[identity profile] ladymirth.insanejournal.com 2009-11-12 20:07 (UTC)(link)
I'm sorry if you find my thinking that sluts of both genders exist offensive. Also, I come from a fairly conservative culture and I know that people are judged by appearances, whether that's fair or not, and that it's not a good thing to dress like a tramp or in a manner that seems to convey that you're "easy". It's a matter of how much respect you wish to command from those around you. If you don't give a damn that people may think you're promiscous, well knock yourself out. I am of the impression that Helena, having being brought up Catholic and conservative, might mind being taken for a sex object. This is one of the reasons I object to the mid-riff bearing costume. And it's not a moral choice, IMO, because I'm pretty ambivalent about morality, but I DO want to be respected and taken seriously.

However, please don't insult me by using the slippery slope argument that thinking what one wears matters leads to victim-blaming. If a woman can chooses to dress inappropriately and other people view her badly as a consequence, that will be her fault. That's a lack of judgement. But a person's opinions on her moral character should not allow anyone to lay a finger on or harrass her in any way - that's a crime punishable by law.

[identity profile] sistermagpie.insanejournal.com 2009-11-12 20:21 (UTC)(link)
I'm not sure Helena's outfit in this setting would make her come off as promiscuous, actually. As she mentions herself, she's not wearing a trampy outfit, she's wearing an expensive designer dress--just one made for a woman with the body to show it off. One that happens to have a low neckline, but that's not totally unusual. Given that she's young and in excellent shape I don't think her outfit would necessarily read as trampy--it would say something about her personality in that she would choose a dress with that plunging a neckline where others wouldn't choose that style but it probably wouldn't read "slut" so much as "sexy." The front is cut a lot like Selina's bathing suit.

Clearly the artist designed the dress to project that from every angle so when she's got her leg up there's a slit and when she's turned around it's dipping in the back, but when I saw her in the art she didn't look trampy to me. She is dressed appropriately, as she reminds Dick. She doesn't stand out that much.

[identity profile] da_reap.insanejournal.com 2009-11-14 19:48 (UTC)(link)
...Yeah, no.

I like seeing skin and am not worrying about sex-worker projection, but that magic dress just looks tacky. Designer tacky, but tacky. Cleavage+backless+leg slit=waaay too much showing.

Frankly, she comes off as "I'm only three martinis away from a Debutantes Gone Wild! video!" Which may work as another type of disguise, but is still lacking entirely in class.

[identity profile] da_reap.insanejournal.com 2009-11-14 23:00 (UTC)(link)
Nnnope, I haven't! I've looked at the scan and the scan alone. And from what I've seen on the scan, I feel my point stands; the amount of (what seems forced) titillation is far beyond what I would consider tasteful!

Other people's excesses is no excuse for her own; it just helps highlight an artist who goes way overboard on the skin.

[identity profile] da_reap.insanejournal.com 2009-11-15 02:06 (UTC)(link)
I'm sure they are. I'm also sure that the artist decided to go ahead and have EVERYONE at that party dress in tastelessly over-revealing outfits, for just such an argument. But as that's equivalent to hiding a cobra inside a snake pit, I don't think it signifies.

Consider if you had an entire society party drawn by Jim Balent. There would be fabric enough for approximately one person's tasteful outfit spread across twenty-five women, and you know it. Does the sheer number of uberboobed skimpily-dressed females make it appropriate dress for a society party?

Don't think so.