@Zeeguy91 said:

@Agent9149 said:

The one on the left is sexually exploitive and the one on the right isn't. Why? The one on the left shows the person in a position that show off her body in a forwarding way. She is also on a beach that is warm and invited and many times associated with pleasurable sex. Also her face is warm and inviting. The viewer gets the sense that she is here for her enjoyment. The man on the left isn't in a position that shows off his body in a forwarding way but rather is withdrawn. Also he is in a communal shower, that environment is neither warm or inviting. It is a negative space and is associated with male on male rape. His face shows no sign of amiable feelings and is with drawn. The guys in the back look at him with malice and disdain given an air of confrontation and also him power.

It takes more than a naked body to show sexual exploitative. In fact you can sexually exploit someone who is fully clothed and showing nothing. For that motivational poster to work, then a sexually exploitive picture of the man should have been used.

That is a completely biased argument. For one, there are several instances where a man has been portrayed on a beach in a warm and inviting nature with little to no clothing. Is that deemed sexist? No, because there is a completely sexist notion that women should be the more modest gender. Also, they are making the exact same face in those two pictures. So how is one giving off a sex vibe while the other isn't? Furthermore, a shower is a scene that is definitely associated with fetishizing of the subject to viewers of the opposite sex, even if it is a communal shower. Since when has it not been?

To say that there is a difference in those two images where one is being sexualized while the other isn't is just ridiculous and frankly a bit naive.

What's naïve is too claim that because the guy is showing his muscles, he's being sexualized. It takes more than showing skin to sexualized something. If you show me a picture of guy at the beach with an inviting face on, standing in a position that shows off key aspects of his body, a body that is sexually detailed to perfection then I will show you a picture of someone being sexualized.

@Zeeguy91 said:

Yeah, a web comic that you found online doesn't equate to data either. I'm actually speaking from real life experiences, not some theory that provides no evidence or hard statistics. And, the thing about anecdotes is that when there are enough cases, they actually do turn into the things that we call data and evidence.

Nnnnno it doesn't. There's a reason inductive reasoning is not a scientific standard. Like the fact that all the women in your life seem to like bulkier guys means only that you have an over-representation of only one type of women in your life, possibly precisely because that's the sort of type you attach yourself to (Or you could just be lying, it's the internet, you never know).

And now we could spent the next three days and 100 posts arguing over whether women like macho or skinny dudes and why Robert Pattinson has a career (Quite stupidly so because A. We're not women and B. Like you said, it would be stereotyping) but that's not the point, it's not my point and it's not the comic's point.

The point is that the entire industry is focused on the male point of view. Male superheroes are idealized. They look the way they do because that's how men think men should look like, because that's what men want to look like. That's the whole point of a male power fantasy. Female superheroes are sexualized. They look like that because, again, that's how men think women should look like, because that's the kind of women men want to sleep with. Obviously there is a great deal of overlap because men and women are not cardboard cutouts who fanatically adhere to what their sexual stereotype imposes on them, but by and large the entire process has jack to do with the female opinion on how they want to look like or what they find attractive. Hence my point that the industry caters to men far more then they do to women. Hence False Equivalence.

I think its just time we accept that Starfire is a sexualized character. That's part of her purpose. Now when/if Barbara Gordon does it I think it could be argued that it's exploitive.

@AtPhantom said:

Nnnnno it doesn't. There's a reason inductive reasoning is not a scientific standard. Like the fact that all the women in your life seem to like bulkier guys means only that you have an over-representation of only one type of women in your life, possibly precisely because that's the sort of type you attach yourself to (Or you could just be lying, it's the internet, you never know).

The point is that the entire industry is focused on the male point of view. Male superheroes are idealized. They look the way they do because that's how men think men should look like, because that's what men want to look like. That's the whole point of a male power fantasy. Female superheroes are sexualized. They look like that because, again, that's how men think women should look like, because that's the kind of women men want to sleep with. Obviously there is a great deal of overlap because men and women are not cardboard cutouts who fanatically adhere to what their sexual stereotype imposes on them, but by and large the entire process has jack to do with the female opinion on how they want to look like or what they find attractive. Hence my point that the industry caters to men far more then they do to women. Hence False Equivalence.

Uh, yyyyes it does. What do you think surveys and statistics represent? They are an amalgamation of studies conducted in/on separate and distinct samples/groups of people that eventually form a pattern in their behavior/opinions. Sometimes the sample is skewed towards one side, but many times it is not. And I believe I've been exposed to enough different kinds of women throughout my life that I have a fairly neutral sample of women to base a conclusion on.

