P.S.

In University I lived in a dorm. If the x-men school is anything like a real dorm, the things happening in these comics is not too far off.

Why is everybody on DC so fixated on Batman's nipples (Bat-nipples on the Batman and Robin movie)? Even Selina is toys around with them!

I was worried about the portrayal of women and sexism going into the new 52, then I read the books and went "you know what, this really isn't nearly as bad as everyone made it sound, I guess things will be okay." ... And then week three of the books came out, and holy cow, apparently this was the week they were saving all the stuff we were worried about for.

DC is just trying to appeal to a new audience. 
ROFLMAO.

@Babs said:

@xerox_kitty said:

Why is Catwoman reaching up Batman's shirt instead of down his pants? I guess she isn't after one thing, after all...

Pffft....she's just taking her time. Let her get hers. :P

Precisely the point I was trying to make. There are certain characters where a decent amount of sexuality fits within their wheelhouse. And like I said in the Red Hood reviews, there are promiscuous people in every walk of life. If you are going to have a heroine who will sleep with anyone, making it an alien who doesn't share human emotions is the best way to do it. Shying away from a female character's sexuality is just as bad as exploiting it. I don't want all my female heroes to be Jean Grey or Wasp.

@fodigg said:

My thoughts:

• Catwoman: Seemed fine to me, and for once there was a contextual reason for her to be falling out of her skin-tight, zips-all-the-way-up suit
• Wonder Woman: Fine, very small and honestly, Batman is about as sexualized as this
• Suicide Squad: No worse than the rest of the book, which was terrible
• Starfire: Ridiculous and IMO offensive because of the new mental limitations they put on the character that makes her basically incapable of any relationship more complicated than a roll in the hay (elaboration here)

Honestly, this characterization of Starfire makes sense when you think of her with Dick Greyson. That man-slut is also "basically incapable of any relationship more complicated than a roll in the hay"

Catwoman and Batman Finally. I'm used to seeing Sexy Super heroines -Hello Swimsuit Editions!- from Marvel and Chaos that I'm not phased by this. 

oh batman gonna get it!

@TheBlackHood said:

@fodigg said:

My thoughts:

• Catwoman: Seemed fine to me, and for once there was a contextual reason for her to be falling out of her skin-tight, zips-all-the-way-up suit
• Wonder Woman: Fine, very small and honestly, Batman is about as sexualized as this
• Suicide Squad: No worse than the rest of the book, which was terrible
• Starfire: Ridiculous and IMO offensive because of the new mental limitations they put on the character that makes her basically incapable of any relationship more complicated than a roll in the hay (elaboration here)

Honestly, this characterization of Starfire makes sense when you think of her with Dick Greyson. That man-slut is also "basically incapable of any relationship more complicated than a roll in the hay"

I have to disagree. It's not that she's sexually active and extremely casual about it—she's been that before and I never had a problem with it, including the recent REBELS arc where she was basically "acting like the man" by screwing (and screwing over) Captain Comet, much to the amusement of Lobo—and the problem isn't necessarily that the ONLY thing she's shown doing in the issue is having sex (other than melting some tanks while delivering submissive, sultry dialogue to Jason). I mean, I'd still have an issue with that but it wouldn't be outrageous because then my problem is just that it's a flat character.

The real problem is that this memory/sensory deficiency thing she suddenly suffers from. It means she is literally unable to have meaningful relationships and is therefore a walking, talking sex toy. And here comes Roy Harper, one of her old good friends from the Titans, gleefully taking advantage of the mentally-handicapped alien supermodel.

Also, Dick Graysonhas been shown to be far more than just a "slut." Many of his storylines are non-sexual and many of his relationships are non-sexual in nature. He's also had meaningful romantic relationships, and while he's frequently surrounded by interested gorgeous women, I'm struggling to think of a time he had casual sex other than when he was shell-shock raped by Tarantula. Kind of like how Green Arrow's reputation as a womanizer started from when he was fever-raped by Shado. Because at DC comics, female-on-male rape is the same as consensual sex.

