Is Batwoman's Sexuality Being Exploited?

To see this article with images, click here.

A Bone to Pick

When I first heard back in 2004 that DC was creating a second redheaded girl in a Bat Suit whose only distinguishing feature was her sexuality, I did a mental eyeroll. At the same time DC turned down Gail Simone’s truly original proposal to make Cassandra Cain a Christian,(a vastly underrepresented group in the comic medium) they were embracing the idea of creating a lipstick lesbian wearing a Bat Symbol which is far from a daring choice. I was a little annoyed that DC was slighting the Christian population (and Cassandra who they promptly turned evil), but more importantly, I could easily see two ways DC might mishandle Kate Kane. First, they could easily turn Batwoman into a pulpit for a political message. Second, they could cash in on an attractive lesbian heroine by showing a lot of girl on girl action.

Kate Kane for Congress

Despite my reservations, I was blown away when I first started reading Batwoman a few months ago. The art is amazing, the story is top-notch, and much to my surprise, Batwoman is much more than just a slightly retooled lesbian Batgirl. However, I still have a bone to pick with the creators of Batwoman.

Regarding my second concern, Batwoman does not fare as well. In the first four issues of Batwoman, Kate strips to get in and out of her costume three times, and two of these occasions were with her cousin, Flamebird, who was equally exposed. Two of these changing scenes took multiple pages yet contained nothing more significant than dialogue which could have been delivered just as substantively with a clothed heroine. These same issues feature the first kiss between Kate and Maggie which turns into a sex scene which, including naked pillow talk, lasts half of the fourth issue.

Compare this to the same months’ issues of Batman during the already infamous Court of Owls plotline. These four issues contain exactly zero sexual encounters and featured only one shirtless Batman. Though I am sure some would disagree with me, a shirtless guy is not really the same thing as a shirtless girl anyway because of the lack of bosom. Even disregarding that point, Bruce wrapped his ribs in his one shirtless scene rendering him nearly completely clothed.

Batwoman is an excellent series in its own right, and it does not need to resort to showcasing Kate Kane’s body and sexual encounters to garner readers. Some may view this as a way of getting comic book readers to embrace a homosexual character, but even if we accept the idea that Batwoman should and does teach readers to accept homosexuality, it is only doing so by showing that homosexuality is acceptable in as far as it appeals to heterosexual men.

DC has avoided using Kate Kane as a spokeswoman for the pro-homosexual movement, but they have given undue “screen time” to her naked form and sexual encounters in a rather transparent effort to appeal to male readers. If DC is intent on making a quick sales boost in exchange for eliciting male arousal, then they can continue this approach, but if they wish to build their company on the quality of their stories, then they should use their panels to develop a compelling story rather than to produce a peep show.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@BatWatch said:

they have given undue “screen time” to her naked form and sexual encounters in a rather transparent effort to appeal to male readers.

And this is different from the numerous other female characters out there that comics do this to... how? Just because she's gay?

EVERY comic book company in some way or form have used their female characters, homosexual or not, to arouse male readers.......

A lot........A LOT of female characters are sexually exploited. Batwoman's sexuality does not have a large effect on this trend.

Besides, the pillow talk is a really good thing in story. It shows character development instead of your typical conversations in other comics.

The weird part about this is the points you make suggest they aren't exploiting her homosexuality but then all of a sudden you try to say they are without any explanation as to why. They could be exploiting her femininity but that's a completely different issue. In fact, Batwoman gets very little publicity in comparison to most DC comics. I think if anything would cause people to pick it up, it would be that it's easily one of the best comics in DC in the art department on a consistent basis and if I was unfamiliar with the concept of the book, art of that quality and the fact the title tells me it's somewhat related to the Bat-franchise would get me to read it. Sexual exploitation is hardly even relevant in her scenario because her covers always showcase the magnificent art style and have never sexualized the character from what I can see whereas most heterosexual females and males use sex appeal as part of their draw.

@Ravager4 said:

@BatWatch said:

they have given undue “screen time” to her naked form and sexual encounters in a rather transparent effort to appeal to male readers.

And this is different from the numerous other female characters out there that comics do this to... how? Just because she's gay?

@INLIFE said:

EVERY comic book company in some way or form have used their female characters, homosexual or not, to arouse male readers.......

A lot........A LOT of female characters are sexually exploited. Batwoman's sexuality does not have a large effect on this trend.

Besides, the pillow talk is a really good thing in story. It shows character development instead of your typical conversations in other comics.

I think they are playing it up more because she is a lesbian. Yes, comic book heroines are often put in scantily clad positions; check out Worlds' Finest or Catwoman for example, and this is partially addressing that issue which is present in almost all comic book heroines, but I do think they are playing it up even further because of the lesbian angle. I cannot think of any other examples of a sex scene that lasts half an issue. Can you? I am sure there are some, but not many.

If we compare Batwoman to the best selling of the DCNU female led Bat titles, Batgirl, we see a grand total of zero undie scenes in the first four issues.

I am not sure that Batwoman's sexual elements were played up because she is a lesbian; that is one of the reasons the title of the article is a question, but regardless of the reason, it is unnecessary and exploitative.

@Roger Rabbit said:

The weird part about this is the points you make suggest they aren't exploiting her homosexuality but then all of a sudden you try to say they are without any explanation as to why. They could be exploiting her femininity but that's a completely different issue. In fact, Batwoman gets very little publicity in comparison to most DC comics. I think if anything would cause people to pick it up, it would be that it's easily one of the best comics in DC in the art department on a consistent basis and if I was unfamiliar with the concept of the book, art of that quality and the fact the title tells me it's somewhat related to the Bat-franchise would get me to read it. Sexual exploitation is hardly even relevant in her scenario because her covers always showcase the magnificent art style and have never sexualized the character from what I can see whereas most heterosexual females and males use sex appeal as part of their draw.

No, I did not. I gave two different avenues of how her sexuality could be exploited, and I said they had not on the first avenue, but they had on the second.

@BatWatch said:

@Ravager4 said:

@BatWatch said:

they have given undue “screen time” to her naked form and sexual encounters in a rather transparent effort to appeal to male readers.

