There’s been a bit of a furor lately regarding the “reboot” of Catwoman. Some have seen just the cover of the first issue and asked if DC is “hyper-sexualizing” its female characters. Despite its rating of “T” for “Teen”, some feel it’s still marketed to kids (and women) and is inappropriate.
While I hear the contents of the issue are indeed eyebrow (and other body parts)-raising, I haven’t seen the issue so I’m only addressing visual portrayals–mainly covers–as those are what’s used more than anything to market a comic book to readers.
My question: Is there a noticeable demarcation between sexualizing, over-sexualizing and hyper-sexualizing?
I think each is as relative a term as there is. What’s “hyper-sexy” to some is “just sexy” to some, even ugly to others. What was she before this? When you look at Catwoman’s 71-year history (!), you could make the argument at almost any time, especially within the context of the respective time period. Let’s take a look:
Nearly twenty years ago (that’s the 1990s, all you young ‘uns), my former Kubert School classmate Jim Balent made a nice name for himself with his unique and famous version of the character:
As they say in the ad biz, “But wait! There’s more!”
Finally, there’s some guy named Adam Hughes whom at least a few people think is good at drawin’ “sexy”…
You make the call on this one. I have to pick my tongue up off the historical floor.
P.S.: If you’d like a hyper-sexy or just plain sexy (or even non-sexy) Catwoman commission–or any other character, male OR female–I will gladly and gleefully oblige. Just ask Craig here!