Originally Posted by C. Lee
I think many people just didn't see it as necessary. An implied or suggested relationship between them can be as good or better storywise than actually showing it. They are getting their intended outcome though...people are talking about the book. But even if people are talking about the book...does that make it a good story or story decision?
Not only does sex sell... controversy sells too.
I think relationships in all writing (not just comic books) are more strongly portrayed when tension is maintained and any sex is implicit rather than explicit. Writers all too often use sex scenes as a crutch to attempt to make relationships interesting, and the relationships are often trivialized as a result. I'm a big fan of the rule that, unless a sex scene contributes directly to the plot, it should be left out. Otherwise I suspect that it is just gratuitous / exploitative.
While reading Batman comics I've never had a problem with the fact that Bruce has sex with various characters offscreen (or is shown in bed with them in a non-gratuitous way). I've always assumed he and Catwoman had some sexual history. And it has always been presented in a tasteful way that accentuated the characters rather than the sex act itself. But in the case of this latest comic it is the act itself that is emphasized, in big fiery letters, and it is awkward and unnecessary. It detracts and distracts from what is important in the story. That isn't what I read the comics for. I don't care if, as someone said, animals do it. That's beside the point. Comics aren't about stuff humping just for the heck of it, comics are about characters.
The question here is why show it
? What does it contribute
to the story? Why is it there? I think we know the answer. It contributes nothing but bad writing and the realization of teen boy fantasies. I think saying so doesn't make me a prude. I think it just makes me aware of the cheap trick the writers are using.