And this is different from the numerous other female characters out there that comics do this to... how? Just because she's gay?

@INLIFE said:

EVERY comic book company in some way or form have used their female characters, homosexual or not, to arouse male readers.......

A lot........A LOT of female characters are sexually exploited. Batwoman's sexuality does not have a large effect on this trend.

Besides, the pillow talk is a really good thing in story. It shows character development instead of your typical conversations in other comics.

I think they are playing it up more because she is a lesbian. Yes, comic book heroines are often put in scantily clad positions; check out Worlds' Finest or Catwoman for example, and this is partially addressing that issue which is present in almost all comic book heroines, but I do think they are playing it up even further because of the lesbian angle. I cannot think of any other examples of a sex scene that lasts half an issue. Can you? I am sure there are some, but not many.

If we compare Batwoman to the best selling of the DCNU female led Bat titles, Batgirl, we see a grand total of zero undie scenes in the first four issues.

I am not sure that Batwoman's sexual elements were played up because she is a lesbian; that is one of the reasons the title of the article is a question, but regardless of the reason, it is unnecessary and exploitative.

It really isn't being played up anymore than normal, from what I can see. In fact, compared to some other characters across the DCnU, it's pretty tame (PG's clothes get torn off in every single issue, just about...), and really doesn't come across as exploitative at all (at least no more than usual, and not because she's a lesbian, but because she's an attractive female character).

As for the sex scene, it didn't last half an issue... it was five pages, on which it was only half the focus for those five pages (the other half being Bette going out and getting eviscerated on patrol, offering a stark contrast), nor did it come across as needlessly exploitative. I thought it was actually exceptionally well done and tasteful compared to other sex scenes I've seen in comics (see Catwoman straddling Batman on the rooftop in Catwoman #1, for example...), and I thought helped show a very strong emotional connection between the characters.

Very good points. Most people probably wouldn't think of this unless someone pointed it out.

@Ravager4:

Do not get me wrong, I thought Batwoman #4 was great just like all the other issues of Batwoman and you are right that it was more like five pages of a sex scene when the Bette elements were removed, but I suspect the scene would not have lasted as long if it had been a heterosexual sex scene. Of course, their is no way to prove that one way or another.

Really, we can agree that Batwoman's sexuality is being exploited, but it is debatable whether is is any more exploited than every other comic heroine.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@lykopis said:

I understand the points you are making and somewhat, if not mostly, agree with you. I think many would be hard-pressed to find a bedroom scene between a heterosexual couple which lasted pages long (regardless of tandem stories). Considering Batwoman is identified as being a lesbian, it could be argued this scene was choreographed to present this in a tasteful way but I have to agree, it was unnecessary and an attempt (albeit veiled) to cater to a demographic which would find it titillating. And this applies to the lesbian portion of readers -- exploitation is exploitation is exploitation. A quick kiss goodbye/hello, an affectionate embrace, being led into a bedroom are just as good. Panel after panel of pillow talk isn't necessary to elude to this.

Pointing out there is much more blatant exploitation of characters in other books shouldn't be used as a stance to denounce criticism of a less exploited character. I could hurl examples exposing that approach as fallible but the point of your blog was to discuss Batwoman and you have so wonderfully.

Thanks Lykopis. I couldn't agree more.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@jobiwankenobi said:

Very good points. Most people probably wouldn't think of this unless someone pointed it out.

Thanks.

As some have pointed out, what I am saying here is really just a slight variation of what many have said for a long time, super heroines are often portrayed in an overtly sexual manner.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@BatWatch said:

@Ravager4:

Do not get me wrong, I thought Batwoman #4 was great just like all the other issues of Batwoman and you are right that it was more like five pages of a sex scene when the Bette elements were removed, but I suspect the scene would not have lasted as long if it had been a heterosexual sex scene. Of course, their is no way to prove that one way or another.

If you remove the Bette element, you're left with 12 panels, which is about 2-3 pages

Truthfully, when if first heard about the Batwoman comic I thought she would be just another mature Batgirl. Fortunately that hasn't proven to be true. I think the aspect of her character that's a lesbian was integral to distancing her from Batgirl. So were the aspects of her character that's goth, and the fact that the series explores the supernatural side of Gotham city. I don't think they exploit her sexuality in a bad way. I thought it was quite tasteful and in many cases was integral to the story in general. Truthfully, I barely even noticed it. I think the current style is working and so I hope that they don't change anything, not even the sexual and nude imagery. As long as it isn't out of place or doesn't seem forced I'm fine. And if it attracts a few horny adolescents to the book that's great because as long as the book sells, it's successful, thus they won't cancel it.

@Ravager4 said:

@BatWatch said:

@Ravager4:

Do not get me wrong, I thought Batwoman #4 was great just like all the other issues of Batwoman and you are right that it was more like five pages of a sex scene when the Bette elements were removed, but I suspect the scene would not have lasted as long if it had been a heterosexual sex scene. Of course, their is no way to prove that one way or another.

If you remove the Bette element, you're left with 12 panels, which is about 2-3 pages

Perhaps so. I do not feel like looking it up, but I still cannot think of an example of a heterosexual sex scene that drug across ten pages.

@xybernauts said:

Truthfully, when if first heard about the Batwoman comic I thought she would be just another mature Batgirl. Fortunately that hasn't proven to be true. I think the aspect of her character that's a lesbian was integral to distancing her from Batgirl. So were the aspects of her character that's goth, and the fact that the series explores the supernatural side of Gotham city. I don't think they exploit her sexuality in a bad way. I thought it was quite tasteful and in many cases was integral to the story in general. Truthfully, I barely even noticed it. I think the current style is working and so I hope that they don't change anything, not even the sexual and nude imagery. As long as it isn't out of place or doesn't seem forced I'm fine. And if it attracts a few horny adolescents to the book that's great because as long as the book sells, it's successful, thus they won't cancel it.