And do you actually think men such as myself expect (or even want) to look the way that Batman looks? I don't really want to look like a jacked-up hulk of a person, but believe it or not, people in my life have critiqued the way I look based on that standard. My family (sisters), my friends, etc. have compared the way that I (or other men in their lives) look to say Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Henry Cavill, Channing Tatum, or some other beefcake actor who can look good in spandex. To say that that image doesn't appeal to a good number of women is just a fallacy. Seriously, why do you think they cast these borderline hulky actors in these movies? Because they want to attract a female audience. Try Googling any one of those actors' names and a good amount of the time, you'll be presented with a shirtless picture, where they are overly-muscled and oiled up to appeal to a female demographic. Hell, a good majority of my female friends only went with me to see these movies because they wanted to see the shirtless scenes. And yes, it does put an unrealistic expectation on men to look like that. Yes, some women are into the slashy, anime look, but a lot of women also like the rugged, muscular look.

I pretty much have the same viewpoint as that girl in your comic, except applied to the way that men are portrayed in comics/movies/television. To say the opposite--that all men want to compare themselves to that standard to live out some power fantasy--tries to skew the debate to a more feminist centric perspective. And just to be clear, I am a feminist, but this is an issue that applies to both genders and the way they're expected to look. In some cases, yes some men do want to look like that, but we don't want to have our faces rubbed in the fact that we don't look like that and probably never will. Those men are brought out for one reason and one reason only: to be eye-candy for female viewers.

@Zeeguy91 said:

Uh, yyyyes it does. What do you think surveys and statistics represent? They are an amalgamation of studies conducted in/on separate and distinct samples/groups of people that eventually form a pattern in their behavior/opinions. Sometimes the sample is skewed towards one side, but many times it is not. And I believe I've been exposed to enough different kinds of women throughout my life that I have a fairly neutral sample of women to base a conclusion on.

Anecdotes by definition do not form a neutral sample. They present the sample from a specific perspective, in this case, yours. Whether you think you have a neutral sample or not is irrelevant because, let's face it, you're not a peer reviewed source.

@Zeeguy91 said:

And do you actually think men such as myself expect (or even want) to look the way that Batman looks? I don't really want to look like a jacked-up hulk of a person, but believe it or not, people in my life have critiqued the way I look based on that standard. My family (sisters), my friends, etc. have compared the way that I (or other men in their lives) look to say Chris Evans, Chris Hemsworth, Henry Cavill, Channing Tatum, or some other beefcake actor who can look good in spandex.

Fair enough, but still anecdotal. Male power fantasy is a thing. Look it up.

@Zeeguy91 said:

To say that that image doesn't appeal to a good number of women is just a fallacy. Seriously, why do you think they cast these borderline hulky actors in these movies? Because they want to attract a female audience. Try Googling any one of those actors' names and a good amount of the time, you'll be presented with a shirtless picture, where they are overly-muscled and oiled up to appeal to a female demographic. Hell, a good majority of my female friends only went with me to see these movies because they wanted to see the shirtless scenes. And yes, it does put an unrealistic expectation on men to look like that. Yes, some women are into the slashy, anime look, but a lot of women also like the rugged, muscular look.

Yes, I would love to sit around and let you explain why the guys you mentioned don't have hordes of screaming fangirls following them around like theseand theseand theseand these guys do, but I never said that. Stop trying to make my argument into something it's not and read what I'm writing.

The point isn't that all males want to be superhunks or not, the point isn't whether women like macho or lean. The point is that the comics industry still feels the need to pander to the lowest common denominator, which they assume is the adolescent male who does have these fantasies. You keep fixating on what women like or don't and I'm telling you DC and Marvel don't care because their only goal is to appease the world view of that one type of person they're targeting and any people they piss off or win over along the way are purely accidental.

@PrinceIMC said:

I think its just time we accept that Starfire is a sexualized character. That's part of her purpose.

I accept that Starfire has historically been a sexualized character. I don't accept that she always should be. There's no reason to intentionally degrade characters if an equally good (or better) story could be told with them without doing so.

@AtPhantom said:

@Zeeguy91 said:

Uh, yyyyes it does. What do you think surveys and statistics represent? They are an amalgamation of studies conducted in/on separate and distinct samples/groups of people that eventually form a pattern in their behavior/opinions. Sometimes the sample is skewed towards one side, but many times it is not. And I believe I've been exposed to enough different kinds of women throughout my life that I have a fairly neutral sample of women to base a conclusion on.

