If you'll indulge me for a minute, I'm going to play devil's advocate. I once wrote a story with Judge Magister Drace wearing not just a dress but a sexy silk evening gown. It was completely in character with the story's plot/conflict and was not meant as an AU story. The story received positive fan comments that occasionally included an extra comment of "OMG! DRACE IN A DRESS?!?!?!!!!!"
So, even if Lightning is Lightning, couldn't Lightning, herself, legitimately want to dress sexy at least once?
My point here is making a distinction between the scope of a character when we think of that character as a person vs the character as an object.
All of us commenting under this post are voicing deep disappointment with enhanced jiggle-physics as Squeenix's Hot New Selling Point for a remake of Lightning. From an external POV, jiggle-physics sexually objectifies Lightning and SquareEnix is blatantly using that as part of their sales pitch. From an internal POV, athletic women engaging in highly athletic activities purposefully keep their boobs tightly bound in place for damn good reasons (*ouch*).
But I feel uncomfortable saying no sexy costumes for Lightning *because* Lightning is Lightning. That seems too narrow and confining for the character herself.
It's a subtle thing, not sure if I am explaining it well. It's the difference saying no to problematic jiggle-physics marketing while still saying yes to female characters who can be physically strong and athletic, emotionally complex and compelling, and, when the *character* believably wants to, they can also appear as sexually appealing. I hope that makes sense?
To me, it's about embodying the character with a broad sense of agency such that the character appears to be who she wants to be across a range of different situations. When Lightning is physically leaping and bounding and fighting, I want to see her acting in her self interest rather than *only* as an objectified thing, but when Lightning has an in-world reason to dress in a manner that shows off her attractive form, I don't want to stop her from dressing sexy if I believe that is what she wants to do.
Re: tl;dr: complex stuff is complex. :|
So, even if Lightning is Lightning, couldn't Lightning, herself, legitimately want to dress sexy at least once?
My point here is making a distinction between the scope of a character when we think of that character as a person vs the character as an object.
All of us commenting under this post are voicing deep disappointment with enhanced jiggle-physics as Squeenix's Hot New Selling Point for a remake of Lightning. From an external POV, jiggle-physics sexually objectifies Lightning and SquareEnix is blatantly using that as part of their sales pitch. From an internal POV, athletic women engaging in highly athletic activities purposefully keep their boobs tightly bound in place for damn good reasons (*ouch*).
But I feel uncomfortable saying no sexy costumes for Lightning *because* Lightning is Lightning. That seems too narrow and confining for the character herself.
It's a subtle thing, not sure if I am explaining it well. It's the difference saying no to problematic jiggle-physics marketing while still saying yes to female characters who can be physically strong and athletic, emotionally complex and compelling, and, when the *character* believably wants to, they can also appear as sexually appealing. I hope that makes sense?
To me, it's about embodying the character with a broad sense of agency such that the character appears to be who she wants to be across a range of different situations. When Lightning is physically leaping and bounding and fighting, I want to see her acting in her self interest rather than *only* as an objectified thing, but when Lightning has an in-world reason to dress in a manner that shows off her attractive form, I don't want to stop her from dressing sexy if I believe that is what she wants to do.