Why I don’t like the Sexy Lamp Test
The Sexy Lamp Test is roughly defined as:
“If you can take out a female character and replace her with a sexy lamp, YOU’RE A FUCKING HACK”
and it just doesn’t strike me as particularly useful or sensible, never has, and I’m trying to unpick why.
Partly, it’s because it’s poorly defined. I’ve heard it defined two ways: one: “If the woman does nothing to change the story, she’s a Sexy Lamp” and two: “If the woman is only there to provide a plot device, she’s a Sexy Lamp” So, let’s say you have your female character do little else but use the power of True Love’s Kiss to save the protagonist at the end of the movie. That surely couldn’t be the action of a Sexy Lamp (because her action and agency changed the story; without her, the hero would still be in peril) except that she is still a Sexy Lamp (because her presence was just a plot device to get the hero back in action.) Man, those Lamps can’t catch a break. So there’s that, but I suppose that’s more a problem with the way the test is applied more than the test itself. Moving on-
– you’ve got what I have decided to name The Cosette Problem. When I went googling ‘sexy lamps’ Cosette’s name came up a lot. The reasoning being: she’s a sexy lamp because she doesn’t actually do anything important to the plot of Les Miserables. And that reasoning’s absolutely right: she doesn’t. In both book and musical, you could replace child Cosette with a Woobie Lamp and adult Cosette with a Sexy Lamp and everything would still make sense.
She never makes any decisions that have any impact on the plot, she doesn’t fight on the barricades, her whole world revolves around Valjean and Marius. And yet, she has personality (she’s loving, she’s selfless, she’s often funny), and though she may not be important to the (extremely meandering) plot of Les Miserables she’s got tremendous, tremendous importance to the themes of the story. Her very existence – the child of a prostitute grown into a kind, beautiful young woman – made a political point at the time the book starring her was written, and Les Miserables is a fiercely political book. Calling her nothing but a Sexy Lamp seems very much to take away all that. This isn’t to say she’s a feminist character (whether such a thing even exists could be a whole post on its own) or that Victor Hugo was a feminist writer or anything, it’s just saying there’s more to her character, more to a lot of characters, than “what do they actually do?” because I don’t think a character necessarily should have to do anything for the plot to be a worthwhile character.Which brings me to The Wives from Mad Max: Fury Road. They are sexy
lamps! No really, applying the most basic possible form of the test to them, they are! They don’t do anything to further the plot and they’re sexy. Furiosa isn’t a Sexy Lamp – the whole story revolves around her and her choices – but if you replace the Wives with sexy lamps the plot remains the same. Except the story doesn’t. Of course it doesn’t, because of “We are not things” and because of the whole point of the movie. But you get what I’m saying, right?I get that the intent behind the Sexy Lamp test is ‘don’t objectify women’ but I hope that example shows that the idea as it currently stands lacks nuance. It’s concerned with ticking boxes rather than looking at deeper meanings. And that’s fine! That’s also what the Bechdel test does! But this post is a smattering of the reasons why I really hope that those ticked boxes don’t become the be-all and end-all of discussion about female representation.
Nitpick: the Wives do take action at times, such as Angharad using herself as a human shield, or Capable (I think) befriending Nux. Now, you could argue that those are both “plot device” actions for the protagonists (counting Nux as a surprise protagonist due to the extreme amount of growth he experiences), but they do take action.
That being said, I agree that there’s are problems with the Sexy Lamp test, and it isn’t just the lack of definition. I think one problem is the plot is not the whole point of a story, and if you try to define characters solely in relation to the plot, you’re going to lose a lot.
I don’t know, maybe a better test would be, does your female character perform more than one function in the story? Capable, for instance, is a plot catalyst for Furiosa (she wouldn’t be on the road without the Wives), a growth catalyst for Nux, someone who contributes to the worldbuilding aspect of the film (named or nicknamed for what may be a cardinal virtue, extremely valued for her health and fertility, these are things that tell us stuff), and someone who receives some characterization in her own right, although not as much as the leads.
But that isn’t the Sexy Lamp Test anymore, and what’s more, it becomes very subjective, with people arguing about what is or isn’t characterization, and whether this or that constitutes a separate story role, or … yeah.
I think one problem is the plot is not the whole point of a story, and
if you try to define characters solely in relation to the plot, you’re
going to lose a lot.
Yes, that’s it exactly! That’s what bugs me, sometimes. The Sexy Lamp Test can tell you a lot about women in relation to the plot, but sometimes very little about their relation to the point.
Maybe a good test would be ‘What does this character exist for? Is she relevant to the plot? Is she relevant to the theme? Is she there to make a point about something? To debunk a stereotype?’ but even then I think there’s no way all that isn’t quite subjective, too.