Anecdotes by definition do not form a neutral sample. They present the sample from a specific perspective, in this case, yours. Whether you think you have a neutral sample or not is irrelevant because, let's face it, you're not a peer reviewed source.

Ironically, we are peers, currently reviewing. It's not helping though.

@akbogert said:

@PrinceIMC said:

I think its just time we accept that Starfire is a sexualized character. That's part of her purpose.

I accept that Starfire has historically been a sexualized character. I don't accept that she always should be. There's no reason to intentionally degrade characters if an equally good (or better) story could be told with them without doing so.

@AtPhantom said:

@Zeeguy91 said:

Uh, yyyyes it does. What do you think surveys and statistics represent? They are an amalgamation of studies conducted in/on separate and distinct samples/groups of people that eventually form a pattern in their behavior/opinions. Sometimes the sample is skewed towards one side, but many times it is not. And I believe I've been exposed to enough different kinds of women throughout my life that I have a fairly neutral sample of women to base a conclusion on.

Anecdotes by definition do not form a neutral sample. They present the sample from a specific perspective, in this case, yours. Whether you think you have a neutral sample or not is irrelevant because, let's face it, you're not a peer reviewed source.

Ironically, we are peers, currently reviewing. It's not helping though

Sexualization doesnt necessarily mean to be degrading. What about her sexuality is degrading, she has only had sex with Roy. In story speaking, why does her views onn sex and her differences with Earth customs have to mean that is degrading her. She has been that way since day one. The way she assimilates language is through physical touch, usually with a kiss because it expresses embrace, friendship, and unity. Yes there are some stories that may have taken advantage of that, but in RHTO most people judged her way too quickly. Sex for her isnt viewed the same in her culture, and she only did it so he would shut up and stop talking about her past. In our standards it is differnt, and if you really wanna know the character you have to look at it in a different light. She isnt going around sleeping with random guys, she is actually in a relationship with Roy Harper, the extent of that relationship hasnt been explicitly said but they care for each other. To me, her being sexualized is for her only purpose to be eye candy for male readers. Yet, she was misjudged, she showed her skills, and once she changed her uniform people actually payed attention. There are just some people who cant take her seriously just because she is wearing clothing that the reader doesnt agree with, but once she puts on something suitable to their tastes all of a sudden she is an interesting character. It just seems that you want to change her character because you dont approve of it. She has shown what she is physically, emotionally, and personally capable of before the space arc, but no one wanted to admit that. once again, issue 6 was a monumental release for the detractors of Kori, because people judged her too quickly and gave her no credit for who she really was. the funny thing is, all she wore in issue 6 was bikins, and little clothing. But I didnt see a half naked alien tease for male readers, I saw a beautiful kindred spirit both physically and emotionally. But it doesnt matter anymore because of what she wears? Those who view her as a sexualized character and overlook this, are just as bad as those who read the comic to see Kori as a piece of meat.

@wessaari said:

Sexualization doesnt necessarily mean to be degrading. What about her sexuality is degrading, she has only had sex with Roy. In story speaking, why does her views onn sex and her differences with Earth customs have to mean that is degrading her. She has been that way since day one. The way she assimilates language is through physical touch, usually with a kiss because it expresses embrace, friendship, and unity. Yes there are some stories that may have taken advantage of that, but in RHTO most people judged her way too quickly. Sex for her isnt viewed the same in her culture, and she only did it so he would shut up and stop talking about her past. In our standards it is differnt, and if you really wanna know the character you have to look at it in a different light. She isnt going around sleeping with random guys, she is actually in a relationship with Roy Harper, the extent of that relationship hasnt been explicitly said but they care for each other. To me, her being sexualized is for her only purpose to be eye candy for male readers. Yet, she was misjudged, she showed her skills, and once she changed her uniform people actually payed attention. There are just some people who cant take her seriously just because she is wearing clothing that the reader doesnt agree with, but once she puts on something suitable to their tastes all of a sudden she is an interesting character. It just seems that you want to change her character because you dont approve of it. She has shown what she is physically, emotionally, and personally capable of before the space arc, but no one wanted to admit that. once again, issue 6 was a monumental release for the detractors of Kori, because people judged her too quickly and gave her no credit for who she really was. the funny thing is, all she wore in issue 6 was bikins, and little clothing. But I didnt see a half naked alien tease for male readers, I saw a beautiful kindred spirit both physically and emotionally. But it doesnt matter anymore because of what she wears? Those who view her as a sexualized character and overlook this, are just as bad as those who read the comic to see Kori as a piece of meat.