So again, my problem is not with sex, with casual sex, or even necessarily with a poor characterization of a character I like, but with the context of her new mental condition that stunts her horribly and adds all sorts of weird, negative connotations to these sexual encounters that's really only possible in sci-fi and comics.

Please note, I'm not trying to come down hard on you or call you out or anything, I'm just trying to make my point as clearly as possible.

In this issue Dick’s world is falling down around him because of Blockbuster trying to make it that way, and Dick is driving himself to the edge in order to fight him.   He has already been betrayed in an attempt to bring him in legally, and now he is going to confront him.   Meanwhile Tarantula is also seeking revenge for the murder of her namesake, John Law.   Of course her methods aren’t so ethical or as legal.   Suffice to say it doesn’t end well for Blockbuster.   Dick runs to the roof where he collapses from exhaustion and apologizing to Bruce while speaking almost incoherently.   Tarantula chases him down and takes advantage of him in his weakened state. Some people would argue that this would constitute sexual assault but I am not so sure.   Certainly she has taken advantage of Grayson at one of his weakest times, his friends have been targeted, he has been sleeping on the street and his ethics have been compromised.   Does that make Tarantula a rapist?   In my opinion no.   Sexual assault usually occurs physically against its victim, which is obviously not the case here.   However, sexual assault can occur under many other conditions, whether being drugged, manipulated in some way (for instance someone threatens that you lose your job), or if the victim is not mentally aware of the situation.   If it was rape, it would have to be categorized under this aspect, that of not being mentally aware.   Was Dick in the best mental state?   Not at all, he was under complete duress, but if there is anyone in the DC universe who can take duress its Dick Grayson (in addition to Bruce.)   This guy can go days without sleeping and still be at the top of his game.   This may be an extreme example, but he would have still known what was happening to him, and he could have easily stopped her if he had wanted to.   He is still cognizant enough right before it is happens to tell Catalina that he has failed her.   

@RazzaTazz said:

@fodigg:
Was Dick Grayson raped? Here are my thoughts from my review of that issue

In this issue Dick’s world is falling down around him because of Blockbuster trying to make it that way, and Dick is driving himself to the edge in order to fight him. He has already been betrayed in an attempt to bring him in legally, and now he is going to confront him. Meanwhile Tarantula is also seeking revenge for the murder of her namesake, John Law. Of course her methods aren’t so ethical or as legal. Suffice to say it doesn’t end well for Blockbuster. Dick runs to the roof where he collapses from exhaustion and apologizing to Bruce while speaking almost incoherently. Tarantula chases him down and takes advantage of him in his weakened state. Some people would argue that this would constitute sexual assault but I am not so sure. Certainly she has taken advantage of Grayson at one of his weakest times, his friends have been targeted, he has been sleeping on the street and his ethics have been compromised. Does that make Tarantula a rapist? In my opinion no. Sexual assault usually occurs physically against its victim, which is obviously not the case here. However, sexual assault can occur under many other conditions, whether being drugged, manipulated in some way (for instance someone threatens that you lose your job), or if the victim is not mentally aware of the situation. If it was rape, it would have to be categorized under this aspect, that of not being mentally aware. Was Dick in the best mental state? Not at all, he was under complete duress, but if there is anyone in the DC universe who can take duress its Dick Grayson (in addition to Bruce.) This guy can go days without sleeping and still be at the top of his game. This may be an extreme example, but he would have still known what was happening to him, and he could have easily stopped her if he had wanted to. He is still cognizant enough right before it is happens to tell Catalina that he has failed her.

I don't have a quote handy but the stated writer intention was that he was totally shell-shocked that he was not a participant in the "proceedings," and then continued to follow her around after the event because he was in a state of shock. He was raped.

