JanerBlog

#1: I don't know if disqualifier 1 is *entirely* fair, since there are quite a few teams that have used essentially unisex uniforms at various points in their history (e.g. X-Men), and it's fairly significant that they DON'T have different uniforms for the female members, but just all use the same basic bodysuit.

Leaving those aside, though, I've been browsing through my older Marvel comics and I'd say that aside from certain exceptions, like the miniskirted LSH women, it was more common than not for female superheroes to have costumes that were fairly similar to the guys, i.e. full-body spandex, right up until the "skanky ho" period which started in the mid-to-late 80s. I mean, if you use the same definition of "practical" and "non-titillating" for men and women, they're really dressed pretty much the same. There were definitely plenty of provatively-dressed women back then (Wonder Woman, Zatarra and Black Canary spring instantly to mind) but most of the mid-string superheroines that I'm coming up with were all dressed relatively normally, i.e. Vindicator, Aurora, Wasp, Rachel Summers, and Misty Knight.

Going out on a limb here ... what makes mainstream comics so bizarre is that while the rest of the world moved in one direction, comics slid in exactly the opposite direction. Back in the 60s and 70s, it doesn't seem to me like comics were that different from any other form of popular entertainment. They weren't precisely women-friendly, but they did have a certain number of butt-kicking women and ever-growing roles for their female characters. And then ... something weird happened. The rest of the entertainment industry kicked into high gear with good roles for female characters and women-centric stories. And comics turned into softcore porn.

Three good ones, Layla. I'd forgotten about Alpha Flight -- I guess when you're in the Great White North, practicality (i.e., not freezing to death) becomes more of a consideration.

As for your first observation: Yes, I'd agree -- the "team uniform" thing is slightly unfair, but the point I wanted to make was that when artists are designing costumes for adult standalone female superheroes, the standards are different than when they're part of a unified team (as opposed to JLA/Avengers-style teams of individuals) -- and they're certainly different from the standards used for a standalone male character. Full-coverage bodysuits, I find, are neutral ground, provided there's no navel/boob-baring cutout (e.g., Dagger, Power Girl). You almost never see a guy's bodysuit with a cutout strategically designed to show little flashes of his genetalia, buttocks, or navel - what I'd call titillation.

Paul and I came up with three more last night: Ice/Icemaiden:http://raw360.com/media/1/20040605-ice.jpg -- though in other incarnations, her cleavage did get exposed a lot more often.

Rogue (which should have been an obvious first choice): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_%28comics%29

and Sabra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_%28comics%29

1. Liberty Belle - http://www.toonopedia.com/libertyb.htm

2. Black Condor - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blackcondordcu0.jpg

Of course, the existence of a handful of exceptions doesn't invalidate your basic premise.

Thought of another one -- the rare hero with a belly cut-out, Black Goliath:

http://www.blacksuperhero.com/exhibithtml/detail.cfm?id=135

"Full-coverage bodysuits, I find, are neutral ground, provided there's no navel/boob-baring cutout (e.g., Dagger, Power Girl). "

Oh, definitely, I totally agree with you on the cutouts; Power Girl pretty obviously falls into titillation territory. I was noticing on quite a few of the women's full-body costumes that the patterns tend to emphasize the curves of the body, like Diamond Lil (http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/2855/lil.html), but the same is also true of quite a few of the guys (Superman, of course, being a classic example -- what with the giant triangle on his pecs and the underwear on the outside).

It doesn't surprise me at all that there are very, very few mainstream guy superheroes in fetishwear (although that Cosmic Boy image cracked me up) ... not only because most mainstream comics are written and drawn by guys, but because, as a woman, if I were trying to make a guy sexy, putting him in speedos with a crotch window is NOT the first thing that would occur to me. Even if mainstream comics were largely written and drawn by women, I wouldn't expect to see a great deal of that. (Lots of emo boys with hair in their eyes and partly undone shirts, yes. The male equivalent of skanky superheroine hobags, though ... not so much. I'm not saying that women are in any way less horny or fetishy than men -- just look at slash fan fiction -- but they fetishize in different ways.)

