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).
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.