Maybe "suffering form spontaneous mental break" doesn't fly in the real world, but in comics, yeah it's clear what was on the page. He talks crazy (including saying "don't touch me," though the context is muddy) then goes into shock while she takes advantage of him. How he gets it up while in shock, Thor only knows, but that's what we're told happens.

@RazzaTazz said:

@The Devil Tiger: @fodigg: I have read that issue in great detail. I can appreciate what Grayson was trying to do, but I am not sure if she did it. Writer intentions versus the finished project do not change what the finished product is. If Grayson had wanted it to be rape she should have done more research into it, as from a legal definition that is not rape. I am not saying what Tarantula did was right, in fact it is deplorable, but it fits more into a category of a guy friend who goes to console a girl after her boyrfriend has broken up with her but who is really trying to take advantage of her weakened emotional state. That is not rape, it is morally wrong, but not rape.

I also read this issue carefully and I think it can be concluded that this was rape from what's on the page. I mention writer intention as supporting evidence, not as an external decree.

There are many forms of "comic book rape" that are not covered under the traditional, real world legal definitions of rape. Shape-shifting and mind control for two. Then "pheromones," elaborate bait-and-switches, and finally injury/fever/shock/etc-induced sexual encounters—which this is one example of. All of the above can be considered some sort of comic book-specific variant of date rape, where the victim is not in control of their actions and their ability to refuse has been taken away.

If you agree that he was taken advantage of and that what Tarantula did to him was morally reprehensible, then I'd say we agree. I'm not overly interested in debating the appropriate application of real-world legal definitions on fantastical situations that don't real-world happen.

@The Devil Tiger said:

@RazzaTazz: Scan the critical pages please, I would want to judge by myself because the argument recall me the one when people say "That's not rape if you'll enjoy it" and the violent guys whom their spouse always say "yes" because they are too afraid of the consequence if they say "no".

I linked to scans in previous post above.

reboot for new readers. Boobs to keep them.

Comics are a "graphic" media, but there's a difference between pandering to male hormones and adding in sexual subtext. Most comic writers seem to prefer the former than the later, and quite frankly, that offends me. I'm not a genius, but there are ways of adding in sexual subtext without making every super-heroine into a slut, or making them look or act like a slut. Whatever happened to playful flirting? I remember a run Claremont and Alan Davis did on Uncanny X-Men that had Phoenix (Rachel Summers) and Nightcrawler in the Danger Room in a pirate simulation with flirtatious subtext. It was clearly evident to me, but at the same time it was PG rated material. I believe more writers need to write this way, rather than just falling back on the stereo-typical.

I agree with this article entirely.

As much as I dislike the new design for Harely, I found it forgivable for the simple fact that she didnt have many "sexy time" panels. I mean, lets face it, the girl did need an update and thats what the whole New 52 is about. I freely admit, the look is growing on me though. Its just the first time I saw her updated look, it was a such a complete turn around I was worried about her actual character. After reading the first issue of Suicide Squad, I find that my likable insane Harely was still present, and not spreading her legs.

As for Catwoman....I shake my head in disappointment. Im a big Catwoman fan, and I understand its part of Selina's character to be ultra sexy and seductive...but this was total over kill. What was amazing about Selina and what made her super attractive was her mystery as Catwoman and her daring dances with danger. Sexy can be exuded through personality, and we've seen it done before. What went wrong? And who the hell gave the okay for this issue?

I mean, Im okay with fanboy/fangirl gratuity- Im inclined to pick up the sexier cover of a comic, its much more appealing. But basing every character's panel, personality, their entire comic book on gratuity services is just disturbing. Im not paying for Maxim, Im paying for a DC comic. As a Batman fan, I could have lived without all the panties and bra shots, the suggestive language, and so forth. If all I was given were the few panels of Catwoman jumping Batman's bones, I would have been ENTIRELY satisfied. It just enough gratuity without being in your face, and its arguable that its character development.

