"Slut-shaming women for being sexual beings is wrong. Depictions of women as sexual beings is demeaning and wrong. These two contradicting statements are somehow supposed to make sense simultaneously. "
Like let's look at this. First of all, "depictions of women as sexual beings is demeaning and wrong" is a pretty bad attempt at summarizing feminist arguments regarding objectification. The issue is not that women can't be depicted as sexual, the issue is the way that it's packaged for consumers. Because, ultimately, Spider-Woman the comic book is a product to be sold, created by a group of writers and artists.
I'm not a fan of the slut-shaming argument because it seems to leave no room for subtlety but when people bring it up they're obviously talking about how women expressing desire and sexuality are perceived. Spider-Woman, a fictional being, has no desire (besides in-universe story shyt, of course) and expresses only what the people who are writing her want to express. Like the usual response is "what if she wants to be perceived as sexual blah blah" she doesn't want anything. Maybe there's an in-universe explanation for why she dresses the way she does (similar to Power Girl having the chest window) but that's not a real universe that exists in a vacuum, it's a universe that was created for entertainment and is influenced by the ideas of the creative team.
If you think the two statements contradict, then you have to think it's somehow possible for a real person to slut-shame a fictional being, in which case you might suffer from that shyt Star Wars and Star Treks fan do where they act as if the universes in those pieces of entertainment are real things.
