I’m going to start by saying that this probably warrants an even bigger article with much more in-depth research. (Maybe I’ll do it one day). But for now, this is an article of me “noticing things” and starting to put the pieces together.
Goth boys (I say “boys” instead of men as goths are normally only depicted as teenage/young adults) in media tend to be punchlines, and that’s it. Or, if not necessarily a punchline, distinctly undesirable. Their “weirdness,” while occasionally endearing, is hardly ever the sign of anything “enticing.” There are outliers, of course (such as The Crow), but usually, the “more gothed-up” a boy is (the more lipstick and pale foundation), the less likely he is to be considered a romantic/sexual interest. Goth girls, however, get a much different treatment…
There are still goth girls that are portrayed as merely “weird” and distinctly undesirable. But goths girls often get a few other treatments as well: lovable underdogs, villains, and/or sexual symbols (often objects). This often results in goth girls in the real world being treated as a sort of object as well – a fetish more than a person.
So, let’s categorize.
Category One: Undesirable
Examples: Allison Reynolds (The Breakfast Club), Janis Ian (Mean Girls), Megan Gordon (Mirror Mirror), Mona (The House Bunny), Astrid Magnussen (White Oleander), Mrs. Lovett (Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street)
Janis and Megan may also be lovable underdogs, but the concept of them as attractive is one the films seem to find strange and unlikely. Janis is bullied for potentially being a lesbian and her ultimate pairing with a male classmate at the end is both played for laughs and based on racial preferences. Megan needs the help of a magic mirror to attract men and ultimately becomes evil under its influence. Allison and Mona are only considered beautiful once they undergo makeovers, with Mona retaining parts of her aesthetic – but with a new male gaze, and Allison ditching it entirely (one of the worst movie makeovers in cinematic history). Astrid is only goth for a short time in the film and this aesthetic is meant to represent her hopelessness and tragedy. Mrs. Lovett is seen as a doomed character for her infatuation with Sweeny Todd. She is nothing compared to the blonde-haired gentle beauties Lucy and Johanna (so the film wants us to believe).
Category Two: Loveable Underdog
Examples: Wednesday Addams (All Addams Family media), Lydia Deetz (Beetlejuice), Almost Everyone in Cecil B. Demented, Mo (The Convent), Elvira (Elvira, Mistress of the Dark), Selina Kyle (Batman Returns), Paige/Saraya Knight (Fighting with My Family), Lisbeth Salander (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, 2009), Mavis Dracula (Hotel Transylvania), Janis Ian (Mean Girls), Megan Gordon (Mirror Mirror), Magenta (Sky High), Jane Burnham (American Beauty), Estella/Cruella (Cruella)
Some of these characters are lovable, but undesirable like Janis and Megan (as already detailed in the previous section). Some of these characters are lovable underdogs – but are meant to be perceived as attractive by the audience (as a key part of their appeal), such as Elvira, and Selina Kyle. One finds herself at a strange crossroads between undesirable, objectified, and “cool” (Lisbeth Salander). But mostly, their main trait is lovability. Elvira’s lovability may be directly tied to her sex appeal and crude jokes, but if her sexuality didn’t come with her humor, she wouldn’t be iconic as she was and still is today. But the non-sexual characters (that often feel very ace-coded) of Wednesday, Lydia, and Jane are simply meant to be lovable and quirky. They are also young, which doesn’t always result in a lack of sexualization but might contribute here. But we love them because they are weird and regardless of how attractive we, or others, find them. We love Wednesday’s sardonic deadpan humor, Lydia’s indifference and ingenuity, Mo’s quick comebacks, Elvira’s clever sexual jokes, Selina’s one-liners and backflips, Paige’s determination, Lisbeth’s brains and brawn, Janis’s brashness and partially justified cruelty, Megan’s kindness (at first), Magenta’s attitude, Jane’s dark interests, and Cruella’s rebellion. They know that the world often doesn’t like them, but they refuse to back down. They remain their dark quirky selves. The outliers here are probably the characters of Cecil B. Demented (pure John Waters’ camp that can’t quite be categorized) and Mavis (much more bubbly and positive).
This is definitely the most positive category. The girls and women here are mostly fully realized, nuanced, empowered characters – instant fan favorites for good reason.
However, some bits of cruelty and objectification aren’t the only issue. There is also the issue of women supporting women, or, rather, the lack thereof. Wednesday often toes the line here. In the two live-action feature films (when portrayed by Christina Ricci) her main enemy is a blonde bubbly girl – but because that girl represented a specific type of cruelty. It still contains a bit of the “down with the blonde-haired blue-eyed pretty girls” mentality, but uplifts not just Wednesday but also all the “nerds,” disabled kids, and kids of color she befriended at the summer camp. The Wednesday TV show, however, does show Wednesday lashing out a bit more freely (such as her initial treatment of Enid).
