190 replies to this topic

[David Meadows]

You said yourself he can't have sex like a normal person because he has a bat cave, and a utility belt, and all kinds of knick knacks and paddiwacks that prohibit him from even removing his gloves, let alone having normal sex.

One thing that bothered me about that scene was, with all his paranoia about leaving fingerprints and DNA around, does he have a bat-condom?

Or is holding it in a part of the bat-skillset?

You should spend more time chasing girls and less time debating them Ogul.

From my brain to your lips.

What's this, one poster making an insulting personal comment about another poster and then a moderator apparently endorsing it?

What's happened to Millarworld?

why don't you try having sex with a woman whilst wearing gloves? i'm sure it would go down well. one might argue that wearing gloves while having sex implies that the person you're having sex with is dirty, or somehow unworthy of the intimacy that literal physical touch brings. wearing socks simply suggests laziness or perhaps it's a practicality.

Ah... yeah, I actually know people who have sex wearing full rubber body suits. You shouldn't really judge people on their sexual preferences, it's considered bad form.

Who do you think is the kinkiest superhero when it comes to sex? It's probably Batman right?

Hank Pym. (This is canon.)

[stephanie familiar]

Ah... yeah, I actually know people who have sex wearing full rubber body suits. You shouldn't really judge people on their sexual preferences, it's considered bad form.

ogul stated that having sex with socks on is as weird as having sex with gloves on. i disagree, but the rest of my comment wasn't based on anyone's sexual preferences, it was about the topic at hand: sexism IN COMICS. if one makes the argument that misogyny, sexism, and hyper-sexuality is rampant in comics, then one could argue that depicting sex between two people where the man has gloves on could be viewed in a certain way. that's all, so settle down.

[David Meadows]

I knew you weren't really saying that. But it does illustrate one of Ogul's general points: that the stuff we see in comics isn't just in comics, the comics are actually reflecting stuff that goes on in the real world.

Now, granted, it would be better writing if the comic actually make an intelligent comment on what went on in the real world, instead of just parrotting it...

[stephanie familiar]

I knew you weren't really saying that. But it does illustrate one of Ogul's general points: that the stuff we see in comics isn't just in comics, the comics are actually reflecting stuff that goes on in the real world.

there's no hero in my sky, so i'm going to have to mildly disagree with you when you say that comics are a reflection of the real world. unless of course you meant more generally in regards to issues like sexism.

[David Meadows]

unless of course you meant more generally in regards to issues like sexism.

Yes, that's what I meant. I would have hoped that was obvious

[Ogul]

What's this, one poster making an insulting personal comment about another poster and then a moderator apparently endorsing it?

What's happened to Millarworld?

[

I'm used to it. I'm a troll and no other opinions count except mine.

ogul stated that having sex with socks on is as weird as having sex with gloves on.

CONTEXTUALLY. Putting gloves on to have sex is kinda weird. Weirder than sex with socks on, at least. Having gloves on when the idea of sex occurs to you, and then not happening to take them off during sex is not significantly more weird than having socks on and not bothering to take them off. Having sex with gloves on is weird to most people only in as far as most people wouldn't have gloves on in the first place.

Yes, that's what I meant. I would have hoped that was obvious

Yes, there are aspects of comics that are clearly fantastic, but other elements that should be reality-based, mostly in terms of how people react to those fantastic elements. I think that the way superheroes behaves in comics, particularly around genders issues and sexuality, are pretty realistic if you accept the premise that they're in a world with superpowers and in which spandex costumes are considered an expected "uniform" for such activities.

[Robert B]

I live pretty far north. It gets cold up here. Sex with socks (is that a Dr. Seuss book?) is sometimes a must. Not weird at all.

[stephanie familiar]

Yes, that's what I meant. I would have hoped that was obvious

bah, no one gets my sense of humour.

Not weird at all.

unless they're these. then that's kinda weird.

 WeirdSocks2.jpg   12.56K   0 downloads

[David Meadows]

bah, no one gets my sense of humour.

I am famously slow on the uptake.

