test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Starfire in New 52: Playing Devil's Advocate
cybersoldier1981
Posts: 2,501 Arc User
Warning: While the following topic deals with a subject of a mature nature, I do not wish it to become 'vulgar and raunchy'. Reader discretion is advised, and maturity is a must- keep it PG-13.
So, I've been mulling over something for a while. The character Starfire, in DC Comics, has come under a lot of negative criticism lately. Admittedly, at first I was a bit appalled at how she was kind of a 'liberal' gal, but then... I had to think on it. And, then I found myself playing Devil's Advocate.
In case you haven't read the New 52 Red Hood and the Outlaws, you probably have still heard about how 'liberal' Starfire is with her 'relations'. I'll be using these words to describe 'that' from now on. If you have read it, you may think that her behavior is lewd and inappropriate. I can't change your personal values, and I don't intend to. What I -do- intend to do is point out the absurdity of the condemnation of this character by providing analysis and information that might make your opinion more informed, therefore giving it more of a solid base. People are allowed to have different opinions, it's only 'wrong' if your opinion doesn't have information to support it.
So, after doing some research, I found that Starfire, AKA 'Kori', has been with a total of 7 dudes her entire adult life. Two of those gentlemen were husbands, both KIA. So, let's be honest here- that's not 'being liberal with relations', that's 'doing what married couples do', and therefore- something's wrong with you if you hold that against her (to my knowledge, any 'relations' in these marriages took place off panel).
That leaves the gal with a whopping 5 partners. One was Richard Grayson, her first love. Too easy. The other guys? Adam Strange and some other nobody. Casual liaisons. Big whoop. Then, Jason Todd- whom she saved at the beginning of the story (it's worth noting that there's some humor in the guy who's tried to kill Nightwing repeatedly and been put in Arkham for it, is now having casual relations with his ex and doesn't make a big deal about it). And, of course, Roy Harper AKA Arsenal AKA Speedy AKA Red Arrow AKA Junkie with a Bow AKA I hope Starfire used Protection.
Despite the fact that I'd feel sorry for a used Fleshlight if Roy Harper went to bed with it, I still have to be an adult about this. So, 5 lovers she wasn't married to. Big deal. I know women in their 20's that top that in a month, and they're still classy ladies.
Below are some reasons why I still don't think this is a 'big deal' and why I don't think she deserves the negativity.
1- Starfire has feelings for Richard Grayson, that's obvious. He did something to her heart no other man could, and despite their 'mutual' seperation... she almost married the guy. He backed out on her. He hurt her. Deep down, despite being a godlike space-princess that can turn cities to ash, there's a woman with feelings. A lot of girls get their hearts broken, and do stupid things like bury their feelings in casual relations and link up with scumbags like Roy Harper.
2- She's an alien. People in other countries have different standards for 'relations', so you can only imagine what other plantets would do. It's consistently clear that Kori's race isn't as prudish as the average American when it comes to things like their bodies and their feelings. In fact, it's quite clear later in the comic that her species feels very strong emotions, more so than humans- and despite what she wants people to think at first, people are not 'passing sensations' like we're told in issue 1 of Red Hood & The Outlaws.
3- The Teen Titans cartoon, while enjoyable- painted a completely different picture of Starfire. She was naive, in a cute sort of way. She was ideal for the cartoon's cast, to bring in a 'sweet' girl and it worked well with the group's dynamic. However, Starfire was never like this. She was naive to Earth's cultural norms (Again, she never understood why people were ashamed of their bodies so much and tried to cover everything), but at the same time? Well... she's a redhead. And she came with the firey spirit appropriate for that and her namesake. She was a princess and she knew it, and could carry that attitude around with her. However, she was not without compassion. She was great with children (appropriate, considering her own childhood was stolen from her), and she had a lot of moral fiber protecting a planet where most people didn't trust aliens (and one of these is the Dark Knight himself). When you remember who she was in the comics (a woman who turned Deathstroke's wife to ashes without a second though when she begged to die), the liberal and 'do what I want' character makes a lot more sense and isn't so bad.
