“Teresa – Yes, Playboy did this, not DC. But DC, by refusing to make any sort of statement, gives us their tacit consent. And just because Playboy got the costume wrong, they specifically say “Tiffany Fallon as Wonder Woman” right there on the cover – so there’s no real attempt to dodge any sort of infringement.”

I suppose I also just don’t see the need for DC to say anything about it, then. While it did confuse me that they took no action, if they don’t care about the infringement on their intellectual property rights, why should we?

“Even though people sexualize children’s entertainment for their own use, the use of a character by an entity that doesn’t own the character is problematic. The “Baby Burlesque” films were shut down by the Hayes code, Disney shut down “Air Pirates,” there was even ongoing flap over Alan Moore’s Lost Girls by the copyrights holder of Peter Pan, which prevented the book from being published in the EU until after the copyright expired in 2007.”

The Baby Burlesque films were probably a bad example. Mostly because they were actually using children. However, the movies were filmed and shown before the Hayes Code was really enforced. Also, the Hayes Code ended up being dismissed decades later, because it’s kind of insane. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin. Really? And who decides those standards?

“As far as little girls never being exposed to images like a nude, body-painted Wonder Woman if their parents are doing their job: How many examples do we need of irresponsible parents NOT doing their job before we realize that’s not a valid argument. Not only that, even a parent doing their job could be blindsided by something like this – have you never gone into a Borders or Barnes and Noble and seen a copy of the latest Playboy unwrapped on the shelf? I usually see it, probably opened by some teenage boy, sitting in the gaming and comics section at my local Borders, right next to the Wizard and Playstation Magazines, which are typically located on the floor level display area.”

My point when saying that is that parents should be doing their job. If they don’t, they don’t. But they should. The world isn’t, nor should it be, in my opinion, designed just for children. It really irritates me when censorship is upheld “for the children.” Because 1) if you don’t want your children seeing certain things, don’t let them look at it. It’s not anyone else’s responsibility to cover things up for you. And more importantly, 2) I’m not, nor have I ever been a fan of attempting to shelter things from children entirely. Children have eyes and ears and they’re not stupid. Rather than try to keep certain things from children (and it always amazes me that, in our sex-phobic culture, people race to hide sexuality from children, but have less of a problem with them seeing violence – super heroes included!), we should teach our children how to process those images. The images in and of themselves don’t harm children, it’s when we deny their existence and leave children to their own devices as far as dealing with them that they become a problem.

Teresa – Yes, Playboy did this, not DC. But DC, by refusing to make any sort of statement, gives us their tacit consent. And just because Playboy got the costume wrong, they specifically say “Tiffany Fallon as Wonder Woman” right there on the cover – so there’s no real attempt to dodge any sort of infringement.

Even though people sexualize children’s entertainment for their own use, the use of a character by an entity that doesn’t own the character is problematic. The “Baby Burlesque” films were shut down by the Hayes code, Disney shut down “Air Pirates,” there was even ongoing flap over Alan Moore’s Lost Girls by the copyrights holder of Peter Pan, which prevented the book from being published in the EU until after the copyright expired in 2007.

As far as little girls never being exposed to images like a nude, body-painted Wonder Woman if their parents are doing their job: How many examples do we need of irresponsible parents NOT doing their job before we realize that’s not a valid argument. Not only that, even a parent doing their job could be blindsided by something like this – have you never gone into a Borders or Barnes and Noble and seen a copy of the latest Playboy unwrapped on the shelf? I usually see it, probably opened by some teenage boy, sitting in the gaming and comics section at my local Borders, right next to the Wizard and Playstation Magazines, which are typically located on the floor level display area.

1) DC isn’t pushing the sexed-up version seen in Playboy…Playboy did that. And they did it in such a way so that they wouldn’t have to ask DC’s permission, hence the inaccurate costume and the only briefly mentioning making the cover girl “look like Wonder Woman” on the inside. There’s nothing for DC to fight, as they are not using the trademarked character, but a costume “inspired” by it.

2) While Mattel would never allow Barbie to be used in this way, that doesn’t mean that people don’t dress up as Barbie for sexual fetish play or to take sexy pictures. Little girls don’t (or shouldn’t, if their parents are doing any kind of a good job) know about these things. It’s not as though a little girl is going to come across a copy of Playboy, see Wonder Woman portrayed in a slutty fashion, and have her world shattered. The two worlds are separate enough, I think, that one wouldn’t affect the other. So, there’s nothing really to worry about as far as the influence on young girls.

Adults co-opt children’s images for sexual purposes all the time – from Shirley Temple’s “Baby Burlesque” films back in the 30s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Burlesks), to today’s “sexy” versions of children’s characters as Halloween costumes. Yet, I don’t see how it has anything to do with children’s view of themselves or the characters they love.