[Rory Abel]

I'm not challenging any given reader's right to stop whenever they want. However, Sarah was claiming that the sex scene in Catwoman issue 1 was "gratuitous," that it did not fit in the story, was not important enough to include. It's impossible to judge these things without actually knowing the full context of the story. If the series didn't hook her with the first issue, fair enough, but she can't make artistic claims about the whole scope of the writing based only on a portion of it.

If the whole story and context aren't included in that first issue then within the context of that issue it is gratuitous.

As for leaving the gloves on, on a merely technical level it makes no sense. There are sharp, pointy protrusion on Batman's gloves and they cover a section of his sleeves. For him to take off his shirt, which he is shown without, he would have needed to take off his gloves and then put them back on. The implication of this is that the scene, or at least image, wasn't well thought out, elements were placed in it to titillate rather than because they made sense.

[Ogul]

bah, no one gets my sense of humour.

Don't worry about it, almost nobody around here gets when I'm being funny.

If the whole story and context aren't included in that first issue then within the context of that issue it is gratuitous.

I disagree. I think you can't constrain a comic story to within the pages of a single issue. I mean, if, say, on the last page of a comic a villain appears and shoot the hero, was that act a gratuitous and out of place act? What if the next issue gives a complete explanation of who the villain is and why he did what he just did? You can argue that there are perhaps pacing issues involved, but I think that so long as a given scene has context to it, it isn't gratuitous, whether that context is established before or after the scene takes place.

As for leaving the gloves on, on a merely technical level it makes no sense. There are sharp, pointy protrusion on Batman's gloves and they cover a section of his sleeves. For him to take off his shirt, which he is shown without, he would have needed to take off his gloves and then put them back on. The implication of this is that the scene, or at least image, wasn't well thought out, elements were placed in it to titillate rather than because they made sense.

I said as much, but really I blame the artist for that more than the writer, in lack of the script itself to compare.

[Sarah Horrocks]

I knew you weren't really saying that. But it does illustrate one of Ogul's general points: that the stuff we see in comics isn't just in comics, the comics are actually reflecting stuff that goes on in the real world.

Yeah not really though. Whatever reality superhero comics are reflecting, it's through the perspective of predominantly one group(straight, white, males ages 23-50 who grew up reading superhero comics).

If the whole story and context aren't included in that first issue then within the context of that issue it is gratuitous.

Exactly(which I'm pretty sure I've tried to say that a few times, but this is much more to the point and succinct). People react to single issues all of the time when discussing comics. Every major comic review site does this, because it's impossible to know what will happen in the future of a book. And as the first issue in a line wide reboot with a new creative team, the past issues aren't really relevant either.

Which even with all of that, Ogul still hasn't really talked about what has happened in the book sense then to make the sex not gratitiious. Did Batman give Catwoman an STD? A baby?

Incidentally, that stuff where Catwoman has a kid and has to balance being a single mother with being a superhero is some of my favorite Catwoman stuff ever. I wish there were more stories like that in superhero comics. The end where she asks Zatanna to memory wipe the kid from her mind is a really heartbreaking moment.

As for leaving the gloves on, on a merely technical level it makes no sense. There are sharp, pointy protrusion on Batman's gloves and they cover a section of his sleeves. For him to take off his shirt, which he is shown without, he would have needed to take off his gloves and then put them back on. The implication of this is that the scene, or at least image, wasn't well thought out, elements were placed in it to titillate rather than because they made sense.

I think that there's an implied S&M element to Batman's sexual adventures, particularly with Catwoman and Talia. I can buy that Catwoman would actually LIKE him to leave his gloves on and scratch her up. But it's not really explored there. I think this element of their relationship was actually explored really well in Miller's Holy Terror book, which had just about the kinkiest rooftop fight/chase scene I've seen in a minute. Everyone kept their clothes on in that one too though.

