Discussion in 'Batman World' started by The Caped Knight, Oct 22, 2011.
DC is just trolling.
I hold no respect for anyone who starts going on about how it's "disrespectful" or "exploitive" or any of that crap. These comics are great, and I happen to like seeing Catwoman drawn extremely sexily and wanting to get it on with Batman. Not only is it telling a side of the character that's been implied for 25 years but never explicitly told, the story overall is great.
I hate feminists, feminism, and wimpy men who act like they had all of the testosterone sucked out of their body. Those are the only types of people I've seen hate on this comic, and good grief I cannot accurately say how much I dislike them without going into a lot of expletives.
You'd be wrong to equate a disdain for sex with feminism.
I dont see a problem with them having sex. Sex is normal, if its not pornographic, I dont see the big deal.
However that what was just posted looks really stupid because they are wearing their costumes.
I'm not a feminist or wimpy man, and I'm sorry to hear you hold no respect for so many of us. It is unfortunate you couldn't come up with a real argument of your own and so had to resort to sterotypes, ad hominems, and insults.
It is possible to have a polite conversation about this, believe it or not, folks.
IMHO, there is something very wrong with having sex while leaving the masks on. It's like the person is not important, just the act of lust. It makes no sense that Bruce Wayne, who threw away his right to be a child the moment his parents were murdered, spent years in physical and mental discipline, and spends his nights thinking so deeply about the matters that surround Gotham that he has earned the title of Dark Knight Detective, would take the matter of love so lightly that he would perform it anonymously just to satisfy his erotic urges. That would simply undermine all that time he spent putting all other urges, even the ones of pain, hunger, tiredness and cold, under control.
This is a really good point, that I hadn't even realized yet. Now I have SIX reasons why I believe the scene shouldn't be in the comic.
I think people should just relax. So, Batman and Catwoman had sex. It was a bit of a surprise to see it that way, but I suppose that was the point. You have to grab your readers with the first issue they pick up. I doubt that soft-core porn is going to become the staple of this or any other DC comicbook.
I really didn't see anything offensive in showing straightforward coitus between two consenting adults. Then again, I'm European.
Again, they can **** all they want as long as the writer portrays it with at least some ounce of class.
That's the problem.
Well, animals do it, too.
I was under the impression they do know who each other are. The reboot doesn't affect the Batman canon after all. If that is the case, I have no qualms with them doing the dirty however they see fit. The fetishtic and erotic subtext behind the costumes isn't a novel approach.
do you even know what ad hominem means? This argument is entirely about subjective feelings on a subject. Attacking the person and their beliefs is entirely legitimate. You should also notice I did not name a specific person nor called anyone an insult directly.
You don't have to name specific posters to be rude and condescending to someone....try to be more civil with your posts in the future.
Let's do it like they do on the discovery channel
Heh! That is a silver-tongued line if ever there was one.
*sigh* I suppose this will pop up every issue. But anyway. About the reboots: the world should've learned by now that continuity is the last thing stories are concerned with (and by the world, I mean the imaginary readers DC editors keep cooking up). About the sex: anyone having problems with it isn't talking about the fact that Batman and Catwoman are getting it on, they're talking about the way they're shown to be getting it on. There are much better ways to show them being intimate, hell, Long Halloween Bats was so stiff you actually hoped he and Catwoman got together and released some tension. But not like this - this was bad writing, and worse; bad writing continued. Phantasm says it best: it's exploitative.
I love how Batman is screaming dirty in one page, relaxing with his hand on his head, and then the next ZAP, he's all "serious". Right.
Stop giving ideas! (hmm... a bat...and a cat... no, I can't do it. Not even allegorically.)
Yes but this isn't presented as a character study showcasing deep-rooted erotic expression, it isn't even about two characters fulfilling their mutual lust, it's two characters fulfilling the lust of readers, and done with bland mediocrity. I would be among the first to buy a book that explores the sex-life of Batman and Catwoman, but I highly doubt this is what we're getting here.
I believe reg said it best - it has done what it was set out to do; sell the first issue. It's a marketing tool. Sex sells. So does Batman. Let's add them up.
Actually you did... you specifically named an entire range of persons, who were nonexistent, implying that those who are disagreeing with the content fall under those labels - and moreover that you have no respect for those kind of people. In other words, you were attacking the people rather than what they were saying. That would fall under ad hominem. You fallacy-er.
Exactly... makes one wonder exactly what was rebooted at all.
There are at least 2 people here who have made it clear that they consider sex itself to be an abhorrent matter with no place in comics, so this assessment isn't totally accurate.
Doesn't have to be. It is inherent to the characters and suits themselves.
Believe me, I'm against the presentation there as well. However this has been over a month long discussion, and this new issue is only extending the same scene that set off the debates in the first place. I've exhausted enough time on it to just wait until Judd either makes the same mistake, or manages to flip this around and turn it into something redeemable.
I haven't seen anyone here declare sex to be an "abhorrent matter." I'd love to see quotes where this has been stated.
I was paraphrasing.
Even so, I haven't seen that attitude toward sex itself expressed.
Needless to say I and a few others saw it differently. I'm not interested in calling people out, but I have seen the anti-sex sentiments here as well is in the comics forum. So...take it for what you will.
It does seem implied from some that sex seems to be a no-go area for comics. People have to stop being prudish, it's human nature.
I just don't recognized the reboot timeline/dates and this "reboot" still perfectly adds into my continuity.
I see it as minor errors of the characters behalf (Babs saying the Joker shot her 3 years ago in the new 52, because it makes no sense.) Too much in too little of time;
My Batman continuity...
Gotham City 1990 - 2000
Y1, TLH/DV, Batgirl Y1, ADITF, ALPOD, Knightfall, Prodigal, Contagion, Legacy, Cataclysm...
Gotham City 2001 - 2010
NML, Officer Down, Murderer?/Fugitive, Hush, Broken City, War Games/Drums, Batwoman, Resurrection/Black Glove/RIP, Batman Inc."
Gotham City 2011
New 52; Batman, Batwoman, Batman & Robin, Batgirl, Nightwing. [I'm not paying attention to Detective or Dark Knight.
Part of the problem perhaps is that people on both sides of the debate are often using terms too broadly. All superhero comics contain sexual content to some extent, as all superheroes have these "ideal" bodies and charisma, etc. Like I said, some comics present Batman / Catwoman's sexual relationship in a tasteful way (Dini is good at this) that doesn't distract or detract from the story or their overall relationship. Then there's THIS exploitative, fanfic-esque, unnecessary stuff. Its cheap, its bad writing, its inappropriate, and I'd argue it is actually disrespecting the characters to portray them in this pseudo porno way. But I've just stated my arguments and there's no point in retyping them all over again.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that sex across the board is inappropriate or a no-go for comics. If people here in this thread have said it, quote them on it and see what they say. If people in some other thread who we don't want to name have said it, then why bring it up? What does it contribute to the present discussion? Nothing that I can see.