Outfits of female Heroes: Functional of Fan Service?

In the age of political correctness and hyper-sensitivity, one issue that seems to have crept into the consciousnesses of comic book writers, readers and critics is the attire of female comic book characters. There are two clearly divided sides on the issue. First there is the 'anti-objectification' side that says the skimpy clothes of popular female characters are impractical and serve no purpose other than titillation for male readers. On the other side is the 'less-is-more' camp which says that comics are art, and art should maximize visual appeal. This is an topic that really gets under my skin, and honestly, this post is my final attempt to settle an argument that I have been having for months with a friend who has bought into the cover-em-up propaganda.
 
Now, let me be very clear. I am staunchly a 'less-is-more' advocate. To me, there might not be anything more aesthetically pleasing than a well built woman in a form fitting outfit. But my question is this: does skimpy or form fitting automatically mean impractical? The 'anti-objectification' camp argues yes. They are wrong. Now, here is where I could launch a 5 paragraph dissertation why outfits with less restriction of movement are much better for the physical activities that heroines engage in, but lets face it; pictures are worth a thousand words. So what do women who regularly perform feats of near super-human speed, dexterity and athleticism actually wear? 
 

Agree

Starfire. 'Nuff said.

@_Marco_Smith_: No, that would be an example of fan service, pure and simple.

The difference between the women that you've shown here and what we generally see in comics is breast support. Comic book women are far too busty for the clothing that they wear to even be comfortable, much less functional.

Ok...I agree, there are some examples of outfits that are hard to defend as more than fan-service and Starfire's outfit is extraordinarily revealing. But let me just throw something out there. Humor me for a sec... From the Starfire page in this very site, under Powers and Abilities... 
"Starfire's body continually absorbs ultraviolet radiation, which she then converts into the energy that powers her starbolts and her ability to fly. " 
 
Now, if her body absorbs UV rays as a source of energy, wouldn't it make sense to maximize her exposure to those rays? Sure, that could be a case of retroactive justification (just made that up), but I think it falls into the category of form (visual appeal) and function (serving a purpose). 

Now, if her body absorbs UV rays as a source of energy, wouldn't it make sense to maximize her exposure to those rays? 

Taking Cammy from Street Fighter as an example, her outfit is actually incredibly functional for the level of acrobatics she is expected to perform for her particular style of fighting. However, it's clear that, based upon the camera angles and poses that she strikes, the creators of Street Fighter wish for her to be taken as the "fan-service" character, in contrast to the more modestly dressed Chun-Li. (Even though Cammy's role as fan-service has become less and less prominent as she has developed from game to game.) Or, returning to comic books, there's no real reason why we had to see Dove's "tail" in this shot of Birds of Prey, except to provide some completely superficial titillation:
 

@cosmo111687 said:

However, it's clear that, based upon the camera angles and poses that she strikes, the creators of Street Fighter wish for her to be taken as the "fan-service" character, in contrast to the more modestly dressed Chun-Li.

Are you talking about her days in the tracksuit and not her signature stockings + ripped shirt combo?

Good topic, I agree =)

@Morgaine_de_Bourbon: Because Supes is a man silly. Men don't look attractive wearing skimpy outfits, unless you're Billy Herrington. You get a free pass on that one.

Frankly it would make more sense for kryptonians to fight naked.

I would be okay with that...

I would be easier to change to his superhero outfit. 
 
"Here he comes to save the day! Superman is streaking his way!"

I can't 100% agree with the OP. Pyslocke was one of the first people that popped into my mind when I read the topic. Once upon a time a special suit was created for Elizabeth's best friend, Alison Blaire, or Dazzler to some, that would absorb and store sound for her to use later. With that kind of tech roaming around, there's no reason why Psy should have to dawn a bikini and use flexibility as her reason for doing so.

All female characters don't need to be covered from the neck down. Someone like Monet St. Croix who is near totally invulnerable, can wear whatever she wants as being hit with a car does nothing to her, but someone like Psylocke, who has died before, should consider finding something new to wear.

I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. Costumes can still be sexy and sparse while being functional. It's when you have characters like Slutfire whose costume is pure fanservice while having absolute no functionality that make me not agree with the entire statement itself.  
 
If it makes sense, sure, let the skin show. But if it's being done purely for shock value or for fan service purposes, then screw it. 

@cosmo111687 said:

However, it's clear that, based upon the camera angles and poses that she strikes, the creators of Street Fighter wish for her to be taken as the "fan-service" character, in contrast to the more modestly dressed Chun-Li.

Are you talking about her days in the tracksuit and not her signature stockings + ripped shirt combo?

