. Be it bathing stuff or female gym wear (outdated female gym wear, I give you that). Supergirl's classic duds, for example, have very close resemblance to female tennis wear from the 80. However, putting that on a male makes it look silly.

Of course female clothes look silly on men. I never said it didn't. The drawings were made to draw attention to how female costumes are designed with a much different mindset than male costumes are. And Supergirl is not a tennis player. She's put in a skimpy outfit to look sexy. She's not a real human that dresses for sports. It's a very different scenario.

It's like putting a man into an evening dress, in most cases it looks just stupid on him, yet good on a woman. Men and women are kinda different and you can't simply extrapolate things from one sex to the other in most cases. There is a legitimate argument that can be made about sexual representation in comic art but not by simply using female sexual imagery with male characters. To make the argument coherent you have to present male sexualized imagery.

I don't have to do anything to make my argument coherent. Many other posters understand my points. I didn't make the drawings. Male sexualized imagery has nothing to do with my point, so why would I post that. Male sexualized imagery is not as big of a problem in society. Female objectification is a huge problem because it contributes to a culture of oppression that has plagued us for years. And yes, things are getting better, but we aren't there yet.

As for the motivation of using these costumes. It's the same reason why the males are drawn with them. Because it is supposed to show off some idealised form of the perfect human body. When you take a closer look Superhero costumes are pretty much glorified body paint, which leads us back to the same topic about male objectification. The aesthetic is again, muscular men dressed in skimpy trunks. Look at Superman's classic duds, The suit has no dimension to it. It might as well be a cape, boots and trunks.

You're not going to get my sympathy with this "male objectification" stuff. It is not comparable to what females go through. It is not a component of an oppressive culture because men are not oppressed because of their sex.

Males aren't often sexualized, either. They are idealized, as I said before, by members of their own sex. The muscled bodies and tight clothes on male characters are designed by men. These men didn't intend them to be sexy for females. The intended them to be ideal male forms that the average could imagine being and aspire to. It's called wish-fulfillment.

But lets take a look at "modern" Super heroine costumes. I think, they objectify women even more to a degree. Take Cat woman or Captain Marvel or heck, Wonder Woman with her skin tight pants. You know what they look like? Like fetish wear. Like skin tight rubber and spandex cat suits or leggings. They are not only sexualising, they are outright fetishizising the character. Considering that one of the purposes of these kind of outfits is ACTUAL objectification in BDSM play, it doesn't make things better. I mean look at Pfeiffers Catwoman. Does that costume de-sexualize her because she's covered almost head to toe? She looks like a friggin' dominatrix for christ's sake. http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ukw8jKzu1qgquvwo1_1280.jpg

I know. I have already said things like this. I don't need to be told. I've been going on about this for a while.

And yes, Hathaway also looks like a dominatrix. Even the 60's Catwomen did.

If one would truly want to desexualize comic book imagery you would have to get away from the whole “tight costume” shtick. Heck, I think I know ONE female superhero of whom one could truly say she is not sexualized in any way, when it comes to her look.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/198ab2536607abf267caa137ce986c4d/tumblr_mq5tp7gsBQ1qg65vko1_400.jpg

Yes? And? I'm fine with costumes not being tight.

A yes, the all pervasive "male gaze" theory. Sorry, not gonna work. I don't buy modern feminist theory. Quite honestly, most of it makes my eyes roll with how ridiculously over the top it is. And I also hate to disappoint you with the "for men it's only meant to be powerful" shtick. As I stated before, I'm kind of more interested in the male sex and you know what you see when you look at mags and media targeted at "gays" in terms of sex appeal? The same kind of representation. Muscles, skimpy trunks, loincloth and so on and so forth. It's a bit of a cop-out that you want to separate "power fantasy" and sexual imagery when it comes to malest because that IS part of what male sexual objectification is all about. Now, one could of course talk about the inherent homo eroticism in male sexual objectification but eh, that's a bit of a tangent but to state that representation of males like in the instances I mentioned is not sexual objectification is short sighted and narrow.

It's not for you to buy. It's a true thing that people from an oppressed group have observed, lived, and studied. You cannot discount someone's lived experience. It's ignorant and disrespectful. Male objectification exists. I never said it didn't. It's just not a part of a larger problem like female objectification is. It's much less prevalent and doesn't contribute to the oppression of a group of people.

Though I do concede that both images are made by men. Which begs the question, what would sexualized imagery made by a lesbian look like. I got a hunch it won't be that different from what a heterosexual male might envision.

Yeah? That's fine. Sexualized/pornographic images have their place in society. I'm not saying they shouldn't. I just don't want to see sexualized females in main stream CBMs.

I also concede that the way female characters pose is pretty silly. THAT is where I see true sexualisation not in the outfit.

The outfits and the poses are a problem.

And I being a bit chubby myself would NOT want that. Why? Because it's a ridiculous concept that reeks of political correctness. A fat Superhero would not be fat for long if he has to endure the physical challenges of the job. Provided, he survives long enough and doesn't get creamed during his first outing.

Oh no. Political correctness. We should never try to be unoffensive to people.

Though I do admit this is a bit of a tangent topic and since I do not want to derail the thread any further this will be my last comment made about perceived sexual objectification of comic book imagery

That's fine. You seem to have many misconceptions about the topic.

 

[roach]

and we wonder why it took her son long to be put on the big screen.

 

[The Question]

and we wonder why it took her son long to be put on the big screen.

No we don't. It's pretty clearly been a very sexist trend against female leads in action moves by the major studios. It's always obviously been that.

 

[MrsKent26]

and we wonder why it took her son long to be put on the big screen.

It's the false belief that she's too "complicated." It's ****.

It's very easy to make her a character that isn't over-sexualized and minimized. They just need to focus on making her a character and stop worrying about offending men that throw fits if she's not in a bustier and panties.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

And now for some GENDER EQUALITY.

Spoiler

.of a different species

 

[regwec]

Anyway, this is the kind of design I had in mind for the stars on Wonder Woman's pants: battle skirt

Yes, I like that. You're right to say that the five point star looks too much like something from a modern flag. How would you feel about shifting the star designs towards stylised suns?

 

[charl_huntress]

^^What is going on in this thread?