This is something that always catches my eye in comics. I personally think it's more to do with the over sexualization of women at the cost of cultural accuracy. I would still rather read about...
This is something that always catches my eye in comics. I personally think it's more to do with the over sexualization of women at the cost of cultural accuracy.
I'm living in Istanbul and can say that veiled muslim women sporting very tight-fit clothes is a very common sight, so the original depiction of Dust---as far as I see in the most of DDG image...
I'm living in Istanbul and can say that veiled muslim women sporting very tight-fit clothes is a very common sight, so the original depiction of Dust---as far as I see in the most of DDG image search results---is not too far off from reality. Though a niqab (what we call kara çarşaf in turkish, way less widespread than the headscarf combined with rather usual clothing) whould never be that tight as what Dust wears.
That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing. Though, maybe not specific to Dust, I think in general, women are depicted in tighter fitting clothes than most would wear. So maybe this case isn't...
That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Though, maybe not specific to Dust, I think in general, women are depicted in tighter fitting clothes than most would wear. So maybe this case isn't as unique to the Muslim treatment as much as a women in comics in general?
You're welcome! Certainly. I don't really read comics, but the few I've been exposed to, what women wear is basically body paint. The way the breasts usually are, for example, shouldn't be...
You're welcome!
Certainly. I don't really read comics, but the few I've been exposed to, what women wear is basically body paint. The way the breasts usually are, for example, shouldn't be physically possible unless the woman has breast implants (or else the tightness of the material should render them rather flat, opposed to firm and globular as generally depicted). But then the figures like Superman come to my mind where the clothes are just as tight. So maybe it can be treated as a general exaggeration of the figures sexuality rather than sex? I guess comparing the features of younger and/or more "beautiful" figures (more precisely, those accepted so, rather than inherently are) with older and/or less fit ones may yield interesting results. If a rather overwight hero is not depicted in latex clothes that outline every shape of the body, that would be quite meaningful with regards to what is objectified, women, or sexuality, in general. At least by the drawers themself. Because when I searched for the images of Dust, the third or fourth row of images contained an image depicting her masturbating, so there's that aspect where female characters are probably more sexualised and/or objectified by the fans.
There is actually a really interesting history to comic book art that starts with drawing basically a naked body and then just colouring it, male or female. It was part of exaggeration of male...
There is actually a really interesting history to comic book art that starts with drawing basically a naked body and then just colouring it, male or female. It was part of exaggeration of male muscles in characters like Superman. I have to look for it, but I believe Jim Lee gave a pretty good interview about it. So that's definitely there.
And I think you hit the nail on the head. I do read a fair bit of comics, and in general the issue is with the lack of different body types when it comes to women. In another Tildes post, Cyhchan brings up a good point about Gotham TV show's Catwoman (still a kid) having more in depth writing possibly because she can't be hyper-sexualized. Just a theory, but I do sort of see that in DC comics. Girls tend to have more variety of "style" of clothes that aren't simply tight fitting. Obvious exception is probably the current Batgirl (who is meant to appeal to a younger female audience).
This is something that always catches my eye in comics. I personally think it's more to do with the over sexualization of women at the cost of cultural accuracy.
I would still rather read about Dust than Mother of Champions.
I'm living in Istanbul and can say that veiled muslim women sporting very tight-fit clothes is a very common sight, so the original depiction of Dust---as far as I see in the most of DDG image search results---is not too far off from reality. Though a niqab (what we call kara çarşaf in turkish, way less widespread than the headscarf combined with rather usual clothing) whould never be that tight as what Dust wears.
That's really interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Though, maybe not specific to Dust, I think in general, women are depicted in tighter fitting clothes than most would wear. So maybe this case isn't as unique to the Muslim treatment as much as a women in comics in general?
You're welcome!
Certainly. I don't really read comics, but the few I've been exposed to, what women wear is basically body paint. The way the breasts usually are, for example, shouldn't be physically possible unless the woman has breast implants (or else the tightness of the material should render them rather flat, opposed to firm and globular as generally depicted). But then the figures like Superman come to my mind where the clothes are just as tight. So maybe it can be treated as a general exaggeration of the figures sexuality rather than sex? I guess comparing the features of younger and/or more "beautiful" figures (more precisely, those accepted so, rather than inherently are) with older and/or less fit ones may yield interesting results. If a rather overwight hero is not depicted in latex clothes that outline every shape of the body, that would be quite meaningful with regards to what is objectified, women, or sexuality, in general. At least by the drawers themself. Because when I searched for the images of Dust, the third or fourth row of images contained an image depicting her masturbating, so there's that aspect where female characters are probably more sexualised and/or objectified by the fans.
There is actually a really interesting history to comic book art that starts with drawing basically a naked body and then just colouring it, male or female. It was part of exaggeration of male muscles in characters like Superman. I have to look for it, but I believe Jim Lee gave a pretty good interview about it. So that's definitely there.
And I think you hit the nail on the head. I do read a fair bit of comics, and in general the issue is with the lack of different body types when it comes to women. In another Tildes post, Cyhchan brings up a good point about Gotham TV show's Catwoman (still a kid) having more in depth writing possibly because she can't be hyper-sexualized. Just a theory, but I do sort of see that in DC comics. Girls tend to have more variety of "style" of clothes that aren't simply tight fitting. Obvious exception is probably the current Batgirl (who is meant to appeal to a younger female audience).
She really does remind me more of a ninja :P