It would just be nice to see more agency in Catwoman's sexual decisions, and sort of understand her mindset in a more complex way. I was mentioning Crepax earlier--there's this book he did that I've been reading the past few days called Anita, and it's this girl named Anita sitting on a couch watching TV and having various sexual fantasies happen whenever she changes the channel. It's really interesting because the different fantasies give this sort of psychadelic sexual window into her psyche, and the control she has over all of the fantasies that she can switch them up with just a press of the remote, showing that what is happening SHE wants to happen, and has a defined psychic reason for wanting it to happen--that's the sort of thing that would actually be interesting in a Catwoman book, because Catwoman IS so sexual a character.

An issue of Catwoman sitting on her couch masturbating and moving through a bunch of different gotham related fantasies obviously isn't the type of book you'd ever see DC or Marvel put out--but it'd be pretty good if done by the right people(Gaiman or Moore could definitely write something like that and knock it out of the park).

[Al Williams]

Yeah not really though. Whatever reality superhero comics are reflecting, it's through the perspective of predominantly one group(straight, white, males ages 23-50 who grew up reading superhero comics).

Don't think you can lump all superhero books together like that. It depends more on the artist.

If that's the target market of the book then I don't see the problem. If however it isn't then the editor really should be slapping the artist about or get a different artist. Simple really. I should be an editor.

[Sarah Horrocks]

I'm not challenging any given reader's right to stop whenever they want. However, Sarah was claiming that the sex scene in Catwoman issue 1 was "gratuitous," that it did not fit in the story, was not important enough to include. It's impossible to judge these things without actually knowing the full context of the story. If the series didn't hook her with the first issue, fair enough, but she can't make artistic claims about the whole scope of the writing based only on a portion of it.

Just to be clear on this, the claims I was making were a criticism of the genre as a whole, and I was talking about the single issue and my problem with that specific issue. That something might happen in issue two to undo the damage of issue one is pretty immaterial for a monthly comic. What happened in that first issue as regards sex demonstrates what is wrong with Dc's approach to sex. My larger point was of course that, by having such a flawed approach to sex(of which this is just one example) DC's heroines are hurt disproportionately to their heroes, because generally speaking in instances where sex isn't explored but only referenced, it benefits men more than women(when men have lots of sex, it's something they are proud of, it proves their vitality and prowess--whereas when women have lots of sex, they are called sluts, demeaned, and thought lesser of--therefore when you have your women in superhero comics having unexplored vague sex--it undercuts their ability to be treated as a hero and not a sexual object, moreso than it does a man, even if the male superhero characters have a lot more sex in general).

Don't think you can lump all superhero books together like that. It depends more on the artist.

Two things: 1) it's totally fair to make a generalized critique against the genre as it is explored within pop culture through the comic medium. That there are exceptions(and of course there are(I've mentioned them), as they say "proves the rule". Cliff Chiang's Wonder Woman is an exception, but it's notable BECAUSE it's an exception. If it were the norm, it would not be notable.

2) I think it's intuitive to blame the artist in these situations, but the artist just gives the editor what they want, because at the end of the day, drawing superhero comics for DC or Marvel isn't a passion project really--it's a job. A job that you want to keep if you want to keep a roof over your head. So if you know drawing something keeps you working, you'll keep doing it. It is up to editorial to dictate what they want or don't want. And too often they are asleep at the wheel(probably because they are overworked/underpaid), or complicit in the crime(because of bad marketing advice predicated on short term gains over long term growth).

[Ogul]

Which even with all of that, Ogul still hasn't really talked about what has happened in the book sense then to make the sex not gratitiious. Did Batman give Catwoman an STD? A baby?

So you're taking the stand that the only point to sex is for procreation (or presumably germ warfare)?

An issue of Catwoman sitting on her couch masturbating and moving through a bunch of different gotham related fantasies obviously isn't the type of book you'd ever see DC or Marvel put out--but it'd be pretty good if done by the right people(Gaiman or Moore could definitely write something like that and knock it out of the park).

You've really got to keep your expectations within the bounds of PG-13. You may not agree with the culture we've got, but it's the culture everyone in media has to deal with.