And there's intent, too. Like you pointed out, Namor's costume is practical. (Though, honestly? Still titillating. But probably not intentionally so.) On the female side, you can also give Hawkwoman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawkwoman) a pass on the same grounds, because her usual bare-armed costume probably makes it easier to move her wings. But then you've got something like the Hulk, who rips off his clothes when he transforms. If he were a woman? Total titillation, e.g. Witchblade. But as a man, written and drawn by men? Probably not intended that way, even though it IS extraordinarily fetishy looking. Hellboy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellboy) is similar -- wearing nothing but shorts and an open shirt that shows off his chest, but probably not intended to be titillating (and also practical, considering that he doesn't need clothes).

In that vein, though, some of Phoenix's more, er, <startling costumes(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MangaPhoenix.jpg) are practical as well, since she doesn't really need clothes either and is probably not bound by the laws of physics that would normally keep her from falling out of them. There's no real qualitative difference between Phoenix running around in a vinyl bikini or, say, Dr. Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr_Manhattan) being naked ... they're both superpowerful beings who don't need to be dressed much or at all. But the *intent* is obviously different. And it's because of the intent that I don't think you're going to find very many (if any) examples of the Phoenix-type thing among male superheroes, even when the trappings fit (like the Hulk, say). Whereas with the females, what wouldn't be particularly fetishy on a guy (e.g. black leather or dressing skimpily for swimming) is obviously intended to be fetishy on a girl -- or, sometimes, "reads" that way even when perhaps not intended to be. (Hawkwoman, for example; I dinked around on whether to include her in the "practical" or "titillating" category, because she's sort of both, but her costume DOES make sense for a flying person, and she's not usually drawn in such a way as to emphasize the skimpiness of her costume top -- at least she didn't used to be.)

Er, sorry about rambling to infinity on your blog.

Also, I had a bunch of links in that last comment that appear to have totally vanished? WTF? I swear I did dredge up pictures of all of the superheroes I mentioned.

*bangs head against wall*

Technology hates me, it seems.

No, it doesn't hate you, I just had HTML turned off; too many spam problems. I went back and re-added them manually. Just don't add the "a href" tags and you should be fine.

Yeah, I'd agree with your estimation of Hawkwoman; she's got more clothing on than Hawkman. I also think we could include most versions of "Spider-Woman" (both red/yellow and black/white) under that heading.

And good God, but that MangaPhoenix miniseries made me sick to my stomach. It was hideous, on so many levels.

Oh! Thanks! You didn't have to do that ... but thanks. I just misunderstood that I couldn't use HTML -- no biggie.

Kevin,

Thanks for chiming in. Oddly, I'd never seen either of those male superheroes before. Thanks for pointing them out... though they are, um. Pretty odd, indeed. And good call with Liberty Belle -- I actually found her while gathering research for the article.

Part 2 of the challenge is to name a mainstream male superhero whose costume was designed for titillation rather than practicality.

Designed for titillation? I have some reservations about that phrase, and I'll talk about them in a bit, but let's take a look at a character whose costume might just fit the bill:

I'm going to go out on a limb and name Conan the Barbarian from the 70s/early 80s. (Does Conan count? He doesn't have any super powers as such, but neither does Batman.)
Here's a link to an example:
http://awtrey.com/tony/books/comics/tiff/conan-the-barbarian-no125.tiff
His costume is basically a loincloth and boots. That's it. Practical? Please. He fights with a broadsword, and wears no armor. All we see are his bulging muscles, and lots of them. I also seem to remember Conan spending time in some harsh climates (deserts, frozen wastes) and don't seem to remember him making any costume concessions to the weather (granted, I wasn't the most avid Conan reader, so I may be wrong). I assert that Conan's skimpy outfit is different from the one worn by Turok Son of Stone (leggings, loincloth, and bare, muscular chest) because Turok's fellow characters dress pretty much the same way while Conan meets people who wear armor that covers at least their torsos, and folks who wear clothes for warmth. (It never seems to snow in the Turok comics, but again, I'm not an avid fan, so...)