4- Other women around her set a different standard, without being more or less 'strong and independent'. DC Heroines are all pretty ideal women- strong, loyal, and smart. Starfire is no exception, she's just not been too prudish about 'relations'. In fact, she's shown being a total badass later in Red Hood, and it's quite clear from the very start that she's not a ditzy girl. She's brilliant, tough, and outright sure of herself. This is not the damsel in distress girl that's going to need some man to save her. She's capable of taking care of herself. Just because some of the DC gals are a bit more 'selective' and 'modest', doesn't make them better or worse. Me? I like variety. If all these gals were the same, they'd be less interesting.
5- The infamous double standard is at work here. Now, let's be honest- Bruce Wayne slept with every woman that didn't have a Bat Logo on her boobs or use the word 'Puddin''; and we all love Batman and never once has anyone ever criticized the Billionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne to this degree. Why is it 'okay' for men to be casual about this, but not our ladies? It's unfair, and as a fair person- you have to admit, 5 dudes ain't so bad at all. It's not fair for us to expect our Lady Heroes to be prudes that are as pure as the driven snow and pretend they don't have naughty bits beneath those skimpy costumes. Now, of course, there comes the argument from the OTHER end of the gender that criticize her, the ones that say 'it's just reducing a good character to nothing more than eye candy for boys! It removes all substance from her! How would you feel if that were done to the male characters?'
To these shrieking harpies, I say:
Shut the hell up.
That's it, ladies and gentlemen. By all means, provide feedback. Disagree, or agree! I love a good discussion!
(Keep it a bit clean)
So, I've been mulling over something for a while. The character Starfire, in DC Comics, has come under a lot of negative criticism lately. Admittedly, at first I was a bit appalled at how she was kind of a 'liberal' gal, but then... I had to think on it. And, then I found myself playing Devil's Advocate.
In case you haven't read the New 52 Red Hood and the Outlaws, you probably have still heard about how 'liberal' Starfire is with her 'relations'. I'll be using these words to describe 'that' from now on. If you have read it, you may think that her behavior is lewd and inappropriate. I can't change your personal values, and I don't intend to. What I -do- intend to do is point out the absurdity of the condemnation of this character by providing analysis and information that might make your opinion more informed, therefore giving it more of a solid base. People are allowed to have different opinions, it's only 'wrong' if your opinion doesn't have information to support it.
So, after doing some research, I found that Starfire, AKA 'Kori', has been with a total of 7 dudes her entire adult life. Two of those gentlemen were husbands, both KIA. So, let's be honest here- that's not 'being liberal with relations', that's 'doing what married couples do', and therefore- something's wrong with you if you hold that against her (to my knowledge, any 'relations' in these marriages took place off panel).
That leaves the gal with a whopping 5 partners. One was Richard Grayson, her first love. Too easy. The other guys? Adam Strange and some other nobody. Casual liaisons. Big whoop. Then, Jason Todd- whom she saved at the beginning of the story (it's worth noting that there's some humor in the guy who's tried to kill Nightwing repeatedly and been put in Arkham for it, is now having casual relations with his ex and doesn't make a big deal about it). And, of course, Roy Harper AKA Arsenal AKA Speedy AKA Red Arrow AKA Junkie with a Bow AKA I hope Starfire used Protection.
Despite the fact that I'd feel sorry for a used Fleshlight if Roy Harper went to bed with it, I still have to be an adult about this. So, 5 lovers she wasn't married to. Big deal. I know women in their 20's that top that in a month, and they're still classy ladies.
Below are some reasons why I still don't think this is a 'big deal' and why I don't think she deserves the negativity.
1- Starfire has feelings for Richard Grayson, that's obvious. He did something to her heart no other man could, and despite their 'mutual' seperation... she almost married the guy. He backed out on her. He hurt her. Deep down, despite being a godlike space-princess that can turn cities to ash, there's a woman with feelings. A lot of girls get their hearts broken, and do stupid things like bury their feelings in casual relations and link up with scumbags like Roy Harper.
2- She's an alien. People in other countries have different standards for 'relations', so you can only imagine what other plantets would do. It's consistently clear that Kori's race isn't as prudish as the average American when it comes to things like their bodies and their feelings. In fact, it's quite clear later in the comic that her species feels very strong emotions, more so than humans- and despite what she wants people to think at first, people are not 'passing sensations' like we're told in issue 1 of Red Hood & The Outlaws.