Other than the sexual elements, I agree with everything you say. I am delighted with Batwoman in general. In my opinion, it is the best out of all the Bat books. However, I really do not like the parading girls around without clothes regardless of their sexual preferences. I agree that the romantic aspect of the story is integral to the overall tale, but I do not think extended underwear and sex scenes are crucial.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@lykopis said:

I understand the points you are making and somewhat, if not mostly, agree with you. I think many would be hard-pressed to find a bedroom scene between a heterosexual couple which lasted pages long (regardless of tandem stories). Considering Batwoman is identified as being a lesbian, it could be argued this scene was choreographed to present this in a tasteful way but I have to agree, it was unnecessary and an attempt (albeit veiled) to cater to a demographic which would find it titillating. And this applies to the lesbian portion of readers -- exploitation is exploitation is exploitation. A quick kiss goodbye/hello, an affectionate embrace, being led into a bedroom are just as good. Panel after panel of pillow talk isn't necessary to elude to this.

Pointing out there is much more blatant exploitation of characters in other books shouldn't be used as a stance to denounce criticism of a less exploited character. I could hurl examples exposing that approach as fallible but the point of your blog was to discuss Batwoman and you have so wonderfully.

I thought the idea was to have polar opposite story beats, one half is a young girl being disembowelled in a cold dark alley while two lovers lay in bed exchanging sweet nothings

Oh yes, absolutely, and it was very well done, but I do not think it was necessary to make is a sex scene. Would intimate non-sexual moment not have serviced just as well?

On the flip side, their might be something implied in a guy shoving a hook in a young girl vs. lesbian sex. Reaching? Yeah, probably.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@arnoldoaad said:

I think you are missing the entire point completely

first of all, regarding the Christian Cain, I actually had heard of the Gail pitch before and is just horribly bad, its not as bad as her turning evil but just like with Beechen's take it shows a complete lack of understanding of the character, if you want a christian hero, check Azrael by David Hine, that series was awesome and that character needs to return

regarding batwoman, I think J H Williams is simply using her sexuality, you are just interpreting as abusing it, are you saying that Batwoman as a book is forbidden to have a sex scene, that nudity is banned from mature story telling?

you point out that she was naked in issue 4 and that there was a sex scene, while in other books there was not

but you are not considering that this is pretty much the second series of Batwoman and a continuation of her story with Sawyer that started in Detective Comics

and the bottomline is this, Kate is lesbian, the writing is just showing her as a lesbian with no taboos about it, how is that wrong or exploitable?

I do not have any problem with Kate having sexual encounters in her book, but I do not think it is necessary to be shown Kate taking her clothes off every issue. That is exploitative of Batwoman's sexuality even if it is not exploitative of the homosexual aspect of her sexuality.

The observation of the sex scene most mostly in regards to length of it. As far as a plot point, you only need a panel or two to establish that they had sex. It does not need to be a long process. Of course, they were doing interesting things contrasting the sex with the disembowelment as discussed above.

I do not know what you find horribly bad about the Christian Caine idea. As I recall it, it presented Cassandra as a character longing for redemption for her murders and finding forgiveness and healing through Christianity. How is that out of character for her?

I've heard good things about the David Azrael series. I'll have to check it out sometime.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.@lykopis said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

@lykopis said:

I understand the points you are making and somewhat, if not mostly, agree with you. I think many would be hard-pressed to find a bedroom scene between a heterosexual couple which lasted pages long (regardless of tandem stories). Considering Batwoman is identified as being a lesbian, it could be argued this scene was choreographed to present this in a tasteful way but I have to agree, it was unnecessary and an attempt (albeit veiled) to cater to a demographic which would find it titillating. And this applies to the lesbian portion of readers -- exploitation is exploitation is exploitation. A quick kiss goodbye/hello, an affectionate embrace, being led into a bedroom are just as good. Panel after panel of pillow talk isn't necessary to elude to this.

Pointing out there is much more blatant exploitation of characters in other books shouldn't be used as a stance to denounce criticism of a less exploited character. I could hurl examples exposing that approach as fallible but the point of your blog was to discuss Batwoman and you have so wonderfully.

I thought the idea was to have polar opposite story beats, one half is a young girl being disembowelled in a cold dark alley while two lovers lay in bed exchanging sweet nothings

There is that. When seen in that perspective --- I think that's pretty cool. I was just making a generalised statement in regards to how sex is portrayed in comics. Batwoman is one of the least exploited -- not completely free of it -- but still, her sexuality is apart of who she is, not the whole. I don't think her stating she was a proud lesbian is out of sync with the story or the character for the sake on soap-boxing. Her homosexuality and her refusal to not keep it hidden has made her life turn to another direction, therefore very relevant to the character.

True.

@BatWatch said:

I do not have any problem with Kate having sexual encounters in her book, but I do not think it is necessary to be shown Kate taking her clothes off every issue. That is exploitative of Batwoman's sexuality even if it is not exploitative of the homosexual aspect of her sexuality.

Um, she doesn't take her clothes off every issue. As I can recall, it's only happened a few times throughout the series, and at most you see some naked back, whoopee. Either way, though, it wouldn't be exploiting her sexuality as in her orientation, but just her femininity in general, which is not even close to being new to comics. Other females are shown taking their clothes off much, much more than Kate (I'm looking at you, Power Girl... ugh), and her costume itself is about as covered as you can get.

@Ravager4 said:

@BatWatch said:

I do not have any problem with Kate having sexual encounters in her book, but I do not think it is necessary to be shown Kate taking her clothes off every issue. That is exploitative of Batwoman's sexuality even if it is not exploitative of the homosexual aspect of her sexuality.

Um, she doesn't take her clothes off every issue. As I can recall, it's only happened a few times throughout the series, and at most you see some naked back, whoopee. Either way, though, it wouldn't be exploiting her sexuality as in her orientation, but just her femininity in general, which is not even close to being new to comics. Other females are shown taking their clothes off much, much more than Kate (I'm looking at you, Power Girl... ugh), and her costume itself is about as covered as you can get.

Her costume is certainly tasteful.

I actually originally planned on doing an article praising DC for avoiding this pitfall, but then I read the early issues of Batwoman and found her undressing constantly. This has not been the case in more recent issues, but it was in the first four.