Is Conan's costume /designed/ to titillate? Most likely not, considering the intended audience, but gosh, look at all that skin. It surely isn't intended to be practical. If, as Layla suggests, we use the same criteria for Conan as we would for Red Sonja, it's definitely a titillating costume. This is why I'm wary of the phrase "designed for titillation." Even Black Goliath's costume with the cutout to show his sixpack probably intimitades rather than titillates: it's meant to showcase his /powerful/ build, not his sexy build. Same with Conan, really. But both costumes showcase physical prowess /by revealing skin/, which is the only objective criterion we have so far.

Cheers!

Do the new Teen Titans fall afoul of your 'no minors' rule? On the female side, Donna Troy wore one of the classic jumpsuits (a little cleavagey, but not at Black Cat levels, to name a contemporary outfit) and Raven usually showed up fully cloaked. On the male side, Cyborg showed a fair amount of skin (and muscle) around his implants, and Nightwing's early costumes had a lower neckline than Wonder Girl's.

Oh hey, and Black Canary had some extremely functional outfits back in the early Birds of Prey issues, especially when she covered up her legs.

Jeff, I will give you props -- Conan's Marvel Comics outfit was probably created with at least some degree of titillation in mind (quoting Wikipedia here:) "[Creator Robert E.] Howard describes him as having a hairy chest and, while comic book interpretations often portray Conan as wearing a loincloth or other minimalist clothing, Howard describes the character as wearing whatever garb is typical for the land and culture in which Conan finds himself."

You also make good points about intent, and revealing skin, and your argument underlines exactly the point I want to make.

Case in point:
Here is Brian Stelfreeze's version of Domino:
http://www.newsarama.com/Marvel/DOMINO_1.jpg

Here is one of the (more conservative) versions of Emma Frost:
http://www.marvel.com/comics/onsale/covers/uploaded/X-MEN:%20AGE%20OF%20APOCALYPSE_3image_big.jpg

Both are powerful female characters. The Emma Frost costume design, one might argue, actually covers more skin per square inch than the Domino Costume. Now, which skin-exposing costume is designed to show strength, and which to titillate?

For reference, this is what Emma Frost usually looks like:
http://static.flickr.com/67/159359789_1cfea9bbe4_o.jpg

and

http://www.motoko.it/images/morpheus/emma_frost.jpg

And yes, that's the costume she "fights" in. And yes, she's expected to be taken seriously. Conan may be exposing more skin than Emma Frost, but it is pretty easy to read the intent of both their costumes. One's to showcase strength, and one's to create a sex object.

Well, one thing about Emma is that the basic concept of the character herself, like Mystique, is that she's someone who's aware of her own sexuality and uses it as a weapon and tool. Now there's a couple of points here, a) there are a lot more women of that sort running around the Marvel and DC universes than you'd expect to find in a random subset of the population and b) even ones like Emma Frost who started out flamboyantly sexual have been skankified lately. In any case, though, it doesn't weird me out nearly as much to see a character like Emma flaunt her sexuality as a character like, say, Talisman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talisman_(comics)), or Lady Blackhawk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Blackhawk), who's supposed to be an effing *soldier* for pete's sake. (In a miniskirt! Right!)

Oh, and I just thought of another male character with a peekaboo costume -- Iron Fist. (http://www.marvel.com/universe/Iron_Fist_(Danny_Rand)) His shirt has a bare stripe going down to the navel, exposing his chest and tattoo. And Angel (http://www.marvel.com/universe/Archangel) runs around shirtless all the time ... I guess that again, you could make a case for it being practical (with the wings and all) but I think in his case, it actually *is* supposed to be kind of titillating.

By the way, I do see your point about unisex costumes and it's a good one, but I *still* think they should get at least some props for including the girls as "one of the boys" in costume designs, because I can certainly think of pop-culture counterexamples where it should be that way but it's not (e.g. Original Star Trek). (Or Lady Blackhawk -- see above -- who looks more like a prostitute dressed in nazi-fetish gear than like an actual soldier.)

Well damn someone already mentioned Emma...so I guess I'll have to go with Electra as part 1.

Part two being Tarzan!He may not be mainstream comic bookish but I know there were some comics of his adventures.

Erik Landeck