(sorry, long rant)

But more to the point, what is the problem exactly? If T&A is cheap, as in Padme's instant half-shirt, that's bad art, a lousy bit of man service. Or if it's a crime-fighting superwoman in high-heeled go-go boots, well, that's more obvious cheap fan service. But this idea that sexuality cheapens art generally is asinine, unless one subscribes to the puritanical idea that sex is a negative impulse.

"Oh, but this sort of thing objectifies women." No, acting objectifies everyone in the profession. Not only do I not know these actors, I have no chance of knowing them. Outside of my life circle, everyone is an object. That's not to say they would remain objects if I somehow got to know them - of course they would not. But all we know of these people beyond their roles is the personae they use on the talk-show circuit. We can, if we choose, learn little additional snippets about these people - who they marry, what their kids' names are, where they grew up - but all we get is an image. Every factoid sharpens the image a little, but it's still an image. It's nothing like knowing someone in the way that we know the people in our everyday lives. If being objectified is a problem, being an actor only makes it worse - for actors of either gender.

I don't care for anything gratuitous - sex, violence, profanity - you name it. But there is a place for these elements depending on the type of movie it is. And a filmmaker drawing too deeply from the T&A well may be sexist, but he/she may not be. Who can tell? How can one know what's in someone's heart from such scant evidence, especially when there may be pressure from studio bosses to ramp up the hotness? I'm not God. If you're (no one specific, the collective you) comfortable with declaring "Sexism!" here, well, you must have a phenomenally flawless method of reading people and their intentions. And of course, you must have a problem with actresses who choose to participate in this affront to womanhood.