3- The Teen Titans cartoon, while enjoyable- painted a completely different picture of Starfire. She was naive, in a cute sort of way. She was ideal for the cartoon's cast, to bring in a 'sweet' girl and it worked well with the group's dynamic. However, Starfire was never like this. She was naive to Earth's cultural norms (Again, she never understood why people were ashamed of their bodies so much and tried to cover everything), but at the same time? Well... she's a redhead. And she came with the firey spirit appropriate for that and her namesake. She was a princess and she knew it, and could carry that attitude around with her. However, she was not without compassion. She was great with children (appropriate, considering her own childhood was stolen from her), and she had a lot of moral fiber protecting a planet where most people didn't trust aliens (and one of these is the Dark Knight himself). When you remember who she was in the comics (a woman who turned Deathstroke's wife to ashes without a second though when she begged to die), the liberal and 'do what I want' character makes a lot more sense and isn't so bad.
4- Other women around her set a different standard, without being more or less 'strong and independent'. DC Heroines are all pretty ideal women- strong, loyal, and smart. Starfire is no exception, she's just not been too prudish about 'relations'. In fact, she's shown being a total badass later in Red Hood, and it's quite clear from the very start that she's not a ditzy girl. She's brilliant, tough, and outright sure of herself. This is not the damsel in distress girl that's going to need some man to save her. She's capable of taking care of herself. Just because some of the DC gals are a bit more 'selective' and 'modest', doesn't make them better or worse. Me? I like variety. If all these gals were the same, they'd be less interesting.
5- The infamous double standard is at work here. Now, let's be honest- Bruce Wayne slept with every woman that didn't have a Bat Logo on her boobs or use the word 'Puddin''; and we all love Batman and never once has anyone ever criticized the Billionaire Playboy Bruce Wayne to this degree. Why is it 'okay' for men to be casual about this, but not our ladies? It's unfair, and as a fair person- you have to admit, 5 dudes ain't so bad at all. It's not fair for us to expect our Lady Heroes to be prudes that are as pure as the driven snow and pretend they don't have naughty bits beneath those skimpy costumes. Now, of course, there comes the argument from the OTHER end of the gender that criticize her, the ones that say 'it's just reducing a good character to nothing more than eye candy for boys! It removes all substance from her! How would you feel if that were done to the male characters?'
To these shrieking harpies, I say:
Shut the hell up.
That's it, ladies and gentlemen. By all means, provide feedback. Disagree, or agree! I love a good discussion!
(Keep it a bit clean)
Post edited by cybersoldier1981 on
0
Comments
In that issue, Kori'andr's entire personality, her every pattern of behavior outside fighting, was warped around the stereotype of the, er, lady of easy virtue. Literally draping herself over every available male surface, making every utterance a double-entendre (or sometimes single-entendre) invitation, never apparently even entertaining the idea of relating to a male teammate on any level other than sexually - it was like a repressed geek's idea of "female empowerment", that is, empowerment only in the department of jumping anything with the appropriate equipment.
Now, perhaps they've pulled back from that brink since then; writing can vary in quality, after all, and perhaps it's improved. Problem is, if it has I wouldn't know, because they lost me as a potential reader in the beginning.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
But most people know Starfire as Nightwing's main squeeze so they get the nerdy outrage when they see her with anyone else.
The problem is not with Starfire in the new 52 but with Nightwing fans. They tend to be arsehats.
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
Read on, I think it's right around issue 11. You get to see her awesome side. Further on, you start to wonder if the whole perception you took was intentional- because it explains in more depth what she's doing.
(Honestly, I hope people like my analysis. I don't mind if people still hold their opinions, that's totes cool. I just wanted to throw another side out there.)
I put very little faith in DC's ability to find enlightenment on gender and sexuality. The editors' response to Batwoman proposing to her girlfriend sealed that deal. Girl-on-girl titillation was fine, but not marriage equality? Call me cynical, but I put Starfire's sexual liberty in the same category. As long as DC can get some post-modern fanservice out of it, they'll think it's cool.
They're not there in the beginning, but when your story ends / Gonna last with you longer than your friends
That's actually a symptom of something else.
The same as undoing Spiderman's marriage and Clark Kent/Lois Lane pairing. Also, DC has policy to never marry Bruce Wayne. Or any other major faces of their universe.
Basically, editors now have some kind of unspoken policy to keep major characters "free", so they can change romances and keep them "fresh" and appealing for younger readers. Because, of course, being married is boring and doesn't fit superheroes. :rolleyes:
Not like it's a better reason. It's an equally cheap and bad one.
