"Do you really need a great understanding of comic books to comprehend that what superheroes are wearing is not underwear?  Terming it as such is nothing but mockery and disdain."

Or it is a mistake by someone simply following conventional wisdom as the uninitiated. Perhaps it would be best to consider someone's intent rather than being reactionary.

••

Being "reactionary", in this instance, would be using all the incorrect terms non-fans seem to have accumulated. "Reactionary" means sticking to established ways, resisting change. It does not mean, as you seem to be using it, merely reacting to something.

That said, it takes more than simple lack of understanding of the forms and conventions to refer to a superhero's costume as "underwear". It takes contempt.

••

T'wasn't a conversation, t'was email, as noted in my first post.

But your point about how long superheroes have been around is valid. Even the iconic shot of Clark Kent ripping open his shirt to reveal his Superman costume underneath should not cast these costumes in the role of "underwear", any more than my putting on a winter coat transforms the shirt I have on into "underwear".

Like "spandex", it is a term that is deliberately belittling.*

99

* I've run down that list before. SOME superheroes probably would wear Spandex, in today's world. And forty years ago, they would have worn a leotard, tights. These would be the ones like Spider-Man whose costume is homemade. But even a quick glance at the Marvel and DC "universes" reveals that MOST of the characters do not wear anything remotely like Spandex. The FF, the Hulk, Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, the X-Men, Superman, Green Lantern, Flash -- and, of course, Wonder Woman.

••

Well, I can't say I agree, Wallace. So I guess I'll have to ban you from the Forum, right? Everybody knows that's what always happens to anyone who has an opinion different from mine!

Also I will be sending Reed, Greer and Simko along to beat you up!

Contempt ... or abysmal ignorance?

Let's assume for a moment that a person -- call it Clone #99 -- has no idea what a uniformed superhero is. Let's further assume that this person has had some exposure to girly illustrations.

Show Clone #99 a drawing of Wonder Woman and ask to describe what is shown in the drawing. I would bet some serious dough that terms like "bathing suits", "bikini", "underwear", "bustier", "knee-high boots" would be ellicited.

It's inevitable. Many writers today approach a subject without regard to the subject's context or history. It's as if the writer treats the subject as though it came into existence the very moment the writer became aware of it.

There is also the detestable tendency that runs across the spectrum of humanity to confuse perception with reality. Take the example of Socrates whose main claim to fame resides in his propensity for challenging people to justify whether their opinion was based on perception or reality. Once people have decided to perceive comics as "this" or "that", their opinions are entrenched and nothing short of a butt-f*ck will soften their stance.

John, a suggestion: Years ago I read about how Steve Ditko was offered a collaboration with a writer. When this writer called Ditko up to introduce himself, Ditko's first question was "What is a hero?" Apparently, this was a litmus test that the writer had to pass.

I suggest that you set up a similar litmus test for yourself to eliminate the chaff. Something like "What do you think Wonder Woman's uniform is made up of?" or "What is your impression of the Batman / Robin relationship?"