Both points are valid.  As Rick said WW was original created as a dominate female personality.  The BDS&M elements of the covers and panels posted (I have not read the source material) certainly seem to be there as both part of the character as much as a elements of driving sales points.  Sex sells.  Even if a dominatrix superheroine appeals to a smaller group of readers.  It obviously appealed to Marston (from what I've read about him seemed to grasp the concept well) and some people of that time as it sold copies.  Maybe not a huge group, but perhaps others read it for other reasons and the bondage parts of the books weren't a big deal or offensive to them enough to not buy and read the book.  Characters shouldn't be defined in what is such a small aspect of being human.  We all have sex to procreate.  We have a biological urge and a biological mechanism to make it enjoyable to the senses so that we continue to copulate.  What things that makes that mechanism go in over drive to make it more enjoyable may be giving the reins to the gal (literally even if you want) and letting go.

Which brings me to what shaxper pointed out.  I can't agree that there is or should be a difference as long as it is a consensual act.  Both parties agree to what they are involved in.  No one is "degraded" beyond what they are willing to be a part of and both parties should agree on this.  Now if we are talking comics and fiction, then outside of violence there should be no siding with either gender as what is agreeable in society to see if.  If sexually degrading a woman is wrong, then so is a man, whether it is by the opposite gender or the same.  If WW can't be sexualized that Superman better wear a toga.  Most all comic characters (especially super hero comics) are sexualized to some extent these days, if not from the start.  It's fantasy.  And boys (the biggest readers) want to imagine themselves and strong and powerful looking men as much as the want to fantasize about the perfect female form.  What is ingrained in our brains as humans is to find the most appealing mate to copulate with. 

Why should that be different in the fiction that we entertain ourselves with?  Because from the start most monotheistic religions have taught the male as the superior of the two genders.  Even if you as a person aren't religious ... its there.  Women's liberation, right to vote, and other equal rights movements wouldn't even be in place if it were for these "holy texts" that we are suppose to abide by.  It's why something that can't be debated as any more "legit" than the Bible itself never made it to the teachings of Christianity because it down plays the role of the man which would collapse the whole Christian mechanism ...

From the Alphabet of Ben Sira ....

"While God created Adam, who was alone, He said, 'It is not good for man to be alone' (Genesis 2:18). He also created a woman, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith. Adam and Lilith immediately began to fight. She said, 'I will not lie below,' and he said, 'I will not lie beneath you, but only on top. For you are fit only to be in the bottom position, while I am to be the superior one.' Lilith responded, 'We are equal to each other inasmuch as we were both created from the earth.' But they would not listen to one another. When Lilith saw this, she pronounced the Ineffable Name and flew away into the air. Adam stood in prayer before his Creator: 'Sovereign of the universe!' he said, 'the woman you gave me has run away.' At once, the Holy One, blessed be He, sent these three angels to bring her back."

That's the mentality that this is even a conversation.  Degradation of any human for any reason or in any way is inexcusable.  But that we still to do this day take sides or make excuses for the other side, seems that we still have no grasp on equality.  That men fear the power of a woman or giving her the opportunity to really be on equal shows a huge weakness as a gender.  And extremely liberal women hating on men for what they have done all these years shows a real lack of desire to truly be equal as a species.  I really believe that we can be equal as a species if we want to.  But when we make these points of argument part of discourse it seems that we go with something being a offense the more that it's done, not that is done even once.

Granted these are fictional characters and they are only allowed to dissuade or change our views on what we already believe if we let them.  Will I ever feel inferior as a man because I take a submissive role or allow my wife the freedoms she deserves as being a equal partner in our relationship?  No.  Will I ever find these kinds of discussion change?  That depends.

[/soapbox]

Over 90 replies and no one has mentioned a sexy moment.

I think I just grew up in the wrong era for seeing Wonder Woman as sexy. As a child of the '80s, Wonder Woman was part of the trinity -- the authority figures you respect as embodiements of wisdom and righteousness, not the kind of folk you fantasized about.

Now Wonder Girl...I could talk about Donna Troy's sex appeal all day long.

What both Donna Troy and Storm have in common, though, is that they are repeatedly depicted as strong, self-reliant, and wise, and their sexiness stems from that. No bad-girl covers and S&M scenarios for them -- at least as they were classically depicted.

And really, was Donna's outfit any tighter or more revealing than any other member of the team's?

I respect that too.

I loved Mohawk Storm -- not sexually -- but man, she was the perfect bad-ass, as well as a logical evolution for the character after all she had endured.

[/quote]



That was a great cover. Her costume from that era was the best one she ever had.

And I mentioned catfights; doesn't that count?

I find it very interesting that about a half-dozen posters have stated that they don't find WW very sexy. Going by the logic in the essay of the aforementioned Ms. Thompson, this should be impossible, because the very act of giving WW an outfit that shows a lot of flesh is supposed to be "automatic objectification." Cause, you know, guys are all robots and we all like exactly the same thing.

Now, even as I say that, I know how one can poke holes in it: just because many fans don't find the ink-and-paper WW to be very sexy doesn't mean no fans ever did, or that the editors weren't reaching out to fans who might be turned on by the heroine's skimpy clothes, the same way many had to previous heroines like Sheena. But if anything what we seem to be seeing in the "non-sexy" posts is that WW functions as an idealization-figure who isn't sensual-- which is exactly the phenomenon
Thompson asserts to be true only of buff male superheroes.

ADDENDUM: I should add that one of the most famous comics-fans, Jules Feiffer, said that he got no buzz from Wonder Woman but liked Sheena just fine.

I have read a few scattered issues in Classic X-Men reprints, but I still liked her as a strong female character. I'm neither Native Americsn nor cared for punk hairstyles on gals.

Yes it was very regal and fitting of her personality. I also thought the 90s X-Men cartoon did well with picking the gal that did her voice.