It was different with Storm and Black Panther only because they are team players and focus can be shifted to other team members.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Yes, and reason was most likely because this time writers insisted on this marriage for sake of the story.
It was also a clear message that editor is always right. Whether it fits character development or not.
What a little hussy...
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
^_^ I think that put it lightly.
Comics and cartoons have a stigma on them. For little kids/boys. You won't get rid of that stigma by trying to be PC.
Sadly, today's artists and writers are all "I'm bored, moving on." way to quickly. It'd be nice to see DC/Marvel/other publishers band together and just stop hiring these artist/writers. Maybe then they'd realize, they should start doing what other people do in their professions...not up and quit whenever it fits their fancy.
Mind you, didn't care for Starfire's change myself, mostly because, I didn't care for the new 52 trying to reboot everything. Still hate the idea of Superman and Wonder Woman.
Comics are just soap operas in art/writing form. So really, I feel editors of DC/Marvel should not be against writing divorces or making widows/widowers out of main characters. Of course, with only 12 issues a year, they shouldn't just change things at the drop of a new writer.
That said, I can see why they want to go the no marriage route. Once you marry them off, it should be something that "usually" sticks for awhile. It also allows them to cater to the fans a lot easier.
Let's face it, as fans we all have our dream couples.
Also, you'll find most who rant the loudest about Starfire are ones who don't read comics. They're loud shrills with no interest in comics or the character and do it to get these popular characters/media to cater to their own causes.
"Nice shoes, let's have relations."
"Okay!"
I don't know or care about the character, so I don't know where she lies. Just throwing my opinion on that in.
And if you want your interpersonal relations to come across as adult in nature, perhaps if you had your characters act like adults, not bored and horny teenagers...
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
She straight up propositions Roy Harper just like that. I mean, JUST. LIKE. THAT.
It's funny, because the reaction he has. And then the scene later, it shows them sleeping and the sheets are scorched and he has hand-shaped burn marks on him.
Of course, like I said- Bruce Wayne's flashed his wallet around and done the same thing. And she -does- develop as a character later on.
One issue. The first one. Not a good first impression, but down the road- I promise, there's a point where you say 'Oh. Well. That makes sense.' As a matter of fact, through the series it becomes less of an issue. It's hard to explain, but it seems to me like it was intentionally written so that you get that first impression- only to be shown other things.
(Mind you, the sad part about this is- no one has yet to praise how she's actually being written with more personality, being smarter, and being more badass than she was before.)
And even before that, there's a point where you're like 'Oh, DAMN!' and you realize that she's being made into a ruthless badass (hero, though- still).
(Fun teaser- she straight up calls out Superman and doesn't hide the fact that she dislikes him)
Then again, let me remind you- her teammates are the two absolute worst former sidekicks in the DC Universe. The idea is these people are supposed to be screwed up.
I plan on doing a review once I read through it a third time- just so I get the details.
Personally I firmly believe that portraying super heroes as immature is a lot more realistic than the ultra-mature ultra-adults they're often portrayed as. Having super powers in a world of mere mortals is bound to have an adverse affect on an individual's emotional maturation.
I'm super powered and super sexy... why should I follow "mortal" ideas of relationships and sexuality?
We'll bang, okay?
My super cool CC build and how to use it.
Because of super-STDs that even super-science can't super-cure?
She could nuke her crotch. Probably a non-issue.
have you ever read adam warren's "empowered"? that actually is the source of a number of human superpowereds :d
Which issue does he do it in a string bikini?
How often does he arch his back during a conversation?
Lots of Batman **** shots in the comic these days?
Does the new costume show a lot of Batskin?
How often is he twisting so you can see his Bat-**** and both Bat-man boobs at the same time?
Tell me more of how she's similar to Batman.
Wait? Whaaaa..?
You're missing the point. LOTS of female heroes show skin.
I could dig up that issue where him and Robin are wearing towels, or the one where they're sharing a bed. You know, during the 'best period of comics'.
Now I'm inspired to draw the best comic book ever.
I am inclined to agree. I think the Greeks got it right with their portrayal of divine beings.
'Caine, miss you bud. Fly high.