I doubt this concept is unfamiliar to anyone – goth girl vs pretty cheerleader is a common trope. And in media such as The Convent, we root for Mo’s quick comebacks and roll our eyes at mean girl Kaitlin. And while it’s true that girls who don’t fit the “norm” are often bullied, the “us vs them” mentality can get old fast – and is often missing the full picture. This is actually what I loved so much about the Paige biopic Fighting with My Family. The film shows that Paige’s initial hostility and discomfort are not entirely unfounded and are built on a lifetime of experience – and it hurts to know that while you were chosen for talent, most are chosen for looks and that is now your biggest competition. But it then shows the reversal, how her cruelty to the other “normal pretty girl” wrestlers was not truly justified and the focus on beauty over the wrestling experience is not a flaw of the formal models’ doing but of misogyny. Despite how cliché it sounds, the film genuinely soars when the girls start working together rather than treating each other with side-eyes and snide remarks. While this may not be 100% true to life, as Paige is still often sexualized both for wrestling alone and for being goth – it’s still a great and sadly unique piece of media on that front.
Category Three: Villain/Anti-Hero
Examples: Selina Kyle (Batman Returns), Nancy Downs (plus Rochelle and Bonnie) (The Craft), Estella/Cruella (Cruella), Bellatrix Lestrange (Harry Potter series), Maleficent (Maleficent), Megan Gordon (Mirror Mirror), Queen Narissa (Enchanted), Akasha (Queen of the Damned), Mrs. Lovett (Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street)
You may wonder why I didn’t place Nancy into the lovable underdog category. That’s because she isn’t – according to the film. Apologies to my fellow goth girlies, but I hate The Craft as I find it is far too cruel to its witchy leads. We, as viewers, love Nancy. We love her aesthetic, her attitude, and her evilness. But the film wants her to fall and leaves us to root for Sarah (our righteous lead) in taking her down. It tells us that she is jealous due to her undesirability (she may even belong in that category but I couldn’t bring myself to do it) – despite other evidence pointing to the fact that she was trying to get revenge on a man who tried to assault her friend… She starts fun but quickly becomes “too much” – too jealous, too angry, too evil. Obviously, we think differently. Nancy is hailed as a goth icon. But I think that’s a bit of an accident and done by goth girls who decide to rightfully read against the grain of the film.
But yes, here are the villains. What is interesting here is the overlap. The anti-heroes tend to overlap with the loveable underdog categories (Selina Kyle, Cruella, Maleficent, Megan) while the other more basic villains, tend to overlap with the sexual (Bellatrix, Queen Narissa, Akasha) or undesirable (Bellatrix, Mrs. Lovett) categories (yes I think Bellatrix is supposed to fit into both the undesirable and sexual categories despite the contradiction).
There’s not much to say here besides the simple concept that gothic aesthetics are often synonymous with villainy. This is a tale as old as time, if perhaps a bit annoying in real life (I knew someone who thought goth people were genuinely bad people and shouldn’t be goth around children).
Maybe I’ll just add the fun fact that Bellatrix Lestrange was one of my first “celebrity crushes” (fictional character vs celebrity doesn’t feel much different as far as crushes go – especially for children).
Category Four: Sexual Symbol/Object
Examples: Morticia Addams (All Addams Family media), Selina Kyle (Batman Returns), Tiffany Valentine (Chucky franchise), The Bride of Frankenstein (The Bride of Frankenstein), Sapphira (The Convent), Elvira (Elvira, Mistress of the Dark), Marla Singer (Fight Club), Lisbeth Salander (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, 2009), The Hex Girls (Scooby-Doo! And the Witch’s Ghost), Queen Narissa (Enchanted), Akasha (Queen of the Damned), Selene (Underworld series)
This category isn’t all bad. For example, Elvira, Selina Kyle, Tiffany Valentine, Morticia Addams, and The Hex Girls are some of my all-time favorite characters. But when it comes to characters like Elvira, Selina, Tiffany, and Morticia, however much the film loves them and affords them agency and nuance and empowerment – however “in” on their sexuality they are – they are still mainly remembered in culture for their sex appeal. There’s often a stark difference between the way men and women view those characters. Women often point to their agency while straight men often point to their sex appeal (even the women that do think these characters are hot – I think most of us do – love them for other reasons). It probably isn’t fair to critique a film for men misinterpreting its female characters, but it’s quite telling that Selina Kyle in Batman Returns is most remembered for her sexy costume rather than her tragic and emotional arc about violence against women.