Well, for starters, sexualization =/= sexuality. Sexuality doesn't mean degrading, but sexualization, I think, actually does. Or perhaps a better word, to avoid confusion, would be objectifying. I think objectifying is degrading, and I think that Starfire has always been an objectified character, but I don't think she needs to continue being one. Other people have accused her of being slutty or sleeping around, and I actually completely agree with you that her relationships have been far from slutty. And before going much further, as I seem to find myself constantly having to repeat, I love Starfire and I love RHatO. All of my complaints about her outfit should be read as complaints against the creative team's decision to pander to horny readers, not as complaints against Kori.

Where you and I seem to differ is that you think her being objectified requires her to have no redeeming characteristics other than being eye candy (as per the underlined -- if I'm misreading you, please let me know). And again, while I cannot speak for everyone, I loved Starfire from the beginning. She was always interesting to me. She did not become interesting "all of a sudden" when she put on the suit, nor did she become disinteresting when she took it off. I committed to buying every issue of RHatO on the spot after reading the first TPB, so I agree that she had "show what she is physically, emotionally, and personally capable of before the space arc." I wasn't part of any conversations at that point, and had I been, I'd have said, as I say now, that there's definitely a lot more to her than the costume.

The question is, beyond fanservice -- in other words, beyond blatantly drawing a female character in little more than underwear because people get off to it -- there's little justification for her continuing to wear what she wears. First of all, it does harm. It distracts plenty of people from the story because, well...it's visually distracting. More importantly, it has been confirmed that some readers are put off to the entire series because of how she is portrayed. No, that's not fair, but it's a reality, and if you could be getting those readers in addition to the current ones by simply giving the powerful, respectable lead a more reasonable outfit, why wouldn't you? The answer: because the makers of this book prefer the fanservice route. As was quite nicely put by someone in another thread, pretty much all of the excuses for her near-nudity are flimsy at best, because whether you go from the customs perspective or the heated body perspective or the absorbing solar power perspective, there could be a more modest suit which had been designed with those features in mind.

So the issue is that there are non-story reasons for portraying her the way they do, and the best in-story defense we get is that she's not from around here. That excuse may have gone 30 years ago, but in a progressive, 21st-century society, I'd hope we could recognize that maybe that's a terrible excuse for having an otherwise self-aware and powerful character dress in a way which makes boys drool. Kori is awesome; I just wish the artists had more respect for her than they seem to. Her outfit doesn't make it impossible for me to appreciate her, but if it's a potential hindrance and serves no purpose but fanservice, then wouldn't it be better to change it anyway?

@akbogert said:

@wessaari said:

Sexualization doesnt necessarily mean to be degrading. What about her sexuality is degrading, she has only had sex with Roy. In story speaking, why does her views onn sex and her differences with Earth customs have to mean that is degrading her. She has been that way since day one. The way she assimilates language is through physical touch, usually with a kiss because it expresses embrace, friendship, and unity. Yes there are some stories that may have taken advantage of that, but in RHTO most people judged her way too quickly. Sex for her isnt viewed the same in her culture, and she only did it so he would shut up and stop talking about her past. In our standards it is differnt, and if you really wanna know the character you have to look at it in a different light. She isnt going around sleeping with random guys, she is actually in a relationship with Roy Harper, the extent of that relationship hasnt been explicitly said but they care for each other. To me, her being sexualized is for her only purpose to be eye candy for male readers. Yet, she was misjudged, she showed her skills, and once she changed her uniform people actually payed attention. There are just some people who cant take her seriously just because she is wearing clothing that the reader doesnt agree with, but once she puts on something suitable to their tastes all of a sudden she is an interesting character. It just seems that you want to change her character because you dont approve of it. She has shown what she is physically, emotionally, and personally capable of before the space arc, but no one wanted to admit that. once again, issue 6 was a monumental release for the detractors of Kori, because people judged her too quickly and gave her no credit for who she really was. the funny thing is, all she wore in issue 6 was bikins, and little clothing. But I didnt see a half naked alien tease for male readers, I saw a beautiful kindred spirit both physically and emotionally. But it doesnt matter anymore because of what she wears? Those who view her as a sexualized character and overlook this, are just as bad as those who read the comic to see Kori as a piece of meat.