@arnoldoaad:

My theory, which could be wrong, is that they are playing up her sexuality more because of her sexual orientation. The only place I really feel this is specific to her lesbianism is in the long sex scene. I cannot think of any equivalent in a regular DC comic, can you?

If wanting comic characters to stay clothed is prudish, then yes, I am a prude.

I do agree that putting Cassie in a white costume would be stupid. In the thread I read on it, one person said make it an all white costume, and another person said, no make it a regular costume, but give it white hands because she can never get the blood of her hands. The latter idea I like, but if Simone's idea was the former, then I agree, that is stupid.

Perhaps I have never read the right issues of Azrael, but the character was not really Christian in anything that I have seen. He was brainwashed to work a group that spawned out of the crusades, and they had a quasi religious order, but there was nothing actually Christian about it.

Many people find that they turn to God after being overwhelmed by guilt and stress of various kinds. I certainly do not see how having Cassie be such a person would be out of character.

Nearly three quarters of the U.S. population consider themselves Christian many of them devout, yet there are almost no superheroes who reflect this, and certainly none in DC that have a spirtiual aspect to these stories. I think the heroes of DC should be reflections of the nation in regards to race, sexuality, and religious belief.

@BatWatch said:

Her costume is certainly tasteful.

I actually originally planned on doing an article praising DC for avoiding this pitfall, but then I read the early issues of Batwoman and found her undressing constantly. This has not been the case in more recent issues, but it was in the first four.

Undressing constantly? I'm a little confused as to what your definition of "constantly" is. While there were two short undressing scenes in issue #1, Kate barely showed any skin in the first one. We see her in getting changed into the pants of her uniform, with a bra still on, as she and Bette are gearing up to go out on patrol. Then they come back and yeah, she shows some skin in one "panel" (quotations because Batwoman's panels sometimes... well, barely qualify as actual panels with the way the two page spreads are done, artistically), but all "panels" on that page are at the same time being juxtaposed with other contrasting panels, with them changing out of their gear vs. being out on patrol and beating up thugs while fully geared up, as they talk about Bette's inexperience.

Nothing in issue #2

In issue #3, we see her changing out of her uniform again, but there is only a single panel where we see her upper body from behind while in the shower (because that and more has never been done to any other female character ever in comics history). But again, at the same time each of the panels are juxtaposed with contrasting panels of Bette gearing up into her uniform. I don't really see how that can be considered exploitative. It's barely exploitative of her just as a female character, let alone her homosexuality.

Then issue #4, the infamous (apparently) sex scene. True, it goes on for a few pages (while again, being juxtaposed against contrasting elements on Bette's side of things, with her being disemboweled. Huh, I think I'm starting to notice a storytelling pattern here), but it can hardly be considered graphic. We see a bit of kissing and some reaction shots. That's it. They're not even naked, they're still in their underwear. Did it go longer than most sex scenes? Yeah, maybe, but only because it was meant to be a contrast to Bette's story at the same time. But many, many other sex scenes in comics, while shorter, are depicted much more graphically and could be considered highly more exploitative than Batwoman's.

You say her sexuality is being exploited, and yet compared to scores of other female characters out there, her "exploitation" has been rather downplayed and pretty tame. Other comics are rife with female characters (most of them heterosexual, mind you), being hopelessly and tastelessly exploited for titillation of the male reader. Batwoman hardly qualifies by comparison.

Gail Simone's pitch for Cassandra Cain as the "Angel of the Bat" was phenomenal and I can't believe they passed on it.

EDIT: For those who've never read it, copy of the pitch here and a copy of Gail's later reflection on it here.

As for Kate Kane, she's fully covered in her costume and more importantly she's been portrayed as a strong, rounded lead from top to bottom. And when she is portrayed in her skivvies it's rarely with the random t&a-to-the-max posing we see in other books. I'm not saying that it's not present, but I would argue that it is far less offensive than many other comics out there, including DC comics.

@Ravager4:

I feel like this whole topic is sort of going around in circles at this point.

Let me put some qualifications on my comments so far.

First, Batwoman had a lot of unclothed scenes in the first four issues. I think it has actually been quite tasteful of more recent.

Second, I have no way knowing whether these scenes have anything to do with her lesbianism. I cannot read the mind of the creators.

Third, Batwoman is certainly less exploited than some female characters.

Despite my second point, Kate's sexuality is still being exploited. It may not be because of her lesbianism I grant, but part of what I was saying is undeniable. For the other part, I personally doubt that the sex scene would have taken up so much space if it were heterosexual, but if you disagree with that, I can't really prove anything one way or another.

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@BatWatch: define "a lot"... there are about 4 "scenes" throughout those issues where she is in various states of undress, true, but you don't really see much of anything, and any in which you do see more skin, it lasts for a single panel and it's still rather tame compared to other books and characters out there. Speaking of those other sources, I don't know why you're harping so much on Batwoman when there's plenty worse out there. How about some examination of Power Girl in World's Finest, who literally gets her clothes ripped off every single issue, or Starfire in the earlier issues of RHaTO, who was displayed as a soulless sex doll who made ridiculous poses for the reader, or even Catwoman in her earlier issues, too? Three examples off the top of my head that were/still are exploited to far greater degrees than Batwoman, and all of them are heterosexual (as far as we know...).

The sex scene you seem to have such a problem with may have seemed to drag on for a while, mostly due to the book's use of artistic two page spreads, but when you actually look at it closely, you end up with 12 panels, all being used to contrast the other half of the story going on next to it, and where very little is actually shown. They're still dressed in their underwear, you only see a little kissing, and then the rest is just facial expressions. Compare that to the one page splash in Catwoman of the titular character straddled atop Batman with her legs wrapped around him as they do their business, and tell me, which one is actually more graphic and exploited?

@arnoldoaad: I don't think it's the case that hard-right or religious right are over represented in comics. Maybe in western literature generally, but it wouldn't bother me and I'm an Atheist. I would've liked it, honestly, because of the book mysticism angle. Something resonated with me there that she would find a book powerful when she can't read. It could've been Shakespeare just as easily and I would've been on board.

