KitchenWitch said: I didn't watch Enterprise, so have no idea what T'Pol was like, but Seven certainly was no bimbo, and had other qualities to her character and story than a catsuit.
Valid points both, but which in no way obviate the fact that she
was wearing a catsuit---which is entirely unprofessional and inappopriate attire for the bridge of a starship, where discipline is a necessity and unnecessary distraction something to be avoided.
An interesting observation, take it or leave it: In the Misc forum, I've seen many complaints/rants about people who would judge others by what they wear. If someone dresses like a bum, it doesn't mean they are a bum. If someone dresses like a dweeb, it doesn't mean they are. There are a lot of impassioned comments about not taking people at face value.
Let us extend your analogy slightly: If someone dresses like a slut, it doesn't mean they are. Like it or not, admit it or not, it does, however, mean that they're dressed like a slut. One does not don fishnets, FMPs, garters and a minidress to conduct business in which you expect to be taken seriously and regarded with respect.
[Of course, I'm also the guy that cheered when Jellico told Troi, then in her guise as Counselor Boobs, that he required a certain formality on the bridge, and requested that she wear a standard uniform while on duty.]
So why take characters at face value?
That's a false dilemma, since it's not an all or nothing issue. One can take exception to certain aspects of a character's portrayal, including their attire, without condemning him or her out of hand. Seven of Nine was a nuanced and intriguing character. That in no way legitimizes the catsuit into which Ryan was crammed. Calling her "36 of D," a common ... ahem ... catcall some years ago, might have been a bit cruel, but it addressed the point rather tellingly.
T'Pol's catsuit was, in my opinion, even less justified. Vulcans are as a rule rather a staid and conservative race, and all
Trek established that they're quite deliberate and dogged in the attempt to suppress their emotions. It's inconsistent to don provocative attire, considering their philosophical stance.
If Seven had been written and played as a bimbo or a slut, the complaints would be justified. She wasn't, so while the character may *look* like she's catering to the lowest common denominator, she wasn't.
The complaints are justified either way, whether or not you choose to acknowledge that. Granted that just because something appeals to the "lowest common denominator" does not mean that is its sole or even primary appeal. On the other hand, just because a character has numerous redeeming and admirable traits does not mean there aren't places for improvement in conception and execution.
And I daresay that those of us who are willing to look past the costume to the *character* are using a bit more brain power than those who claim we're the "lowest common denominator" give us credit for.
I for one have not disparaged your intelligence, nor do I intend to do so.
One can reasonably argue, though, that the objective observer would not look past appearances to a character's perceived core, but would instead take into account all aspects, including dress, before drawing a conclusion.
Again, one may have a difference of opinion on the propriety of a catsuit without necessarily being a prude or Puritan.