Well, for starters, sexualization =/= sexuality. Sexuality doesn't mean degrading, but sexualization, I think, actually does. Or perhaps a better word, to avoid confusion, would be objectifying. I think objectifying is degrading, and I think that Starfire has always been an objectified character, but I don't think she needs to continue being one. Other people have accused her of being slutty or sleeping around, and I actually completely agree with you that her relationships have been far from slutty. And before going much further, as I seem to find myself constantly having to repeat, I love Starfire and I love RHatO. All of my complaints about her outfit should be read as complaints against the creative team's decision to pander to horny readers, not as complaints against Kori.

Where you and I seem to differ is that you think her being objectified requires her to have no redeeming characteristics other than being eye candy (as per the underlined -- if I'm misreading you, please let me know). And again, while I cannot speak for everyone, I loved Starfire from the beginning. She was always interesting to me. She did not become interesting "all of a sudden" when she put on the suit, nor did she become disinteresting when she took it off. I committed to buying every issue of RHatO on the spot after reading the first TPB, so I agree that she had "show what she is physically, emotionally, and personally capable of before the space arc." I wasn't part of any conversations at that point, and had I been, I'd have said, as I say now, that there's definitely a lot more to her than the costume.

The question is, beyond fanservice -- in other words, beyond blatantly drawing a female character in little more than underwear because people get off to it -- there's little justification for her continuing to wear what she wears. First of all, it does harm. It distracts plenty of people from the story because, well...it's visually distracting. More importantly, it has been confirmed that some readers are put off to the entire series because of how she is portrayed. No, that's not fair, but it's a reality, and if you could be getting those readers in addition to the current ones by simply giving the powerful, respectable lead a more reasonable outfit, why wouldn't you? The answer: because the makers of this book prefer the fanservice route. As was quite nicely put by someone in another thread, pretty much all of the excuses for her near-nudity are flimsy at best, because whether you go from the customs perspective or the heated body perspective or the absorbing solar power perspective, there could be a more modest suit which had been designed with those features in mind.

So the issue is that there are non-story reasons for portraying her the way they do, and the best in-story defense we get is that she's not from around here. That excuse may have gone 30 years ago, but in a progressive, 21st-century society, I'd hope we could recognize that maybe that's a terrible excuse for having an otherwise self-aware and powerful character dress in a way which makes boys drool. Kori is awesome; I just wish the artists had more respect for her than they seem to. Her outfit doesn't make it impossible for me to appreciate her, but if it's a potential hindrance and serves no purpose but fanservice, then wouldn't it be better to change it anyway?

Idk, would Batman or Superman be the same without the uniforms they are wearing? Now there are obvious differences mind you, but aren't they potentially eye candy for ladies? Isn't every male hero a extremely muscular Adonis? I hear your problems, and I do understand where you are coming from, but I don't think it is the wisest decision to just change something because it is the 21st century and girls shouldn't be dressed as such. It goes back to her culture and her history. Which has been pretty much drilled in, so it bares no repeating.

Could she wear a more practical uniform, well yes of course, I actually like the possible new design they have for her. But her space uniform had a purpose, and it was served. I just see it a different way, and would prefer her in some sort of clothing/armor that is custom to her people. I think it serves more than fanservice, and if people actually try to look past it, than it wouldnt be such a problem.

@wessaari: Well, to address the Superman/Batman thing: both of them have tight outfits that also serve practical purposes. Starfire could be wearing spandex, and it would still be kind of sexual, but I don't think it would be as big of a deal anymore, because so many characters wear tight clothing and yes, if you're fit, that will have a degree of sex appeal to it. It's not that I have an issue with Starfire being "the perfect woman." It's that unlike most "perfect men" she's always walking around in a glorified bikini. As I said in another thread, I think with the New 52 they had a great chance to retcon the old Tamaran and give a cultural backstory that would have made a more modest and equality-sensitive outfit completely canonical. Heck, look at Supergirl: her outfit is still sexy, her body is still hot, but it's a little more progressive. Especially considering how nice the space suit was, it just feels a little bit depressing that she's still being dressed like a slut (not saying she is; saying it's how she's being drawn). She had some nice clothes when she was chilling by the thrones with Blackfire, obviously designed for Tamaran royalty; she seems to have left them in space as well.

