‘Gambit’ and the Female Gaze

So, I banned myself from writing about comics this week, but here we are anyway.

Before I read the first issue of Gambit, I was curious what I would find between its covers. In an interview with Comics Alliance, writer James Asmus said, “Gambit really is one of the few explicitly sexy male characters in mainstream comics, and that’s a major part of how I envision this book. Luckily, our artist on the book is Clay Mann. And he completely taps into the easy cool and good looks that help make Gambit such man-candy to his fans.” (Also, Asmus said he has actually lived in Louisiana and known actual Cajuns, and therefore won’t have to rely on “other fictional portrayals of the culture,” which is amazing for a whole ‘nother set of reasons, fit for a whole ‘nother post.)

The idea of putting Gambit’s sex appeal at the forefront of the book was extremely interesting to me, for a probably fairly obvious reason: superheroines are primarily sexy all the time, regardless of how much sex appeal their characters actually have, but superheroes are rarely sexy first and foremost, even when their characters have a lot of sex appeal. Also, James Asmus thinks that Gambit’s “fans” think he’s man-candy. This means Asmus understands that not every single comics reader is a straight man. Which blows my mind in the most unreasonable way.

And then there were hints of a shower scene! Be still, my beating heart!

Fast forward to the release of issue 1. What do we open with? Naked Gambit in a naked shower! Hurray, world! Four thousand points to feminism, right?

Sort of. What I find most interesting about the way Gambit is drawn is that his sexiness manages to be both overt and subtle at the same time. His character also manages to be sexy without being objectified.

Let’s go back to that shower scene.  In the first panel, we get all of naked Gambit that’s fit to print. (Meaning, he’s positioned so he isn’t facing us, so sorry, but no genitals.) Then we see various body parts of Gambit as he gets out of the shower, all leading up to the panel where he’s toweling off his hair in the buff, with a picture frame covering (just) his crotch. This panel is extremely erotic, I think, and in part because it balances subtlety and overt sexiness so well. The placement of that picture frame at the same time conceals and emphasizes what we all know is there anyway. And then the final panel gives us a gleaming shot of Gambit’s muscley manly-man back.

First page of Gambit #1

This is all pretty hot-and-bother-inducing, yet, does it differ from superheroine shower scenes? Do I find this portrayal sexy, but not creepy, simply because I’m not a man and am unused to seeing naked men in comics?

I don’t think so. One of the major reasons why objectification of women’s bodies is so harmful, is that it teaches us that women are interchangeable. The eroticism associated with a woman’s body is unrelated to her as a person; she is sexy because she has a cis woman’s body, not because she is a sexy person. And yet, in this first page, this snapshot of Gambit is very intimate, in every sense of the word. It’s not just that we’re seeing him naked, it’s that we’re being introduced to him as naked, and, while he is naked, we are putting together pieces of his life. In the panel with the picture frames, we’re looking at Gambit’s not-penis while also looking at the picture in the foreground of Gambit and Rogue. These things are associated directly. We’re not just looking at a naked attractive man; we’re looking a specific naked attractive man, one who we are trying to get to know. His naked shower scene is actually advancing story and character. This is inherently different to the idea of objectification, which, in addition to being gratuitous, teaches us that women (or men, but usually women) are sexual objects, not sexual people.

Throughout the first two issues, most of the time Gambit keeps his clothes on, and leaves his sex appeal to be channeled through his words and actions. However, even when clothed, Gambit’s posture and placement are much sexier than that of most male comics characters. He’ll lounge topless, looking devil-may-care, while having a conversation about that thing that got stuck in his chest (long story). Which brings me to another distinction between the sexiness of Gambit and the traditional sexiness of women in media, particularly when catering to the male gaze. Women’s sex appeal usually slows down the plot, allows for a pause in the story, and is never used for the advancement of anything, really. But Gambit’s sex appeal functions as part of the story. It keeps pace with the story, rather than slowing it down. Consequently, it seems natural and necessary. I can hardly imagine this book being the same without these poses and angles.

The one reservation, sex appeal-wise, I have about this series is actually his female antagonist/partner. In the first issue, I actually liked how she looked. She had a cute, rockabilly sort of style, and she wasn’t drawn in gratuitously sexy poses or angles.

But, I’m not sure that’s going to stay that way. Issue 2 had a cover which, though hardly the creepiest cover I’ve ever seen, was still somewhat problematic, with the shot of Gambit surrounded by the cut-out silhouette of a sexy woman, presumably his new acquaintance.

Cover of Gambit #2

When we met this woman, she had personality and style, but now that’s she’s on the cover, she’s just a hot body. Next week’s #3 isn’t looking too much better, considering that apparently she decides to wear short-shorts and a belly shirt when they go do secret-adventurey things in Guatemala.