My larger point was of course that, by having such a flawed approach to sex(of which this is just one example) DC's heroines are hurt disproportionately to their heroes, because generally speaking in instances where sex isn't explored but only referenced, it benefits men more than women(when men have lots of sex, it's something they are proud of, it proves their vitality and prowess--whereas when women have lots of sex, they are called sluts, demeaned, and thought lesser of--therefore when you have your women in superhero comics having unexplored vague sex--it undercuts their ability to be treated as a hero and not a sexual object, moreso than it does a man, even if the male superhero characters have a lot more sex in general).

And really I think that's your problem far more than it is anything to do with the people behind, or included in Catwoman. You seem to have a problem with women that have sex that Batman, Catwoman, and the writers editors of the book do not have. Your personal issues aside, Catwoman is in no way weakened within her own book by having sex, nor is Batman enhanced by it, and if anything it's the other way around. If there were any "slut shaming" taking place in the book, if Catwoman's promiscuity in any way led to her suffering negative consequences, then I could totally see your side on this, but as it is, I think you're completely off base.

Two things: 1) it's totally fair to make a generalized critique against the genre as it is explored within pop culture through the comic medium. That there are exceptions(and of course there are(I've mentioned them), as they say "proves the rule". Cliff Chiang's Wonder Woman is an exception, but it's notable BECAUSE it's an exception. If it were the norm, it would not be notable.

I would argue that it's not notable, that it's only noted because you have chosen to single it out, it's distinction is that "Sarah likes it," rather than that it is in any way significantly different from numerous other books. It's good, sure, but so too is Batwoman, X-23, and plenty of other titles that star or include female characters. Not every book, certainly but more books treat women in a positive light than in a negative one, just as some TV programs are blatantly chauvinistic, but the vast majority are not.

2) I think it's intuitive to blame the artist in these situations, but the artist just gives the editor what they want, because at the end of the day, drawing superhero comics for DC or Marvel isn't a passion project really--it's a job.

I think you give the editor far too much credit. They aren't likely to micro manage every little detail, if the page calls for "Batman and Catwoman on the floor after sex," and that's what the artist delivers, then the editor isn't necessarily going to insist that his gloves stay on or something. The artist isn't going to deliberately draw something that will piss off his editor, but if he isn't necessarily considering every single detail as to how the editor will take it. I've done a lot of commissioned art, which essentially makes the customer the editor, and while I try to keep in mind what the customer wants, I don't necessarily know how they'll respond to every little detail, so I might make certain choices that I think look right, without consulting them, and then it turns out they didn't think of that either but really like it, or maybe they don't and I change it, but by far the most common result when I just do my own thing is approval (so long as it's within the base parameters set out for me).

It's possible that the blame lies in the editor, we can't know for sure unless one of them steps up, but in order of likelihood I would say it's most likely artist, then writer, then editor. Now if it's something that's a bigger deal, then yeah, the editor is responsible for catching it, but they don't have time to be sweating the small stuff.

[Sarah Horrocks]

[quote name='Ogul' timestamp='1330960489' post='2412293']
So you're taking the stand that the only point to sex is for procreation (or presumably germ warfare)?
[/quote]

No.

[quote]
You've really got to keep your expectations within the bounds of PG-13. You may not agree with the culture we've got, but it's the culture everyone in media has to deal with.
[/quote]

PG-13 or R what I'm talking about is the same. Stupid sex hurts and demeans female heroes in comics. So either get rid of it, or make it not stupid. I think because of the restrictions of our culture, the answer is to get rid of it. Which sucks, but hey, that's the puritanical weird limbo we live in, where you can show someone pummeling someone else into pulp, but not maturely explore sex in any kind of meaningful way.

[quote]
And really I think that's your problem far more than it is anything to do with the people behind, or included in Catwoman. You seem to have a problem with women that have sex that Batman, Catwoman, and the writers editors of the book do not have. Your personal issues aside, Catwoman is in no way weakened within her own book by having sex, nor is Batman enhanced by it, and if anything it's the other way around. If there were any "slut shaming" taking place in the book, if Catwoman's promiscuity in any way led to her suffering negative consequences, then I could totally see your side on this, but as it is, I think you're completely off base.
[/quote]

My criticism is grounded in the fundamentals of craft, as pompous as that sounds. Fundementally I'm talking about storytelling techniques, and how they work within the context of a narrative, and how some of those techniques can work against strong characterization of women. It says a lot that you see that and dismiss it as a "personal issue".