The direction of DC sexy time females in the New 52 can simply be argued that it's a product of today's moral standards.(Compare Golden Age Wonder Woman to her latest issues, an entirely different set of morals) The time frame, and the readers reactions, has ALWAYS had a major influence over the direction of comics. Or it can simply be that DC is aiming for for the male perspective of readers; the male to female ratio of comic readers is definitely vast. And Im sure (Im assuming here) most male readers wouldn't mind suggestive filled panels or stories, without it ruining the comic plot line for them. Unlike myself, a female reader, Im screaming for feminist rights- which says alot, Im pretty tolerant of provacative images (Im a Ebas fan, I admit it. Im also guilty of picking up all the super attractive covers from Zenescope.)

To make a long story short, I hold DC to a higher standard of quality story telling, character development, and art. Whatever DC's reasoning is for over the top libidinous illustrations and character attitude, I hope they decide to take it down a notch.

I wish Stephanie Brown was still around more :C she's the hottest excluding Black Canary.

Always dig well thought articles, especially if they get featured, good job!

...I fail to see the logic here....

Thumbs up from me

@RazzaTazz: Except, all I saw was her going to get her gear, pause and make a final statement over her shoulder. She wasn't posing. I found the Wonder Woman scene to be very tasteful despite the obvious, intentional nudity.

Missed your blog post about this, but I'd been seeing similar complaints around Facebook. This was my take on it.

Always dig well thought articles, especially if they get featured, good job!

Why is Catwoman using Batman okay, but Batman using Catwoman sexist?

Not being sarcastic, would actually like an answer.

I think a sex scene between Batman and Catwoman could've been ok to include if they had done it less gratuitously. The post coital page? A little gross, and I'm a 19yo male. If he and come over, and they kissed and then they just implied that they had sex. That'd be fine. Or if they did it more subtly. The whole Starfire thing. Was just un-necessary. 0 interest in the book. I hate Lobdell, he's an ass and has proven himself as such.

@Babs: It's all about the EARS !

Hotness is always a good thing =D... just don't make the characters shallow or idiotic in the process

You guys are silly. this thing's hot!! there are a lot more horny dudes that there are nerdy ones. And heck I'm one of em!! now because of this, I am even more encouraged to buy the new version of Dc comics. Oh yeah!!

@TheCrowbar said:

@RazzaTazz: Selina I get why she acts like that. She's attracted to Bruce and she's really always been a sexual character. It's not her only attribute though. There's nothing wrong with her being over the top, after all we're talking about people that like running around in body tight spandex and/or just underwear, it's the nature of comics. Thankfully Selina is shown to have a personality as well.

Well said. I never got all the hype about Catwoman. Sure, the book is over-sexualised, but Catwoman has always been 'sexy'. I almost feel like it wouldn't be Catwoman with out the sexiness... Sexy sex sex...

Great Bog Razza!

Damn! DC is gettting freaky

I see nothing wrong with Wonder Woman sleeping without clothes

It was pretty brief as well, and it wasn't a cheesecake shot

I really don't understand what's peoples problem with that

@super_psycho said:

@RazzaTazz said:

@TheCrowbar: Not opposed to the naked sleeping, opposed to over showing her walking around her apartment while in the buff.

she is an amazon its part of her character. why would she hide her back from another female?

Amen to that

@RazzaTazz: Love starfire, and yes I'll have sex with her, just like James T. Kirk had sex with a green alien chick.

@rogue_mar1e said:

I really dislike how Kory has been portrayed in Red Hood and the Outlaws. Now I don't want to read that series anymore, even though I was one of the few reboot titles I was looking forward to.

I feel the same, I was really excited about this one and it sounded like it would be a fun title but I found that just a bit too disappointing for me to continue.

Just another gimmick, I'm afraid.

I really didn't mind Catwoman having sex with Bruce. I mean, that was going to happen eventually. She's catwoman! Though I didn't like how they drew her breasts hanging out for no reason. Now Starfire...