One point which hasn't actually been talked about anywhere, at least not that I remember, is the fact that Kori actually kind of doesn't care about her heritage. She did what she did because she had to, but she wanted out as soon as she could get it. She forgave her sister, but that doesn't undo the fact that she was sold and whored out as a sacrifice. So there are reasons for her to try to reject or counter behaviors that are explicitly Tamaran. One of those things could be the clothing. Yeah, that works both ways, as it explains her not keeping the aforementioned garb. But I'm just saying, if a well-intentioned writer wanted to explain Kori suddenly deciding to cover up, he/she definitely could do so. And "more practical," as you said, is I think the point. It doesn't have to be a full-body covering. And she will still likely find herself mostly undressed when on the island, because that's how she rolls. But in combat, a happier medium could definitely be found, if only DC cared enough to try.

@akbogert:

I dont think she doesnt care for her heritage, its the people that she doesnt care for. She still intriduces herself as the Second daughter of Tamaran, and how she is honor bound to intriduce herself as a the princess of Tamaran. That doesnt sound like someone mad at her heritage. Her people on the other hand she has clearly stated her feelings towards. I do agree that Dc had the potential to change certain things that could be improved upon, and if DC had given the Tamaran culture/heritage/clothing a better explanation and even made it a bit more modest, I really dont think I would mind, but I dont mind that they didnt make that choice. They didnt wanna make to many drastic changes in some departments, and for some people are up in arms, others are content that things remain the same.

@wessaari said:

They didnt wanna make to many drastic changes in some departments, and for some people are up in arms, others are content that things remain the same.

Aye. Well, I'm sad they didn't take advantage of it, and I truly do hope that they can make progressive changes to her outfit sooner rather than later.

As far as this thread's topic goes, however...I laugh every time I see the header.

@akbogert said:

@wessaari said:

They didnt wanna make to many drastic changes in some departments, and for some people are up in arms, others are content that things remain the same.

Aye. Well, I'm sad they didn't take advantage of it, and I truly do hope that they can make progressive changes to her outfit sooner rather than later.

As far as this thread's topic goes, however...I laugh every time I see the header.

well that is the OP's opinion my man, and there is evidence in both corners. I think, especially after issue 1 and issue 6's revelations, alot people needed to realize that Starfire was more than eye candy, and there is alot of double standards in comics, and that is what the OP is trying to argue. I happen to agree to an extent that Starfire isnt necessarily sexualized when done right. Art can only count for so much.

@wessaari: I don't think it's so much a matter of opinion as it is a matter of majority perception. If most people are asked what they associate with Starfire, they will say sex/sexy or something along those lines. People who have never even read or looked at an issue feature Starfire, if they've heard of her, have likely heard of her in that context. And (again, pulling from another thread, but based on the responses I got to my blog) most people acknowledge that the sex appeal/fanservice nature is intrinsic to why she was designed in the first place.

We're probably going to go in circles from here on out, but going back to what I said in reply to an earlier post, just because she is "more than eye candy" doesn't mean she's not sexualized/objectified. You can absolutely prove that Starfire has a spine; but you have the overwhelming history and majority opinion against you when you try to argue she's not sexualized. I'm not talking about specific issues or arcs, but the character as a whole -- most of the time, Starfire as something to look at (rather than as a being to interact with), is a factor in her portrayal. You may not actually have a problem with that (many of the people who responded to me didn't have a problem with it), but to actually deny that it happens doesn't really make sense to me, especially when you have some people who just blatantly say "she's a fanservice character" or "she's always been cheesecake." There's gotta be something that makes people say that.

I guess its safe to say, I'm not the biggest fan of the new outfit. They look about the same, but this one looks like an outdated cropped jacket in a bad colour. I rather have the space suit that kenneth rocafort designed.

@wessaari said:

@akbogert said:

@PrinceIMC said:

I think its just time we accept that Starfire is a sexualized character. That's part of her purpose.

I accept that Starfire has historically been a sexualized character. I don't accept that she always should be. There's no reason to intentionally degrade characters if an equally good (or better) story could be told with them without doing so.

@AtPhantom said:

@Zeeguy91 said:

Uh, yyyyes it does. What do you think surveys and statistics represent? They are an amalgamation of studies conducted in/on separate and distinct samples/groups of people that eventually form a pattern in their behavior/opinions. Sometimes the sample is skewed towards one side, but many times it is not. And I believe I've been exposed to enough different kinds of women throughout my life that I have a fairly neutral sample of women to base a conclusion on.

Anecdotes by definition do not form a neutral sample. They present the sample from a specific perspective, in this case, yours. Whether you think you have a neutral sample or not is irrelevant because, let's face it, you're not a peer reviewed source.