While the objectification of the female character in the series is tremendously less bad than in most mainstream comics, it’s still objectification to some degree. The series manages to make their male character a sexy person, yet fails to emphasize that the sexy woman is a sexy person. It leaves me to feel disappointed and strangely apologetic at the same time. I’m forced to say, “It doesn’t make me uncomfortable, because it’s not that bad, but it’s still noticeable!” Which is an annoying thing to have to say.

My theory is that they excel at keeping Gambit’s sex appeal without objectifying him precisely because he is male. When female objectification is the norm, it’s difficult to make a specifically sexy character without falling back to the same old tropes. And when you’re a man, I imagine it might be more difficult to spot the difference between mild objectification and sex appeal.

I’m not opposed to sex appeal in comics, especially when that seems to be at the heart of the series. And I really am enjoying the “man-candy.” But objectification, male or female, is something comics needs to learn to avoid. My suggestion? Do what you’re doing with Gambit, but do it with the female character, too. Include her sex appeal in ways that are interesting and advance the story or character. Cater equally to the male and female gazes, so that sexiness seems natural.

Or, at least, put Gambit in booty shorts and we can call it even.


Art and Superheroines

Tonight I am reposting this trending article by David Brothers from Comics Alliance. The title of the article is ‘Art and Superheroines: When Over-sexualization Kills the Story’ and compares the work by two very different artists who both illustrate Wonder Woman.

(Superheroines is also not a word in the spell-check dictionary- but that’s a different discussion.)

When I first read this article I realized this is the story of my life. As an artist and a woman I am often disgusted when fetishized versions of the Superheroines I look up to worm their way into my life, the comics, and ultimately ruin the story. I find myself slapping the comic into my face asking: “Was that really necessary?” Answer: It was not.

I am not asking for censorship or for these artists to stifle their creativity. I’m just asking them to stop being so lecherous. Lecherousness breeds lecherousness. For example: You are a woman at a convention. You are cosplaying as Wonder Woman. You start to notice that when people smile you, there is something in their eyes that makes you uncomfortable. You wish that Wonder Woman wore a sweater instead of a bustier. Someone’s been following you. You hadn’t noticed before, but they’ve been taking pictures of you the whole time. (True story, but I was dressed as Momiji from Fruits Basket.)

Now, which Wonder Woman do you think they saw you as?:

Ed Benes

Cliff Chiang


Although usually when I read the comment section on articles like this I hate myself, I came across this from a poster by the name of Larry:

“I agree with Brothers, and I appreciate his approach to this issue. First, let me make clear that I am an avid collector of comics and have been for thirty years. Now then, while I find the depiction of female characters degrading and insulting to women, I also find it insulting to me a male–the idea that all I am is an animal attracted to sex and incapable of using my brain to think. However, making this argument is not going to have a single effect on the comics industry; the industry exists to make money, and the industry will continue to sell what it believes will make money. The industry is not really interested in art or intellectual stimulation, though it will pay lip-service to such ideas. Therefore, Brothers very intelligently speaks in terms the industry will understand–if the stories stink, the comics don’t sell, and the industry loses money. And I agree with him that the stories stink–the art is so oversexualized that it does distract from the story, and the comic as a whole ceases to be a work of art. Furthermore, the art is illogical–the female characters are NOT going to be dressed as they are for any practical reason, and most of them could never function (i.e. walk) if they were shaped as they are either. I know that some are going to say, “Of course, these characters are illogical. It’s a comic. It’s fiction. It’s all illogical and fantastical.” My reply is that I enjoy stories that exist within the realm of logical possibility or at least trick me into believing that they exist within the realm of possibility. I cannot be tricked into thinking that a woman with breasts larger than her head and who walks around in the position of someone impaled is going to fight off a villain or even stand up long enough to intimidate a villain. However, I sadly hold little hope that things will change.
One writer below expresses that he sees nothing wrong with what’s going on in comics; he thinks that creating ridiculously oversexualized women leads to greater appreciation and encouragement of women; and he writes with this kind of spelling and grammar: “a sexy women in a positve role that is just insain.” The comic industry knows the majority of its consumer population is only as intelligent as this person; thus, the industry will continue to publish this trash because it is going to continue to make money from consumers like this guy.”

But then there was this:

“Wonder Woman is a sex symbol. Always has been always will be so any examples with her should be thrown out the window entirely. No point in elaborating on that any further. This article was a waste of time, they’re over sexualized because thats just the nature of the genre. Comic characters represent ideals i.e. the “ideal” attractive yet strong woman. Applies to the male characters too, look at Green Lantern (or Superman for that matter) in that picture posted. He’s got muscles in places most people don’t have places. Anyone who is suggesting this leads to the way young males develop as adults is either biased or simply uneducated. Look around the media, this stuff is everywhere. If you want realism or something more conservative, read a novel.”

This sort of makes me wish I was a Superheroine so that I could get off this planet. Instead, I must play the role of BatCat the internet blogging Superheroine who stands up for the rights of the downtrodden every Tuesday night though her jointly-owned super blog!