@BatWatch: I think once a thread is another to spam your link, not once every post and not multiple times per post. They don't have sigs on CV for a reason. Put it in your mini-bio and people can find it by clicking "see mini bio".

@Ravager4 said:

@BatWatch: define "a lot"... there are about 4 "scenes" throughout those issues where she is in various states of undress, true, but you don't really see much of anything, and any in which you do see more skin, it lasts for a single panel and it's still rather tame compared to other books and characters out there. Speaking of those other sources, I don't know why you're harping so much on Batwoman when there's plenty worse out there. How about some examination of Power Girl in World's Finest, who literally gets her clothes ripped off every single issue, or Starfire in the earlier issues of RHaTO, who was displayed as a soulless sex doll who made ridiculous poses for the reader, or even Catwoman in her earlier issues, too? Three examples off the top of my head that were/still are exploited to far greater degrees than Batwoman, and all of them are heterosexual (as far as we know...).

The sex scene you seem to have such a problem with may have seemed to drag on for a while, mostly due to the book's use of artistic two page spreads, but when you actually look at it closely, you end up with 12 panels, all being used to contrast the other half of the story going on next to it, and where very little is actually shown. They're still dressed in their underwear, you only see a little kissing, and then the rest is just facial expressions. Compare that to the one page splash in Catwoman of the titular character straddled atop Batman with her legs wrapped around him as they do their business, and tell me, which one is actually more graphic and exploited?

this is true..also in the last couple of batwoman issues there has been absolutely no skin show.. other than WW's ofcourse

@arnoldoaad said:

@fodigg said:

@arnoldoaad: I don't think it's the case that hard-right or religious right are over represented in comics. Make in western literature generally, but it wouldn't bother me and I'm an Atheist. I would've liked it, honestly, because of the book mysticism angle. Something resonated with me there that she would find a book powerful when she can't read. It could've been Shakespeare just as easily and I would've been on board.

I dont like it for 2 reasons mainly.

first i dont care if its Christian or islam or judaism or anything, i feel like a book with this kind of approach as in a character finding religion as a character arc will eventually turn to preaching, less about the character and more about the religion, and when a book preaches that book Never works at all, unless ppl are looking for it directly, and like one of those posters said It would just be too easy to exploit.

I can just imagine that she would eventually fight demons and satanist cult and who knows, it would just open the door to so much crap and im glad it wasnt pick

and the second reason, she is just not Cassandra Cain, I think this might work if this was a completely new character, maybe a new female Azrael, but as it is played in the pitch, it would had completely destroyed the character, mind you that happen anyways, that actually has easier to fix if she gets relaunched, imagine if they decided to relaunch Cass later as a non-christian, they just wouldnt be able to.

Its just Exactly the same idea that Cassandra was practically created for, she is using her abilities and the mark of the bat to redeem herself, and she learns compasion and kindness and all that from Batman and Oracle, this is practically the same but with religion forced to it as a publicity stunt, cause thats practically the reason for it, it was to pull more sales, and it would just turn her into an Azrael type of character for no real motivation.

Just imagine the hilarity of her turning christian after killing and reviving her mother as she did in the last chp.

it would reduce her to a joke

I think that it'd be a vehicle to explore morality, not preach it. You can set her up on this path and then challenge her, and her answers don't need to be clear-cut. Much of superhero comics is a morality play anyway. (Why doesn't Batman kill the Joker? Is the Punisher justified? "With great power…")

Some moral challenges you could present a newly X-tian Cass Cain:

• Should she not abandon violence after the example of this preacher? Is it possible to be a pacifist Batgirl?
• Is it right to refuse forgiveness to those who have wronged her ("turn the other cheek")? Is it right for her to be so driven by the actions of her father? Or Bruce by the actions of Joe Chill?
• If she can be absolved of her past sins, is there any real need to live her life to redeem herself? Should she not simply seek peace for herself?
• If she can be so heavily influenced by one preacher, why not another? How does she tell the good "men of God" from the bad? (Follow-up: If she's picking and choosing who she listens to, how is that different from picking and choosing her own morals?)
• Is Christianity the best worldview for everyone, not just her? Should she explore other forms of spirituality? Should she try to convert those around her?
• etc.

I think it would've been a good lens to explore the typical Bat-book moral questions through, not necessarily a platform from which to preach. Of course it could be done poorly as easily as it could be done properly, but I found the setup interesting. Batman is very much the pragmatist, and I think they've even labeled him a clear atheist, so giving him a very religious daughter to interact with seemed interesting to me. Far more interesting than making her another dragon-lady master assassin anyway. At this point, though, we'd need to find a way to even reintroduce the character.

@arnoldoaad: Seems like you just don't want anything religious touching your batgirl. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it's silly for you to argue that making a character christian would make it toxic automatically.

@arnoldoaad said:

@fodigg: look, the point is that the chances of this ruining the character were pretty big and real, specially if it just comes out of the blue and just to impulse sales by a dramatic approach.

look for example, when Obsidian was reveal Gay, he didnt change into a rainbow colored outfit and start just cramming gay issues on the character again and again, no, it was subtle and well handled.

the idea of her just changing her entire character, her entire purpose and practically her entire personality because of a religion is just really stupid,

I don't think any of that necessarily needs to happen just because she starts quoting scripture and wears a white costume. I've known people who have converted and deconverted and it doesn't drastically change who they are. It wouldn't necessarily need to change who batgirl was. The topics I raised weren't about changing her personality, just experiencing that through a new filter.

Now, I understand the hesitation to make the character (and by extension the comic) "go religion"—that's a big topic and a lot of people have an aversion to it—but just because the character embraces religion doesn't mean the book needs to be religious propaganda. Especially if it's being written by an atheist.