But, ignoring men (as more of us should), this category can basically be split into three subcategories: nuanced and fully realized characters, pure sex appeal for the sake of sex appeal, and those somewhere in the middle– such as Tiffany Valentine and Elvira (though Elvira’s objectification was created by Cassandra Peterson herself as a key element of the persona, which makes the term objectification feel a bit wrong despite perhaps still fitting). There’s also characters like Selene from Underworld who may be the main character, but they are also objectified, and that sex appeal is crucial – even if not crucial to the story itself.
Bonus Category: Queer
Graham Eaton and Sinead Lauren from But I’m a Cheerleader work with the stereotype that goth girls are lesbians but remove it from its typical category of undesirable. Sadly, the queer aspect of a lot of goth girls in media is merely a subcategory of “undesirable” and a way to insult the weird unattractive girl. That, or it’s thrown toward the loveable underdog in a bullying attempt that we are meant to be offended by. “She’s not a lesbian she’s just cool!” For Graham and Sinead – it’s both. Not to mention the countless queer goth girls I know in real life – my biromantic ass included. Oh, and plenty of goth icons like Cassandra Peterson (better known as Elvira).
Notice the overlap between some categories – but the specific ones. The “undesirable” category doesn’t contain much overlap – just some loveable underdogs that are still meant to be unattractive. But there are numerous sexual underdogs and sexual villains – even all three. For example, Selina Kyle, while perhaps not the most traditional of goth aesthetics, does fit all three with her thick eyeliner and tight leather outfit, anti-hero behavior, and ultimate lovability and narrative sympathy (despite being a Batman film, her arc seems to be at the core of the film – see my previous article about it if interested). But the most comment crossovers are the hot underdogs and sexy villains – because attractiveness is still often key in media/society, and sexuality specifically is important for goth girl representation.
I always found the sexualization of goth girls a bit odd. Obviously, a lot of goth aesthetics do have ties to BDSM culture and evoke images of Dominatrices. The vast majority of female metal and musicians often utilize this in their lyrics and presentations. The lyrics of bands such as Halestorm, In This Moment, The Pretty Reckless, etc. often flaunt imagery of the lead singers as lovers of dirty, violent sex. A “I like when you hit me and I’ll hit you right back” mentality. Distinctly sexual and often violent. How much of this self-representation is true and how much is a part of their rockstar persona, is unclear – though I imagine the latter is not an empty category.
I love you for everything you ever took from me
I love the way you dominate when you violate me
I love you for every time you gave up on me
I love you for the way you look when you lie to me
I love you for never believing in what I say
I love you for never once giving me my way
I love you for never delivering me from pain
I love you for always driving me insaneBlood, blood, blood, pump mud through my veins
In This Moment, “Blood”
Shut your dirty, dirty mouth, I’m not that insane
Blood, blood, blood, pump mud through my veins
I’m a dirty, dirty girl, I want it filthy
But ever since I was a kid, I have idolized goth aesthetics – while remaining firmly asexual. And I’m not alone. My favorite asexual activist (Yasmin Benoit – check her out!) and my favorite goth fashion “influencer” are both asexual goth girls. Out of all the asexual people I personally know, 4/5 have at least a little bit of a gothic or “emo” aesthetic. And if you wanted to scroll through the @thisiswhatasexuallookslike Instagram page (created by Yasmin Benoit) you’d see a high percentage of goth/”emo” people (I have a generous understanding of goth aesthetics and include every subcategory. To me, “emo” is goth.)
“Why do you dress like that if you don’t want people to sexualize you?”
This is a real question I’ve gotten (a few times actually, but this direct quote can only be accounted for once). Then I have to explain how people can dress however they want, and then other people interpret them however they do. If someone sees a photo of me in “Big Tiddy Goth Girlfriend” mode (many of us have embraced the term (usually in queer and/or feminist spaces)), and they decide they want to have sex with me. Okay. That’s fine. They’re not going to, though.
I can’t control how people interpret and perceive me, only how I want to look. And while having noticeable breasts and lots of leather is often perceived as sexual by many, it isn’t for me. And I’m clearly not alone (as shown above).
SO, what am I trying to say here exactly? Well, a few things: 1) Someone’s aesthetics (goth in this instance) are not an excuse to force your own desires and fetishes onto them (you can have those desires, but that’s on you, not them), 2) we need to stop pinning girls against each other based on aesthetics, 3) queer media representation still has a long way to go, and 4) goth girls deserve better in film (as do goth boys and non-binary goths).
Not adequately discussed in this article: non-binary goth people (basically non-existent in media still) and race (goth girls of color are vastly unrepresented in media and face even more intricate objectifications and fetishizations (Yasmin Benoit, the asexual activist mentioned above, is a Black woman and has a lot of excellent writing on the intersection of her race, aesthetics, and sexuality – highly recommend checking her out!).