No, no. *You* are missing the point. And you made mine for me at the same time. Female superheroes show lots of skin constantly. To the point that Captain Marvel *not* showing skin in her new costume was newsworthy. Skin-showing is their defining characteristic and it's not for male characters.
How often do we see Batman in a boobs+butt pose in a fight? The answer is "never" because he is always presented as strong and powerful when he's punching mental patients. He's not an object to wank to like Starfire (For one example of many), he's the object to aspire to. If your daughter wanted to grow up to be Starfire, she probably meant "Starfire" was going to be her stripper name, and you did a bad job as a parent.
I'm sure you could scour the 70 year history and find some "Sexy Batman" panels. Do that and then look for some sexy Starfire panels. Tell me which project took longer.
Female superheroes are always presented as sexy even in moments where it's not appropriate. Like, say, in the middle of a fight. Or talking to someone while jutting their asses out. Or wearing a towel just after getting out of the shower. Or standing in her default pose in the Champions Online character creator.
Batman's sexual desirability to the audience of raised-on-porn babymen is not one of his defining characteristics in either how his personality is presented or how his body is drawn. For Starfire and all of the other skin-showing female superheroes, it is.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either blind or deluded by their fandom.
Wait? Whaaaa..?
Yeah, but to those people you say one simple thing...
"Get...over...yourself."
Seriously. Look at one their target audience. Next, look at soap operas (which a comic is, a drawn a soap opera) and romance novels, generally made for a different target audience. Do you hear the complaining about them?
After you do that, look at those comics that try to go the route you suggested and...wow...generally aren't that well received. Yes, there are exceptions, but that's just it, they're exceptions.
But its okay with Stark cause he is a man and that makes him a stud U_U
Pure nerdrage BS.
Nepht and Dr Deflecto on primus
They all thought I was out of the game....But I'm holding all the lockboxes now..
I'll......FOAM FINGER YOUR BACK!
Personally I could give a crap. Women are always going to be portrayed as sex objects, because sex sells. A sexy outfit on a superheroine will bring in more comic sales. If some bed-action is involved, even better. As long as there are redeeming qualities about the said superheroine that helps her avoid being potrayed as one-dimensional in that context, then I don't really see a problem.
also as I happen to have picked up my sub the day lets look at some issues
Teen Titans 25
Oh 5 pages in and there's a sexy shot however its a add for arrow and the eye candy is one Roy Harper standing there all shirtless a moody looking.
DC's answer to Hawkeye, then?
They're not there in the beginning, but when your story ends / Gonna last with you longer than your friends
As I recall, the newsworthy aspect was that she was a Muslim. I don't recall the clothing being an issue. As a matter of fact, I remember more bawling about Wonder Woman's outfit. (Which I didn't like, because it seemed bland to me).
If my daughter said "I want to be beautiful and confident like Starfire", I'd not demonize her. I'd worry more about the 'man' that raised his daughter to be ashamed of her body and teach her that showing skin made her a 'stripper'. And then I'd see if his daughter needed a better role model in a -parent- and not freak out about her admiration of a fictional character.
I'd honestly worry more about a son that wanted to take underage boys in unitards out to fight crime dressed like flying animals.
Not to mention, if my daughter said 'I'll use mammary glands to make pathetic men throw tons of cash at me' when she was an adult, it wouldn't be my concern. And it wouldn't make her a bad person, either. I do find some offense in the statement, as I have had meaningful relationships and friendships with women in this industry.
I'll just look at the target demographic, and then realize that 'oh, that makes sense for a business'.
Call me a 'pig', but I don't think it's ever inappropriate for a woman to look sexy. Must be my 'manchild' showing again.
Or perhaps they've not read the series I'm discussing, and are making deluded fanboy judgements based on hearsay.
However, I cannot change your personal values. I can simply say that what you're thinking is 'mature' is in fact a bit ignorant to some perspectives. In fact, I have always been a bit concerned about males that freak out about revealing female bodies. That strikes myself and many others as more immature than 'liking hot semi-naked chicks', which last I checked was 'normal'.
Exactly. Me? I find absolutely nothing wrong with appreciating the female form, in art or real life. It must be my 'manchild' or 'babyman' side that is comfortable with my male side that appreciates that, and also knows as well that many women also appreciate their bodies, if they're blessed with a nice one.
