Re: The New 52 general discussion
She's not a children's character Bass. When she was created, she was from a sexually liberated culture, where they didn't have the puritanical morality with clothing, etc. It wasn't until they turned her into a vegetable in the Teen Titans cartoon did people assume she was a "child's character". It's like the morons that're now saying that Selina "sexually assaulted" (read: Raped) Batman in Catwoman #1. People are flying off the handle because "OMG these womminz aren't sitting there waiting daintily while their respective men (Dick and Bruce) are out ****ING other women.
Repeat after me, George Perez didn't create Starfire as a "child's character", she was sexual and sexualized from the start. Just like how Voodoo is a stripper. It's that idiot fans want the simpering moron Starfire from Teen Titans Go!
Read what she said. It's EXACTLY how she is now.
First of all, let me disagree that the TEEN TITANS cartoon Starfire is a 'moron' or 'vegetable' because I absolutely love her to death and will hear no bad things about her, on pain of lightning from the sky.
But to your actual point about Starfire as a children's character: I must confess I was not aware that the promiscuity was something she was originally designed to have, and certainly muddies the issue (i.e. I
missed the point). I would suppose there isn't really a binary "children's character/adult's character" switch to determine if it is or isn't suitable, and so does her attitude towards sex make her an 'adult' character? I would agree with you, yes it does. But, by the same token, doesn't her appearance in a book along with Robin make her a 'childrens' character? I would have to say, it does. So... I suppose she's both, and while, if I spent more time considering this situation (and researching Starfire, which I shamefully didn't before having an opinion), I wouldn't have put across an opinion of 'promiscuity = adults only', I suppose I jumped the gun in that regard.
However, the panel you present shows a particularly stark difference between Perez' promiscuous Starfire and this new one. Firstly, she is somewhat modestly dressed, and the focus is clearly on her face and attitude as opposed to her **** and ass. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, Perez's Starfire says that they love
freely, and this is sometimes
a physical act. The new one clearly is dispassionate and just interested in the lustful sex. What's more, instead of being tender and inviting, as Perez's Starfire is, this new one is aggressive and insulting. The difference creates a situation in which we empathise and enjoy Perez's, but find the newer one distasteful. There is a qualitative difference in their portrayal, and I would argue, what we see as Starfire now, is a venal, and unknowingly puerile and sexist version of a more romantic and endearing trait originally built into the character.
The only problem I see is they took the joy and wonder out of her, but we don't know what happened to her. Because if you look at Roy and Jason, BOTH damaged goods, who's to say something didn't happen to her while with or after the Titans that's make her cold and heartless.
I think the substance of what's going on here is that she is not an empathetic character, we do not like her, and it's not exactly expressed clearly enough for us to understand why she is the way she is. It is absolutely possible to have a woman so damaged that she just shags people and we, as the audience, go, "Poor woman" or "I agree with her sentiment, the world is a ****ty place and our romantic rituals are hypocritical, good for you for being honest". I mean, that is sort of how we feel for Lisbeth in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO is it not? She's rather promiscuous, and we on the one hand we feel sorry for her, but on the other she's not the hypocritical sleazey lecherous monsters she encounters (I've not seen the second two films yet, so maybe this changes). David Duchovny in CALIFORNICATION is the male version of this, but his unrelenting and rather depraved sexual adventures are a manifestation of his self-loathing, a form of sexual, romantic punishment for not being with his the woman he loves.
So, again, the problem isn't so much the sexism or even the concept of a woman who just wants to shag men for some reason but the bad writing
- we don't understand what she gets out of it (love, meaning, an allevience of morbid dread, security, control and power, it's how she punishes herself) and not only is it poor writing, it's a particularly obvious, egregious, tasteless, and dehumanizing poor writing in regards to Starfire.
Also her original costume is JUST as releaving as Rocafort's version. Hell, the new one is about as covering as Quitely's Emma boob stripes and hot pants.
Like I mentioned, I'm actually hoping that the 180 personality change is due to her being "damaged" like Jason and Roy. Because that's what bothers me about Khory.
I don't think it's the design
that's the problem (maybe it is), but for me, it was the focus of the art on her chest and ass, rather than just wearing a revealing costume. It's one thing to have her in a costume that shows her chest, it's another thing to compose an image where the chest is the central focus. It's not just the focus, it's also the mood that's generated. For example, my favourite Power Girl piece by Adam Hughes;
This image has a clear, central focus on her costume that shows off her disarmingly apparent cleavage. However, it's done in a comedic styling that Power Girl is kinda being inappropriate and oblivious, and that it's appealing on a base level. It's rather harmless, self-deprecating fun, as opposed to being pornographic or highly sexualized.
It's not a poor comparison. Why must Marvel and DC be tied to dealing with "All Ages"?
Secondly, I grew up as a little girl reading the original Titans comic, so what? I get it your son now believes women are mentally handicapped and completely socially retarded, if what you're saying is true. Why can't kids read stuff like Teen Titans Go! or Tiny Titans if you feel uncomfortable letting them read adult oriented stuff, I mean, that's what those titles are for. Sometimes they're even better than the mainstream. Case in point DC Kids' Billy Batson is far superior Shazam to the BS Winick put out in Trials.
It's not that Marvel and DC must be "All Ages" it's that certain franchises they possess are "All Ages" due to a decades long branding. Starfire, as you pointed out rather well was
a grey area, I think before the cartoon, you could separate her from Robin and the other Bat-characters and turn her into a more kid-unfriendly character, but after the TEEN TITANS cartoon, I think she's in the all-ages camp for a while now.
But I think we can agree that "All Ages" doesn't mean you can't involve love and sex (romance is fine, but sex is a kind of blind spot to kids so it can't be dealt with in the same way), and certainly, doesn't mean you couldn't have her be of quality.
But, yeah, good points Jaggyd. I had to read it, leave your comments alone for a while and think on what you said. Good points. I'm always happy when someone schools me on a subject.
Sure boo hoo poor little girl, Yet mole complains they ruined his venom and is greeted with "Meh its better now" Hypocrites! And yes it is the same thing. Look at stuff i like , power rangers , sponge bob , Supergirl , wwe. Clearly I'm a 7 year old girl trapped in a man's body. So where is my sympathy?