Ironically, we are peers, currently reviewing. It's not helping though

Sexualization doesnt necessarily mean to be degrading. What about her sexuality is degrading, she has only had sex with Roy. In story speaking, why does her views onn sex and her differences with Earth customs have to mean that is degrading her. She has been that way since day one. The way she assimilates language is through physical touch, usually with a kiss because it expresses embrace, friendship, and unity. Yes there are some stories that may have taken advantage of that, but in RHTO most people judged her way too quickly. Sex for her isnt viewed the same in her culture, and she only did it so he would shut up and stop talking about her past. In our standards it is differnt, and if you really wanna know the character you have to look at it in a different light. She isnt going around sleeping with random guys, she is actually in a relationship with Roy Harper, the extent of that relationship hasnt been explicitly said but they care for each other. To me, her being sexualized is for her only purpose to be eye candy for male readers. Yet, she was misjudged, she showed her skills, and once she changed her uniform people actually payed attention. There are just some people who cant take her seriously just because she is wearing clothing that the reader doesnt agree with, but once she puts on something suitable to their tastes all of a sudden she is an interesting character. It just seems that you want to change her character because you dont approve of it. She has shown what she is physically, emotionally, and personally capable of before the space arc, but no one wanted to admit that. once again, issue 6 was a monumental release for the detractors of Kori, because people judged her too quickly and gave her no credit for who she really was. the funny thing is, all she wore in issue 6 was bikins, and little clothing. But I didnt see a half naked alien tease for male readers, I saw a beautiful kindred spirit both physically and emotionally. But it doesnt matter anymore because of what she wears? Those who view her as a sexualized character and overlook this, are just as bad as those who read the comic to see Kori as a piece of meat.

You sir just hit the nail on the head.

@sethysquare said:

Starfire has sex with two people and ended up getting emotionally attached to both of them. She's even in a monogamous relationship right now. People cling to two pages where she had a tiny bikini on like their Christmas present depend on it.

It never ceases to amaze me when people respond to an original post and ignore the development of the topic and conversation which has transpired over multiple pages of comments. Added to the fact that people raise the same points in every thread, which are subsequently addressed and dismissed, but ignored so the argument can be raised anew elsewhere, it becomes exhausting to ever make any progress on a given issue.

*le sigh*

@Zeeguy91 said:

@wessaari said:

@akbogert said:

@PrinceIMC said:

I think its just time we accept that Starfire is a sexualized character. That's part of her purpose.

I accept that Starfire has historically been a sexualized character. I don't accept that she always should be. There's no reason to intentionally degrade characters if an equally good (or better) story could be told with them without doing so.

@AtPhantom said:

@Zeeguy91 said:

Uh, yyyyes it does. What do you think surveys and statistics represent? They are an amalgamation of studies conducted in/on separate and distinct samples/groups of people that eventually form a pattern in their behavior/opinions. Sometimes the sample is skewed towards one side, but many times it is not. And I believe I've been exposed to enough different kinds of women throughout my life that I have a fairly neutral sample of women to base a conclusion on.

Anecdotes by definition do not form a neutral sample. They present the sample from a specific perspective, in this case, yours. Whether you think you have a neutral sample or not is irrelevant because, let's face it, you're not a peer reviewed source.

Ironically, we are peers, currently reviewing. It's not helping though

Sexualization doesnt necessarily mean to be degrading. What about her sexuality is degrading, she has only had sex with Roy. In story speaking, why does her views onn sex and her differences with Earth customs have to mean that is degrading her. She has been that way since day one. The way she assimilates language is through physical touch, usually with a kiss because it expresses embrace, friendship, and unity. Yes there are some stories that may have taken advantage of that, but in RHTO most people judged her way too quickly. Sex for her isnt viewed the same in her culture, and she only did it so he would shut up and stop talking about her past. In our standards it is differnt, and if you really wanna know the character you have to look at it in a different light. She isnt going around sleeping with random guys, she is actually in a relationship with Roy Harper, the extent of that relationship hasnt been explicitly said but they care for each other. To me, her being sexualized is for her only purpose to be eye candy for male readers. Yet, she was misjudged, she showed her skills, and once she changed her uniform people actually payed attention. There are just some people who cant take her seriously just because she is wearing clothing that the reader doesnt agree with, but once she puts on something suitable to their tastes all of a sudden she is an interesting character. It just seems that you want to change her character because you dont approve of it. She has shown what she is physically, emotionally, and personally capable of before the space arc, but no one wanted to admit that. once again, issue 6 was a monumental release for the detractors of Kori, because people judged her too quickly and gave her no credit for who she really was. the funny thing is, all she wore in issue 6 was bikins, and little clothing. But I didnt see a half naked alien tease for male readers, I saw a beautiful kindred spirit both physically and emotionally. But it doesnt matter anymore because of what she wears? Those who view her as a sexualized character and overlook this, are just as bad as those who read the comic to see Kori as a piece of meat.