I can't 100% agree with the OP. Pyslocke was one of the first people that popped into my mind when I read the topic. Once upon a time a special suit was created for Elizabeth's best friend, Alison Blaire, or Dazzler to some, that would absorb and store sound for her to use later. With that kind of tech roaming around, there's no reason why Psy should have to dawn a bikini and use flexibility as her reason for doing so.

All female characters don't need to be covered from the neck down. Someone like Monet St. Croix who is near totally invulnerable, can wear whatever she wants as being hit with a car does nothing to her, but someone like Psylocke, who has died before, should consider finding something new to wear.

Personally...  I think they're all just comic characters, and it doesn't really matter.  Not everything has to make sense, if a character has a cool look; let 'em have it!  If a silly outfit is enough to bother someone that much, they don't need to read it!  Go read a different comic.  Renee Montoya has a pretty plausible outfit, go read The Question if skin tight outfits bother you that much.  To me, part of the whole Superhero theme is to keep with some kind of tried and true tradition; and in that tradition is silly costumes and preposterous body proportions.  There are so many threads ragging on what girls wear, but male characters have some ridiculous things going on too.  Muscles upon muscles upon muscles.  Superman's chest measurement has to be Obscene in some of the comics.  Hell, look at Magneto!  I wish I was in half as good of shape as that WW II Concentration Camp victim is!  Even Professor X has been shown as being pretty meaty, but you never see him curling weights in his wheelchair. (Unless that is, using his mind powers somehow also works out his muscles...) 
 
All in all, people should just lighten up...

@destruct0 said:

Personally...  I think they're all just comic characters, and it doesn't really matter.  Not everything has to make sense, if a character has a cool look; let 'em have it!  If a silly outfit is enough to bother someone that much, they don't need to read it!  Go read a different comic.  Renee Montoya has a pretty plausible outfit, go read The Question if skin tight outfits bother you that much.  To me, part of the whole Superhero theme is to keep with some kind of tried and true tradition; and in that tradition is silly costumes and preposterous body proportions.  There are so many threads ragging on what girls wear, but male characters have some ridiculous things going on too.  Muscles upon muscles upon muscles.  Superman's chest measurement has to be Obscene in some of the comics.  Hell, look at Magneto!  I wish I was in half as good of shape as that WW II Concentration Camp victim is!  Even Professor X has been shown as being pretty meaty, but you never see him curling weights in his wheelchair. (Unless that is, using his mind powers somehow also works out his muscles...)  All in all, people should just lighten up...

Ok...I agree, there are some examples of outfits that are hard to defend as more than fan-service and Starfire's outfit is extraordinarily revealing. But let me just throw something out there. Humor me for a sec... From the Starfire page in this very site, under Powers and Abilities... 
"Starfire's body continually absorbs ultraviolet radiation, which she then converts into the energy that powers her starbolts and her ability to fly. "  Now, if her body absorbs UV rays as a source of energy, wouldn't it make sense to maximize her exposure to those rays? Sure, that could be a case of retroactive justification (just made that up), but I think it falls into the category of form (visual appeal) and function (serving a purpose). 

of course they're fan service 
 
i think of comics like the WWE, it consists of extremely buff and overly macho men, and a bunch of scantily clad women who act as heroes to their fans 
 

 Just to add in my little rant there...  If anyone is mad about scantily clad impractical outfits, I would like to introduce you to the Martian Manhunter.  Take a moment to really look at him sometime, what the hell is that?  He looks like a big green Dom with a cape. 
 

@JBBuc said:

Ok...I agree, there are some examples of outfits that are hard to defend as more than fan-service and Starfire's outfit is extraordinarily revealing. But let me just throw something out there. Humor me for a sec... From the Starfire page in this very site, under Powers and Abilities... 
"Starfire's body continually absorbs ultraviolet radiation, which she then converts into the energy that powers her starbolts and her ability to fly. "  Now, if her body absorbs UV rays as a source of energy, wouldn't it make sense to maximize her exposure to those rays? Sure, that could be a case of retroactive justification (just made that up), but I think it falls into the category of form (visual appeal) and function (serving a purpose). 

Following that logic wouldn't it be "practical" for Superman to fly around in a spedo so he could absorb more of the suns rays? Maybe that might be viewed as fan service for women. I'd like to see what guys would think of that if the roles were reversed...

I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. Costumes can still be sexy and sparse while being functional. It's when you have characters like Slutfire whose costume is pure fanservice while having absolute no functionality that make me not agree with the entire statement itself.   If it makes sense, sure, let the skin show. But if it's being done purely for shock value or for fan service purposes, then screw it. 