But, you know. I suppose that I'm just childish for not being bothered by the potrayal of scant clothing and liberal attitudes if it fits the situation.
This is done MULTIPLE times to this character- for once, in fact, she's shown as being a strong, intelligent character with some depth as you read on (Which lends some credibility to my theory that 'they did this on purpose and planned it'). However, the 'mature' thing to do seems to be say 'oh, she's a slut' and completely ignore other qualities. I suppose it's 'juvenile' to be able to appreciate a woman's body -and- her other qualities as well, and respect her own desire to display what she has.
It makes me wonder about the critic's personal life with the fairer sex, if there's anything at all to consider.
Sorry, stepping outside the Continental US to places like Brazil, Puerto Rico, Germany, and the Netherlands was a bit of an awakening for me. Further back, I would have probably agreed with some of the negative.
When Carol took up the mantle of Captain Marvel, though, she was dressed in a set of tights that, while showing off her figure to advantage, weren't terribly revealing. (And the artist, at least for the first few issues, also drew her with more realistic female proportions, rather than the "Playboy bunny with extra implants" style that seems so popular today.) I don't recall a lot of fuss over this, mind, but I for one appreciated it.
Edit: Found a pic!
And for comparison, the cover of Ms Marvel #1:
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Oh... see, I haven't been up to speed on her, though- I just saw the headline about 'Muslim Superhero'. At first I was irked because I thought they were 'rebooting' the character and getting rid of the original or making drastic changes to her, then I was cool once I realized it was a new character and Carol was just changing 'jobs'. After that, I was like 'Cool. Diversity in comics is awesome'.
(A fun fact- I was always pretty pleased with Batwoman's lesbian lifestyle and the Original Green Lantern and Obsidian being gay. I liked how none of the other heroes FREAKED OUT like some of the fans have done- because real heroes don't care what you do with your junk as long as it's legal and you're happy.)
I like this one better, actually. Her other one was sexy, and that's cool- but it was also WAY too similar to a certain DC character, and seemed kind of bland.
I would argue. It's not sex that sells. It's objectification.
This is an idea I'm still working with, so bear with me. I think it's more that women can be bent into contortive forms, treated as tables, pets, or something to label, their skin pushed into inhuman shapes. That seems to be what sells. A transformation to an impossible object, an ornament, something pliable and disposable, a creature tilted towards fulling desires of beauty or power. It's present among the depiction of men in advertising and other media, but not as pervasive.
I don't find that anything like sex, at all.
As far as Starfire goes, it's difficult for me to get past the objectification I saw in the first issue. I'm a sex positive person and don't see the term slut as a negative. Cyber, you got me heading to Comixology to give the rest of the series a look. It's going to come down to me believing DC is trying to present some real sexuality or just trying to titillate the audience, for me.
It will likely come in somewhere inbetween. I can still enjoy media and recognize parts of it as sexist. To what degree decides where I spend my money.
For consideration, I will throw this out there.
How the Media Failed Women in 2013
a
It will always sell. Most of people are responding to simple stimuli and to deny it is to deny how human creatures are built in general. Or to claim that males and females have the same brains and think in the same way.
Both would be fighting against base human nature.
If we were able to change it as a species (but then, not a real need for it), we wouldn't be dancing the same steps since the Stone Age.
But, frankly, that people are enjoying this kind of comic books or pictures doesn't mean that they have the same stance in real life.
It's all fantasy, not a really big deal.
If anything, objectifitation of human body on a purely visual level will raise in the pop-culture, equally for males and females. It doesn't take a prophet to know it. We did it a few times in history, before.
And we will do it again, because we are unable to not repeat ourselves.
I have a review up if you'd like to read it.
http://co-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=3813161#post3813161
Her (original) costume supports that this is part of her identity from the get-go.
I don't know why people would get upset. I think it's within her character.
........Caliga...is actually ok with this.
STAMP OF APPROVAL!!!!!
Caliga's PRIMUS Database! --XXX--The Caliga Build: Threatening Haymakers! --XXX-- Caliga and Conquer fanart!
...if the Tamaranians are descended from insects, why does she have those huge mammalian secondary sexual characteristics on her chest? Insects don't lactate.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Wikipedia says that they descended from felines and the DC Wikia says the same thing, assuming that they're accurately quoting from the source material, so the next question would be urm...
Why doesn't she have more than two of them?