[quote]
I would argue that it's not notable, that it's only noted because you have chosen to single it out, it's distinction is that "Sarah likes it," rather than that it is in any way significantly different from numerous other books. It's good, sure, but so too is Batwoman, X-23, and plenty of other titles that star or include female characters. Not every book, certainly but more books treat women in a positive light than in a negative one, just as some TV programs are blatantly chauvinistic, but the vast majority are not.
[/quote]

I would argue that it's not noted by you because you don't particularly care how women are portrayed in superhero comics, because you've shown consistently in these discussions that you simply do not care about these issues, or think that they are important. And that it is of a greater importance that your precious hobby be left alone from being painted in any kind of negative light.


[quote]
I think you give the editor far too much credit. They aren't likely to micro manage every little detail, if the page calls for "Batman and Catwoman on the floor after sex," and that's what the artist delivers, then the editor isn't necessarily going to insist that his gloves stay on or something. The artist isn't going to deliberately draw something that will piss off his editor, but if he isn't necessarily considering every single detail as to how the editor will take it. I've done a lot of commissioned art, which essentially makes the customer the editor, and while I try to keep in mind what the customer wants, I don't necessarily know how they'll respond to every little detail, so I might make certain choices that I think look right, without consulting them, and then it turns out they didn't think of that either but really like it, or maybe they don't and I change it, but by far the most common result when I just do my own thing is approval (so long as it's within the base parameters set out for me).
[/quote]

I don't think anything I said about the editor and what they COULD do to limit some of these things, has much to do with what you've said here, which mostly seems focused on describing the way that editors DON'T already do this(which is a big "yeah I know"). Editorial already removes nipples from DC comics. They could easily mandate "no broken back poses". Artists just draw what they think is wanted from them, as you describe.

[quote]
It's possible that the blame lies in the editor, we can't know for sure unless one of them steps up, but in order of likelihood I would say it's most likely artist, then writer, then editor. Now if it's something that's a bigger deal, then yeah, the editor is responsible for catching it, but they don't have time to be sweating the small stuff.
[/quote]

It's definitely the editor who can effect the most change on this issue. Not any one particular artist. That should be pretty obvious really.

[Rory Abel]

I disagree. I think you can't constrain a comic story to within the pages of a single issue. I mean, if, say, on the last page of a comic a villain appears and shoot the hero, was that act a gratuitous and out of place act? What if the next issue gives a complete explanation of who the villain is and why he did what he just did? You can argue that there are perhaps pacing issues involved, but I think that so long as a given scene has context to it, it isn't gratuitous, whether that context is established before or after the scene takes place.

You're talking about two separate things. Your example is a cliffhanger; an event specifically put in place to leave the reader wanting more and to be resolved in the next issue. That is not the same thing as a sex scene that needs context and story to be non-gratutious within the issue its being told.

I said as much, but really I blame the artist for that more than the writer, in lack of the script itself to compare.

Comics are a team sport. The artist bases his draws off the script by the writer, who often gets to see the art as its being created, and an editor then looks at it and decides if it needs to be changed/fixed. At no point in this process did someone stop and say, "hey, it makes no sense for him to have his shirt off but his gloves still on." Odds are because no one really thought about, because as men it didn't matter to them. This is of course all supposition on my part but it seems the most likely answer.

Edited by Rory Abel, 05 March 2012 - 05:03 PM.

[garjones]

I don't know why, but in most Western pornography there is a common theme of women being completely undressed apart from socks and shoes. It seems sex with socks on is popular, I've not seen the same trend with gloves.

[Christian U]

Oh, by the way, at some point Amanda Connor's Power Girls was mentioned.

It's worth pointing out that Gray/Palmiotti/Connor had a laugh in evening things out by bringing the Zardoz knockoff character Vardox into the series:

Edited by Christian U, 05 March 2012 - 06:08 PM.

[Henry Blanco]

It seems sex with socks on is popular, I've not seen the same trend with gloves.

It's all about traction.