Since apparently a bunch of people’s reading comprehension is pretty shit and wow the projection, here are some words and bits on why this skin is at least somewhat problematic:
To start, some positives since people assume I hate everything about it (lol, okay), the aesthetics, as a skin, are nice (except for those two specific issues with the skirt -- that’s just shit design meant to titillate dudes primarily). Composition is fine, details are fine. It's a good legendary skin in the context of it existing as a skin -- divorced of the charity event. I wouldn’t purposefully unlock it since I don’t care too much for it overall, what with it being so incredibly pink-femme (and if you’re really femme or like really femme things, that’s great! But I’m not one to feel that way overall. It’s neat being different from each other, even!), but it’s fine and it’s fine if you like it.
Surprising to some, it’s actually possible to have nuanced opinions about a thing. You can even like something and still have reservations about it! You can also like parts of something and think other parts of it are gross! Humans are capable of holding complex opinions! Shock horror!
Outside of a breast cancer fundraiser, the panty-shot shit would be irritating but it’s not nearly as gross. But in context of the charity event, it IS problematic. Full fucking stop.
Mercy is a doctor and, though she is more femme-presenting than not, the pigtails are pretty ick here (though that’s mostly an issue because it’s paired with the upskirt shit). Pigtails can be, and often are, infantilizing. In younger people, they are deeply tied to innocence, youth, girlhood, and other such concepts. Dva, in pigtails, is generally a better fit (see the Black Cat skin), given her dichotomous existence of super cute and super deadly.
Pigtails on grown, older women, though, have other connotations to them. Those connotations don't go well with Mercy in the context of a breast cancer research charity event. And, no matter how much you’d like to, you can’t just deny that those connotations exist just because you want to.
There are definitely Mercy mains and others that will get this because 1.) great cause (and going to a foundation that doesn’t squander donations like other foundations out there), 2.) she's real pretty, 3.) it’s a well-designed skin and it’s nice, and so on. But this is obviously aimed,at least in part, at getting dudes to buy this skin that find mercy hot (again, fucking upskirt shit and pigtails). I mean, I don’t think I need to explain the history of upskirt shots, fanservice, and related topics and how ick they can be -- how objectifying, disempowering, and sexist they can be -- but then again there are people trying to claim that I’m making it sexual. (again, lol)
Though I guess it needs to be said: this isn’t me making the skin sexual. A person pointing out sexualization of a design actually doesn’t mean that that person is making that design sexual. Mentioning that you notice a terrible smell in a room doesn’t mean you made the smell. Not sure why people trip up on that concept, but oh well.
So, sorry if me showing purposeful design decisions that show off her ass when she moves, or, ya know, she happens to be standing with her back to you, makes you cranky.
Whoever made that design did that on purpose. That was a decision that was made and deemed a-okay to be the flagship for a charity event meant to help save people from a terrible cancer. Ya know, people who, thanks to how terrible cancer tends to be, can feel awful about their bodies after recovery thanks to how much weight our cultures tend to put on female ideals of beauty -- especially if they had to have a mastectomy of some kind.
As I said above, I can't help but see this skin as a muuuch fancier version of a "Save the Ta-tas" kind of shit and that’s real gross.
But breast cancer campaigns can, and do absolutely, have problems when it comes to using sexuality, titillation, and women's bodies as objects to sell the concept of saving them (See: any kind of “Save the Ta-tas”, “Save the boobies” kind of garbage; campaigns that feature nearly entirely white women that are “feminine” ideals; campaigns that never feature women post-remission that had to have invasive surgeries, etc. And also, check out where donations made to cancer foundations can actually end up). Yes, they raise at least some money. And yeah, that money raised is good. But the message and the subtext is still there, whether it was intended or not.
And yes, this event will raise money for breast cancer research. Yes, that's a good thing. And it’s real good that BCRF is receiving these donations, since they’re not known for the bullshit other foundations have been busted for.
To wrap up: the above isn't about me trying to say that Mercy should never, or could never, be in pigtails. Nor that she should never have a skin that’s more sexualized. No, I definitely didn’t say that. And that on its own is okay, but again, the symbolism will always be there. Sometimes, that’s perfectly fine. I mean, I draw erotica, sometimes straight up porn, and other art that celebrates sensuality, sexuality, and so on. I’m about as far as one can possibly get from disliking things that show skin.
It's the context that’s the issue here.
The real kicker to all this: None of the things produced in a culture, global or otherwise, exist in a vacuum. And even if you want to, you can't just strip an artifact, image, piece of art, or in this case campaigns, from its history and its connotations.
Breast cancer campaigns have a history of problematic shit: from problematic slogans to not being clear about how much of the donations go to actually finding cures to sexualized imagery to the nearly complete erasure of men, cis or trans, as people that can be personally affected by it. (That last one can be pretty bad since it means that most men don't check themselves nor think of it as a possibility until it’s far too late and even doctors of those people don’t always consider it as a possibility as well.)
Things overall have gotten better over the years, but you can’t just ignore what came before. Especially when it’s still happening.
And if you're one to whine about "Well, if you know so much, what do YOU think would have been better??", I'll tell you: something that actually, ya know, draws on her medical background. Even if it's in a stylized motif within the vision of her in a magical girl theme. It can still be femme but ya know, not something with as much built-in, passive upskirt. Give the material on the outer part just a bit more weight and even out the hemline a bit, something. Just changing those alone would vastly help this skin -- in its charity context.
Again, it’s fine if you like the skin. I’m not demonizing people that like it. Fucking obviously. It’s a great cause (And BCRF is definitely deserving of being the recipient) and the idea of charity skins, alone, is great.
But as I said in the OP: “Yes, money is going to a good cause. But the vehicle through which that happens matters and overly sexualizing women’s bodies to get people to donate their money for the cause is gross.” And that bit doesn’t lay at the feet of the organizers behind the event, BCRF, nor the people that like this skin. Any anger here is directed at the people who made those unnecessarily, pretty ick design decisions for the skin, in the context of this event.
And if you’re not familiar with the history I’ve mentioned above, look up pinkwashing and related things, problematic slogans, etc. Some were quite awhile ago now, but again, that shit lingers and still has echoes today. Like, it’s not uncommon and it’s not really a thing of the past. Unfortunately.