@Morgaine_de_Bourbon said:

I agree with the sentiment wholeheartedly. Costumes can still be sexy and sparse while being functional. It's when you have characters like Slutfire whose costume is pure fanservice while having absolute no functionality that make me not agree with the entire statement itself.   If it makes sense, sure, let the skin show. But if it's being done purely for shock value or for fan service purposes, then screw it. 

LOL..."Slutfire".  Obviously it's fanservice, but it's explained in the comics that she really doesn't care about or understand human conventions about clothing and modesty...:-)

With costumes, it's not an either-or thing. Sometimes lighter costumes are more practical, sometimes heavier ones are more practical, and it's always going to vary based on character. The thing is that the question of image goes far beyond whether a woman's outfit could conceivably be practical/realistic.
  
For example, you can consider bodies instead of just costumes. Female characters may wear clothes appropriate for athletes, but still, they're generally not drawn to the proportions of athletes. They're drawn to the proportions of models, with large hips and busts, long legs, and narrow waists. Both men and women are often drawn in idealized ways in comics, but men are drawn to idealistic standards of strength, whereas women are drawn to idealistic standards of beauty. And then there's the tendency of women, beyond their character designs, to be physically drawn in more sexual or glamorous poses, even when it's not an organic part of the story. I'm not saying women in comics should never be sexy, but when that becomes a definitive trait of women in comics as a whole, then that's a problem, not because it's politically incorrect, but because it's bad storytelling. 
 
I say you have to look at the big picture:

As the OP mentioned, comics are an art form. They're a highly visual medium, so much of the story is told visually. How a character looks reflects who that character is. Batman dresses in black, with a cloak and mask, to hide in the shadows and shroud himself in mystery and fear. Green Arrow dresses up like Robin Hood, because he sees himself as a defender of the weak. Male characters run the full spectrum in appearance; some are handsome, some are grim and gritty, some are deformed and hideous. Some of these characters can be drawn in sexy ways (I myself kind of have a thing for Dick Grayson), but many can never be made sexy no matter how hard you try (say, the Penguin, or Etrigan, or many, many others). Comics have female characters who range from assassins to scientists, from symbols of justice to destroyers of worlds. Naturally, some female characters can also be drawn in sexy ways, but when this is something that becomes typical, or even expected of most female characters, and you have very few female characters who are visually scary and intimidating, or gritty, or modest, or ugly, then that's not art. That's glamor/sex appeal coming at the expense of art and to the detriment of good storytelling.
 
I love pretty characters like Black Canary and Catwoman as much as the next reader. It's only a problem when you have far too many Catwomen and Black Canaries, and far too few Renee Montoyas and Granny Goodnesses.

With costumes, it's not an either-or thing. Sometimes lighter costumes are more practical, sometimes heavier ones are more practical, and it's always going to vary based on character. The thing is that the question of image goes far beyond whether a woman's outfit could conceivably be practical/realistic.  For example, you can consider bodies instead of just costumes. Female characters may wear clothes appropriate for athletes, but still, they're generally not drawn to the proportions of athletes. They're drawn to the proportions of models, with large hips and busts, long legs, and narrow waists. Both men and women are often drawn in idealized ways in comics, but men are drawn to idealistic standards of strength, whereas women are drawn to idealistic standards of beauty. And then there's the tendency of women, beyond their character designs, to be physically drawn in more sexual or glamorous poses, even when it's not an organic part of the story. I'm not saying women in comics should never be sexy, but when that becomes a definitive trait of women in comics as a whole, then that's a problem, not because it's politically incorrect, but because it's bad storytelling.  I say you have to look at the big picture:As the OP mentioned, comics are an art form. They're a highly visual medium, so much of the story is told visually. How a character looks reflects who that character is. Batman dresses in black, with a cloak and mask, to hide in the shadows and shroud himself in mystery and fear. Green Arrow dresses up like Robin Hood, because he sees himself as a defender of the weak. Male characters run the full spectrum in appearance; some are handsome, some are grim and gritty, some are deformed and hideous. Some of these characters can be drawn in sexy ways (I myself kind of have a thing for Dick Grayson), but many can never be made sexy no matter how hard you try (say, the Penguin, or Etrigan, or many, many others). Comics have female characters who range from assassins to scientists, from symbols of justice to destroyers of worlds. Naturally, some female characters can also be drawn in sexy ways, but when this is something that becomes typical, or even expected of most female characters, and you have very few female characters who are visually scary and intimidating, or gritty, or modest, or ugly, then that's not art. That's glamor/sex appeal coming at the expense of art and to the detriment of good storytelling. I love pretty characters like Black Canary and Catwoman as much as the next reader. It's only a problem when you have far too many Catwomen and Black Canaries, and far too few Renee Montoyas and Granny Goodnesses.