@Ravager4 said:

@BatWatch: define "a lot"... there are about 4 "scenes" throughout those issues where she is in various states of undress, true, but you don't really see much of anything, and any in which you do see more skin, it lasts for a single panel and it's still rather tame compared to other books and characters out there. Speaking of those other sources, I don't know why you're harping so much on Batwoman when there's plenty worse out there. How about some examination of Power Girl in World's Finest, who literally gets her clothes ripped off every single issue, or Starfire in the earlier issues of RHaTO, who was displayed as a soulless sex doll who made ridiculous poses for the reader, or even Catwoman in her earlier issues, too? Three examples off the top of my head that were/still are exploited to far greater degrees than Batwoman, and all of them are heterosexual (as far as we know...).

The sex scene you seem to have such a problem with may have seemed to drag on for a while, mostly due to the book's use of artistic two page spreads, but when you actually look at it closely, you end up with 12 panels, all being used to contrast the other half of the story going on next to it, and where very little is actually shown. They're still dressed in their underwear, you only see a little kissing, and then the rest is just facial expressions. Compare that to the one page splash in Catwoman of the titular character straddled atop Batman with her legs wrapped around him as they do their business, and tell me, which one is actually more graphic and exploited?

Define a lot. Well, let's put it this way, if I were a superhero, and someone were writing a comic focusing on the most important aspects of my daily life, I would be very surprised if they spend time every day on me taking my clothes off. (chuckles) These are completely unnecessary scenes...except for the sex scene which was drawn out much more than needed. Perhaps it was purely for artistic reasons, but I suspect it would not have been as long if it were heterosexual. Maybe I am wrong.

You keep mentioning that other comics show more skin. I do not deny that nor do I approve of those, but just because other heroines have their sexuality exploited does not mean it is okay to exploit Batwoman's. Again, maybe there would have been a long sex scene if it were guy on girl, but I suspect not since comics are largely a male audience, and there would be less interest in half the equation in a hetero situation.

Yeah, I'm not sure which scene between the Catwoman and Batwoman scenes are more graphic, but Catwoman has definitely been more consistent in being displayed as a sex object.

@fodigg said:

Gail Simone's pitch for Cassandra Cain as the "Angel of the Bat" was phenomenal and I can't believe they passed on it.

EDIT: For those who've never read it, copy of the pitch here and a copy of Gail's later reflection on it here.

As for Kate Kane, she's fully covered in her costume and more importantly she's been portrayed as a strong, rounded lead from top to bottom. And when she is portrayed in her skivvies it's rarely with the random t&a-to-the-max posing we see in other books. I'm not saying that it's not present, but I would argue that it is far less offensive than many other comics out there, including DC comics.

I agree all around. Beyond those first four issues to the series, I think Batwoman has been treated with the utmost respect. What started me on this whole train of thought was when I started reading these comics to my girlfriend, I told her that they did not expose her as a sex object because at the time I had not read those issues. Then, I opened the pages to see her taking her clothes off four times in four issues, and I was kind of like...well, crap! (grins)

Reading your later comments to Arnold, I agree about all the points you mentioned which could be explored with a Christian Cassandra...or a Christian any hero.@fodigg said:

@arnoldoaad said:

@fodigg: look, the point is that the chances of this ruining the character were pretty big and real, specially if it just comes out of the blue and just to impulse sales by a dramatic approach.

look for example, when Obsidian was reveal Gay, he didnt change into a rainbow colored outfit and start just cramming gay issues on the character again and again, no, it was subtle and well handled.

the idea of her just changing her entire character, her entire purpose and practically her entire personality because of a religion is just really stupid,

I don't think any of that necessarily needs to happen just because she starts quoting scripture and wears a white costume. I've known people who have converted and deconverted and it doesn't drastically change who they are. It wouldn't necessarily need to change who batgirl was. The topics I raised weren't about changing her personality, just experiencing that through a new filter.

Now, I understand the hesitation to make the character (and by extension the comic) "go religion"—that's a big topic and a lot of people have an aversion to it—but just because the character embraces religion doesn't mean the book needs to be religious propaganda. Especially if it's being written by an atheist.

@arnoldoaad:

1. That is where the clothes were taken off.

2. The topic is a question.

4. In the sex scene, I think it would have been shorter.

Think what you will.

@fodigg said:

@arnoldoaad: I don't think it's the case that hard-right or religious right are over represented in comics. Maybe in western literature generally, but it wouldn't bother me and I'm an Atheist. I would've liked it, honestly, because of the book mysticism angle. Something resonated with me there that she would find a book powerful when she can't read. It could've been Shakespeare just as easily and I would've been on board.

@BatWatch: I think once a thread is another to spam your link, not once every post and not multiple times per post. They don't have sigs on CV for a reason. Put it in your mini-bio and people can find it by clicking "see mini bio".

You are at least partially right. I have been putting it out there too much. I did clear it with a mod to put a link to my site in my posts, but I have been inserting it into nearly every comment, and I can see how that would become annoying.

On the flip side, you are the first who has complained about it, and it was actually a fan who suggested I do it.

Anyway, I will get with a mod and get some more guidelines, and I will at least back off on putting up links. Thanks for the heads up.

Regarding Christians being Arnold's claim of Christians being over represented in comics, that is pretty ridiculous. Three quarters of the U.S. population are Christians...many evangelicals, and yet I know there is not a single member of the Bat Family that has ever had a significant Christian aspect to their stories, and as far as I know, there are no other headlining DC characters who are actively Christians. At most, you see a reference to God or a prayer, but that is hardly the same as actually having religion be a significant part of your life. As you were saying to him, religion would have to be something you think about all the time in being a hero, and that would be a great dynamic to see explored.

@cloudzackvincent said:

@Ravager4 said:

@BatWatch: define "a lot"... there are about 4 "scenes" throughout those issues where she is in various states of undress, true, but you don't really see much of anything, and any in which you do see more skin, it lasts for a single panel and it's still rather tame compared to other books and characters out there. Speaking of those other sources, I don't know why you're harping so much on Batwoman when there's plenty worse out there. How about some examination of Power Girl in World's Finest, who literally gets her clothes ripped off every single issue, or Starfire in the earlier issues of RHaTO, who was displayed as a soulless sex doll who made ridiculous poses for the reader, or even Catwoman in her earlier issues, too? Three examples off the top of my head that were/still are exploited to far greater degrees than Batwoman, and all of them are heterosexual (as far as we know...).