You sir just hit the nail on the head.

This.

@WonderHunter: @Zeeguy91 Well he didn't just hit the nail on the head. He hit it a dozen posts ago and then I analyzed what he said and we went back and forth and came to a much closer to mutual understanding. It does rub me a bit the wrong way when people overlook all that discourse...just saying.

@Teerack said:

Starfire has sex with two people and ended up getting emotionally attached to both of them. She's even in a monogamous relationship right now. People cling to two pages where she had a tiny bikini on like their Christmas present depend on it.

True, but (and I hate to be this guy, so dont see me as a comic-nazi or anything) Kori only slept with Roy. Lobdell said in an interview that Jason lied about being with Kori, mainly to keep Roy away from her but it didnt work :p So in hindsight, your point is better proven because she only slept with one dude since the series started.

@wessaari said:

@Teerack said:

Starfire has sex with two people and ended up getting emotionally attached to both of them. She's even in a monogamous relationship right now. People cling to two pages where she had a tiny bikini on like their Christmas present depend on it.

True, but (and I hate to be this guy, so dont see me as a comic-nazi or anything) Kori only slept with Roy. Lobdell said in an interview that Jason lied about being with Kori, mainly to keep Roy away from her but it didnt work :p So in hindsight, your point is better proven because she only slept with one dude since the series started.

Man as much as I love Kori and Roy. I feel bad for Jason :(

@Teerack said:

@wessaari said:

@Teerack said:

Starfire has sex with two people and ended up getting emotionally attached to both of them. She's even in a monogamous relationship right now. People cling to two pages where she had a tiny bikini on like their Christmas present depend on it.

True, but (and I hate to be this guy, so dont see me as a comic-nazi or anything) Kori only slept with Roy. Lobdell said in an interview that Jason lied about being with Kori, mainly to keep Roy away from her but it didnt work :p So in hindsight, your point is better proven because she only slept with one dude since the series started.

Man as much as I love Kori and Roy. I feel bad for Jason :(

lol, it would definitely be interesting to see Jason with Kori, but he isnt as open with his emotions as Kori is

@wessaari: Hm. I'll have to reread it...I definitely had been under the impression that they had been together, and it's a little lame if the book basically says they did without giving us reason to doubt it and then Lobdell just disclaims it. But if the only evidence we have is Jason being unreliable...like I said, now I feel like going back to reread. Not that it actually affects anything at all, from my standpoint, except maybe that if Jason was talking about sleeping with Kori and hadn't then that adds a little bit of sleaze to him and makes me feel a lot less bad about him playing third wheel. Not that I really feel bad about that...but if I did...

@akbogert said:

@wessaari: Hm. I'll have to reread it...I definitely had been under the impression that they had been together, and it's a little lame if the book basically says they did without giving us reason to doubt it and then Lobdell just disclaims it. But if the only evidence we have is Jason being unreliable...like I said, now I feel like going back to reread. Not that it actually affects anything at all, from my standpoint, except maybe that if Jason was talking about sleeping with Kori and hadn't then that adds a little bit of sleaze to him and makes me feel a lot less bad about him playing third wheel. Not that I really feel bad about that...but if I did...

also in issue 6, when they met for the first time, they never did anything.

@wessaari: Looks like I'll be revisiting Red Hood and the Outlaws: Redemption this week :)

I'm sick of people thinking that just because someone is sexually liberal, they're automatically a bad person. It's a new type of prejudice, is what it is!

@AmazingWebHead: Neither OP nor any of the commenters that I remember actually ever made that point...

@Agent9149: Congrats, you've made the dumbest post on the entire internet!

@TeamUnitedNerds said:

@Agent9149: Congrats, you've made the dumbest post on the entire internet!

Was my post dumb, or were you too challenged to understand it?

@Agent9149: nope your post is dumb

Emma Frost anyone? damn, most part of the x-men crew...

N-n-n-n-n-n-necro'd thread!

she wears like a cut up bathing suit at best she's definitely sexualized