on a textual level, a female character can dress however she wants and shouldn’t be slut-shamed and hated for what she prefers to wear.
on a metatextual level, she might still have been designed with an intention to provide fanservice.
this means that criticising a design, as opposed to a character, is neither misogyny nor slut-shaming. being displeased about the way a character has been designed is not synonymous with hating her.
have i made myself clear?
This is giving me thoughts on Emma Frost and how her character at least attempts to flip around the metatextual fanservice so common in comics. Aside from the fetish elements, Emma isn’t comparatively more naked or more sexual than any other female character. She’s wearing lingerie and gravity-defying outfits while everyone else is wearing skimpy low-cut leotards, and there really isn’t that much difference. But unlike nearly everyone else, Emma consciously chooses to dress provocatively and present herself that way. Her character is constantly preforming and reminding the reader that she’s performing. She’s not being dressed up by an offscreen omnipotent artist, she designed herself to be fanservice.
It’s not really a huge step, and the end result of titillating the reader is the same, but I like that bit of extra agency she has. At least the titillation is being acknowledged in the text and Emma is using it to control the viewer instead of being an unknowing metatextual sexdoll.
This is really great meta and you should feel good.