All mammals start with more than one pair, including us. But we are losing them in our embryonal state.
More than one pair is not needed with vertical body type and also number of glands is directly related to the average offspring number.
Most of primates have usually at most two offspring at one time.
If their evolution was anything like the human one.
Ok, not really. It's all because of evolutionary adaptation for posing in bikinis.
I'm actually quite surprised we don't have more Starfire's knock-offs in CO.
Especially it's very easy without making actual clones, since we have Malvans.
Actually, during Darkest Night, the Guardians of Oa reveal that all life in the universe actually originates on Earth. Therefore explaining the abundance of anthropomorphic creatures in the universe, the likelihood of which is otherwise is ridiculously evolutionarily improbable- especially when you look at Kryptonians who are, overall, identical to humans in appearance. Though, I think this was cut short before they could delve too deep into it. You know, Grant Morrison kinda broke the DC Universe.
I have seen a few just blatant clones of her.
As far as 'knock-offs' go, I have a friend who uses something similar, although the characters in question are more along the lines of 'Galactic Protectors'. They play more than one, although several of them are males. They do cite Starfire as an inspiration, though they are more a fan of Green Lanterns and Star Sapphires than Tamaranians.
Another friend I have plays an orange (actually more red), alien character with more modest dress and body structure- though she is flirty. The character has pointed ears and body markings- and the backgrounds and home-world are completely different. The player in question actually dislikes DC Comics, and isn't too familiar with the character at all, aside from the Cartoon Network version. When I asked if there was a similarity, the answer I got was 'if you want to make an alien chick with different colored skin, you don't have a lot of options that aren't over-done'. She also kept the darker orange, almost red color because she enjoys playing her character's response to people thinking she's a demon.
Some people'd lash out at them, I get it. But look at my avatar. I've been called 'Deadpool/Iron Man knock-off'. Nothing new under the sun.
(And to be fair, I used to despise clones- but once I spent more time around the RP community, I found Superhero clones much, much more palatable than anime clones. As far as my feelings, despite what the TOS says- I don't get bothered by it unless someone tries to roleplay said character.)
Because if one species can evolve into two completely different species, what makes you think two species can't evolve into the exact same one?
Next, if Starfire's species had evolved into some insect looking creature, she never would've become a popular character.
As for the objectification...pffft...love it when people go "OMG! Objectifying!" when everyone does it! Talk about evolution. Objectifying is part of evolution. It's centuries upon centuries of mankind!
Man or woman, there is objectifying going on. It's less "Do I want to be objectified." and more "Who do I want to be objectified by?"
If you're okay with the person it's okay or not even looked at objectifying anymore. If it's someone you're not...it just became evil!
And please get onto your facebook account and skim through the pages. Yeah, those selfie's of people going "Look at how good looking I am (or think I am)" is objectifying.
Lastly, I promise you...if Champions Online had the same game mechanics but all characters looked like some overweight/obese person in a bikini, you wouldn't be playing.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Basically, I want that "generic energy blast" power set that Jonsills has been asking for.
You're thinking of sexualization. There is some overlap between the two, but they are different things. It's bad when it becomes the primary measure of a person's worth. Being pervasive doesn't make it better.
No. Talking objectification.
It allowed all those cave people to find and decide who fit their requirements of continuing the line, offering protection, the ability to provide...etc...etc.
Wikipedia
The Free Dictionary
MerriamWebster
Note that Wikipedia links to Sexual Objectification. This is the overlap that I mentioned.
Sexualization:
Wikipedia
The Free Dictionary
MerriamWebster
The op is focused on related topic. These are the terms that I've read/heard for referring to it. None of them are really good for polite conversation, but I haven't heard any formal ones:
Slut Shaming
Slut Bashing
Slut Baiting
I had no idea that Starfire was criticized for "promiscuity", so this thread surprised me. I only know her from the cartoon, and a few articles that criticize DC for sexual objectification of her character, which mostly involved the way she poses and dresses, and perhaps her physique. Seven partners is average, according to the few studies that I've heard of. It hardly seems like something to dislike the character for.
I'm not too concerned about the insect evolutionary ancestry much, either. I've excepted quite a while ago, that superheros are more fantasy than science fiction. They are like the mythological figures of the modern US. I expect a lot of style over substance in everything except the elements relating to the human experience.