The sex scene you seem to have such a problem with may have seemed to drag on for a while, mostly due to the book's use of artistic two page spreads, but when you actually look at it closely, you end up with 12 panels, all being used to contrast the other half of the story going on next to it, and where very little is actually shown. They're still dressed in their underwear, you only see a little kissing, and then the rest is just facial expressions. Compare that to the one page splash in Catwoman of the titular character straddled atop Batman with her legs wrapped around him as they do their business, and tell me, which one is actually more graphic and exploited?

this is true..also in the last couple of batwoman issues there has been absolutely no skin show.. other than WW's ofcourse

Yeah, I have had absolutely no problem with Batwoman of recent, but those early issues were definitely showing an undue amount of skin.

@fodigg said:

@arnoldoaad said:

@fodigg: look, the point is that the chances of this ruining the character were pretty big and real, specially if it just comes out of the blue and just to impulse sales by a dramatic approach.

look for example, when Obsidian was reveal Gay, he didnt change into a rainbow colored outfit and start just cramming gay issues on the character again and again, no, it was subtle and well handled.

the idea of her just changing her entire character, her entire purpose and practically her entire personality because of a religion is just really stupid,

I don't think any of that necessarily needs to happen just because she starts quoting scripture and wears a white costume. I've known people who have converted and deconverted and it doesn't drastically change who they are. It wouldn't necessarily need to change who batgirl was. The topics I raised weren't about changing her personality, just experiencing that through a new filter.

Now, I understand the hesitation to make the character (and by extension the comic) "go religion"—that's a big topic and a lot of people have an aversion to it—but just because the character embraces religion doesn't mean the book needs to be religious propaganda. Especially if it's being written by an atheist.

QFT Except I do not think it is necessarily a plus to have an atheist write a Christian character to keep it balanced. That is like saying you need a conservative to write Green Arrow or a woman to write Batman. A good story teller is a good story teller regardless of background.

And I am about to post a link to my site, but only once this time. (grins)

For more news, reviews, and commentary for the entire Bat Family, check out BatWatch.net.

@BatWatch said:

Define a lot. Well, let's put it this way, if I were a superhero, and someone were writing a comic focusing on the most important aspects of my daily life, I would be very surprised if they spend time every day on me taking my clothes off. (chuckles) These are completely unnecessary scenes...except for the sex scene which was drawn out much more than needed. Perhaps it was purely for artistic reasons, but I suspect it would not have been as long if it were heterosexual. Maybe I am wrong.

Every day, huh? Hold on, let's take a look at something for a second. I'm going to pull up all the panels throughout those 4 issues where Batwoman showed an "undue" amount of skin.

Both of those were in issue #1, let's see issue #2

Oh, there was nothing in issue #2

Okay, issue #3

So, through the first three issues, we have a total of 3 panels where Batwoman is in someway "unduly" exposed. Say, an average of five panels a page, is about 100 panels an issue, so 3 panels over an estimated 300 panels. That's 1%. Furthermore, with the exception of maybe that second panel, none of it is done in poor taste or in an overly "here, see, she's a woman! sex! nudity!" kind of way.

Okay, so now let's look at the sex scene.

It's very important to note that Kate and Maggie are not the main focus here. Rather, the main focus is on Bette, her story taking up most of the page space. The love scene is in the background, there not to be exploiting a lesbian relationship but to distinctly contrast what is happening with Bette. We have two lovers sharing a moment of passion, while on the other end a young girl is getting brutally butchered. Everything here has a purpose and is not just thrown in for titillation. I'll say it again, very little is actually shown in Kate's panels. They're still in their underwear, so they're covered, they do a little kissing in the first few panels, and then the rest is simple reaction shots. It's not like they're showing Maggie's head buried between Kate's legs. Overall, this does not come across as exploitative, but rather tasteful and artistic, and, to me, a very effective use of juxtaposition as a story telling technique.

I really don't see how all this put together equals excessive exploitation of this character. Again, this is tame compared to so much out there. She's not being exploited anymore than Batgirl is (who has also been shown a couple of times undressing, or in her underwear. better call the cops, she's showing an undue amount of skin). I have to say that this all comes off as a thinly veiled protest of female characters showing any skin, or ever showing sex in a comic, even when tastefully done, or just homosexual characters in general having relations.

@arnoldoaad said:

@fodigg said:

I don't think any of that necessarily needs to happen just because she starts quoting scripture and wears a white costume. I've known people who have converted and deconverted and it doesn't drastically change who they are. It wouldn't necessarily need to change who batgirl was. The topics I raised weren't about changing her personality, just experiencing that through a new filter.

Now, I understand the hesitation to make the character (and by extension the comic) "go religion"—that's a big topic and a lot of people have an aversion to it—but just because the character embraces religion doesn't mean the book needs to be religious propaganda. Especially if it's being written by an atheist.

of course it would

thats the pitch

Cass Cain finds religion and turn into a religious batgirl

even the things that you proposed here as in to question whatever or not to use violence because of its not very christian, Thats a change in her personality, because using those abilities that she has to fight injustice and such, that is already part of the character.

the sole fact of changing the costume alone, thats too big of a change alone

practically, The religious aspect adds nothing to the character, because as i shown with that picture i put back there, she already has a set of morals and beliefs

I don't understand. It's a huge change to the character and yet it adds nothing to it?

@BatWatch said:

QFT Except I do not think it is necessarily a plus to have an atheist write a Christian character to keep it balanced. That is like saying you need a conservative to write Green Arrow or a woman to write Batman. A good story teller is a good story teller regardless of background.

You're right that it doesn't really make the writer better or worse. What's important is that the writer wants to give a fair representation to the perspective. My point was simply that, as an atheist, Simone was unlikely to fall into the trap of making Batgirl into a mouthpiece for religiosity, which I believe is arnoldoaad's concern. As for the other extreme, Gail said herself she was surprised that people thought she meant it ironically. I would trust Simone with this, not just because she's an atheist, but because she's good at handling perspectives she hasn't lived through. She's never been in a wheelchair and she wrote wonderfully for Oracle. The same talent that lets her write a Parademon well can let her write a Christian Batgirl well.