There's nothing gratuitous about Wonder Woman. It's her fucking back for goodness sake. Are you turned on by shoulder blades?

There's nothing wrong with showing an Amazon sleeping naked.

What happened in Catwoman and Red Hood was more more gratuitous, and made it hard to take the characters seriously. Wonder Woman on the other hand was one of the best books of the reboot.

@xerox_kitty said:

Why is Catwoman reaching up Batman's shirt instead of down his pants? I guess she isn't after one thing, after all...

Abs > nasty boy bit any day ;)

Not sure how people can confuse the word gratuitous. Its not a word with absolute values, its not inherently bad, evil, good or right, it also means there can be room for discretion. Its not intrinsically linked to sex or violence either, in other words its relative. I was fine with Wonder Woman's portrayal as far as nudity but I can find it gratuitous in that its pretty easy to think of a multitude of ways the scene could have been different, and still have been good. Ways it could be worse. So there is a sliding scale of how necessary it was. So I agree with OP. 

The Catwoman issues don't bother me at all. I chalk it off as part of her character. She's sexy and knows that. She'll use it to her advantage. Obviously, her and Bruce will be hooking it up at some point. It's nice that they got right to it because I find that relationship to be one of the most intriguing parts of Catwoman.

As for Red Hood, it was a bit much in issue 1 but I don't think it's something they're gonna do a lot of. I mean, issue 2 didn't have any of it. I think they just did that to show that Starfire's "beauty" may cause problems between Roy and Jason. Frankly, if they both are going after her, that could add a lot to that team. I just don't want them to make Starfire a sex symbol for the series.

Wow. I don't know how much worse it really is now, compared to before, but this sickens me.

-Sincerely, a male DC comic book reader.

With Red Hood and the Outlaws, I’m not going to even lie about the pretenses in which I bought that book. I thought it was honestly going to be about these three Kick-butt fiery red heads bonding together and showing how bad they can be despite being the outcasts of the main DC hero verse. With that bonding I was expecting for there to be A LOT of sexual tension between the THREE of them, so any allusions to the night before would just further the story when reading these three. What I got after reading one, a bad butt Jason Todd who brought everything I was hoping for on his part. An archer who was sillier then I expected but adding some jollies to the groups dynamic. I absolutely loved he and Jason’s communication those first few pages. Then Kori, one of the most emotion filled powerhouse beauties this side of the wait…what…emotional void hooker doll. What in the hey-hey is going on? I had heard some of the talk, but wow. That was just painful to look at how her character got murdered so bad in the face of some different dude junk to (unenthusiastically) sleep with and contort for. Instead of having this awesome dynamic, it just turned awkward and just plain bad. I’m going to continue reading for a few more books, but there’s really only so much I can try to get passed for the sake of Jason Todd. Hopefully a lesson is learned from all the outrage and more focus is bought on the awesome appeal of ALL THREE instead of blatant character defamation.

@GamerGeek360: I actually didn’t mind Selena and Bruce doing their lovers in mask during the night thing. I do believe that Batman could have stepped up and done a lil more captivating on his part as opposed to laying their like a log, but seeing Selena be totally dominating wasn’t so bad because obviously some bats is what she wanted. The only thing that made me go “ugh, really…” was the blatant itemization of her body parts in the first few pages and then that super blasé move towards seduction with “Oh no my shirts off and I’m coming undone” third rate porno much.. Catwoman is bold, sexy, and fierce. She owns with her sensuality and sexiness, but the way she was portrayed through most of that book was pretty porny and unimaginative. When it comes to ladies in comics who have the art of tease down packed Catwoman is at the top of that list. The only parts that got it right were the cover and the scene between her and Batman.

You know? Until reading this, I didn't know DC was gettin' down like that!

I have no problem with these depictions per say or with sex being an aspect of a female or male character’s persona, but it would be nice to balance it with female (and male) leads for whom sex and sexuality is a much more background or non-existent feature of their character.