@arnoldoaad said:

nothing of substance for the character i mean

I think case would be worst if for example she gain religion, and nothing was about it, kinda like with Northstar's gayness, you know, he comes out of the closet and him being gay is completely irrelevant for the next 15-20 years

The strongest point of this is the whole "going for redemption" but i have said multiple times, That is already part of the character, it is the reason why she became batgirl

so this huge change that she is getting, just to quote the bible and wear white its just going to achieve nothing for her

It will be about the religion, and not the character

Well, I think it would have been a new avenue through which to explore the same arc—a good way to shake things up without drastically changing the personality of the character. The character had to change somewhat because of editorial mandate, so I'm surprised that you'd reject this—a different avenue through which we could explore the core tension of the character, redemption and morality—when the alternative we were ultimately provided took the character in an entirely different direction, making her a smooth-talking, cackling dragon-lady villain. I don't think staying the course was an option considering the whole reason for the pitch was that sales were plummeting.

that is correct, thank you very much

and honestly my most important point is that Cass Cain just doesnt need religion to do what she already does

Again, I get if you just don't want religion in the Bat-books because that's just not your cup of tea, but some change had to happen.

honestly that is a poor example, she never had PTSD and she sucks at writing characters with ptsd, just look at Batgirl and Firestorm

on the other hand she isnt lesbian and her work with Scandal savage was brilliant, and she is not a man and what she did with Catman and Deadshot is just amazing

and i will add that i think Rucka wrote better woman than Simone, both with WW and Batwoman

point is that it doesnt really matter who you are but how you write

The same talent that lets her write a Parademon well can let her write a Christian Batgirl well.

its kind of not the same, one is an asian chick that was train to be a weapon and the other one is a demon alien from another dimension

for the record, one of my favorite books of all time is Kingdom Come, and its the religious aspect of the book that give him that sense of epicness

and yet, Alex Ross, who i think is very Religious, didnt came out with that aspect of the book, it was Waid, who isnt religious

My point wasn't "Simone always hits it out of the park" but rather "good writers can write beyond their experience," which it sounds like you actually agree with.

@arnoldoaad said:

It is not that religion is not my cup of tea

is just that I see absolutely no justification for it on this pitch, or at least none that would matter, it is just forced and with very little sense to do so

Fair enough. I disagree but no reason to belabor the point. Cheers for the discussion.

@Ravager4:

I am against characters showing skin in comics because it is for the purpose of titillation in almost every case. I did not know that was unclear. Granted, if there is some need for a character to be undressed for the sake of the story, then I do not care, but the changing and shower scenes served no purpose that could not be equally well served with clothes on. I agree that the sex scene served a purpose, but I still doubt it would have been as drawn out if if were heterosexual.

@fodigg:

I see what you mean, and I am with you. I wish we could have seen that arc. Oh well.

@arnoldoaad:

You are welcome.

Yes.

1. Yes.

2. An opinion you have repeated often.

Perhaps I misread. My mistake if I misunderstood.

Was David Lane a Christian? Nothing in his ComicVine page indicates that.

(grins) Fire swords are awesome.

How do you claim victory by agreeing with me?

@arnoldoaad: I agree that the sex scene had to be nude, but I do not think it helped the story in the other issues.

You may be right about the sex scene being lengthened because of the lesbian angle.

2. True, but I do not hold that the majority is always right.

3. My apologies.

4. Interesting.

6. Yeah, I saw that in the Red Robin crossover, and I thought that was pretty cool. Fire swords FTW!

5. Obviously, my sarcasm skills must not be developed enough to detect it.

She took her clothes off four times in four issues, and it only added something to the scene in one instance. Yes she is.

I think, with a character like Batwoman being so scarce in comics these days, that the point is to exploit her sexuality. That is the point, when DC said "Let's get some lesbian heroes" or "The market is in need of some Gay/Lesbian heroes." If you 'exploit' her gayness, provided she is written well (which she is), she becomes that much of a better character. She is already becoming comic's gay icon.

Also, there are thousands of people who read Batwoman, and thoroughly enjoy it, yet most of them pick it up each month because the story is great, and the art is amazing. You will not see as many people picking up Batwoman waiting for a sex scene than you will because they actually like that comic. Part of the reason for that is because most readers know that there are restrictions on what a publisher can publish, but they still pick it up.

@Twentyfive said:

I think, with a character like Batwoman being so scarce in comics these days, that the point is to exploit her sexuality. That is the point, when DC said "Let's get some lesbian heroes" or "The market is in need of some Gay/Lesbian heroes." If you 'exploit' her gayness, provided she is written well (which she is), she becomes that much of a better character. She is already becoming comic's gay icon.

Also, there are thousands of people who read Batwoman, and thoroughly enjoy it, yet most of them pick it up each month because the story is great, and the art is amazing. You will not see as many people picking up Batwoman waiting for a sex scene than you will because they actually like that comic. Part of the reason for that is because most readers know that there are restrictions on what a publisher can publish, but they still pick it up.

Yeah, through the conversation I've had with people on this tread, I'm convinced that the undressing scenes in the early issues of Batwoman have less to do with her homosexuality and more to do with the fact that she is a pretty girl that they can show without clothes on. In other words, it is just typical female exploitation...except for the sex scene which I still think probably would not have lasted so long had it been heterosexual.

It is definitely true that it is the quality of the writing which will keep readers coming back which is why I found it so disappointing that the first four issues showed so much interest in seeing her undress. Batwoman does not need that. The story and art sell the book without the skin.

@arnoldoaad:

Perhaps the long scene was done just for contrast.

Other than the sex scene, there was never any reason to show Kate undressing or undressed. She could stare at a mirror sadly just as easily in clothing. She could have a conversation with Bette with her clothes on.

Remember, there was a lot of sex and violence in the first few issues of lots of comics in the DCNU...more than was displayed in later issues of lots of those series. True, they have backed away from that now, and I do not know about earlier issues, but I do not believe those issues had undressing scenes because it added to the plot.