Should sex be openly depicted in comics?

Well, I'm a nice guy, and sometimes I get in the mood for a chick whose stomach looks like Benny Hill's face.
 
[blackout]Hank loves the ass play.[/blackout]

Guess Janet literally likes it very dirty then. And I guess Hank has "mommy issues" if he literally wants [BLACKOUT]to crawl back in the womb.[/BLACKOUT] And they also must like "unsafe" sex because they A. have be really good escape artists for them to [blackout]not to get stuck up in the "nether regions"[/blackout], and B. there also a risk of having those Pym particles going wonky and them suddenly growing back to normal. No wonder the tag line is "What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas." :o
 
[blackout]there also a risk of having those Pym particles going wonky and them suddenly growing back to normal.[/blackout]

burns_homer.gif



ouch.
 
Going back to what I said earlier...

I have also noticed a difference between comics and trades in regards to sex. I bought up the Avengers trades for Avengers Vol. 3. In the search for She Hulk trade there is a story with Hank and Jan in Vegas. They are in bed naked, covered only in sheets, trying to figure out what went wrong in their marriage. Later I bought up all the Avengers issues that weren't in the trades and I accidently bought that comic. So I had the comic and I had a trade that had that issue in it. However, in the actual comic the love scene between Hank and Jan is quite different. Hank shrinks down and goes inside of Janet, bringing her to orgasm. This was removed from the trade for some reason. I find that interesting.

Does anyone know why this is so?
 
I don't know, didn't buy the trade, only read it in comic form.
 
I honestly don't think it's needed in the comics. I can't think of a single situation where a story would HAVE to show a major sex scene to make it better where implication wouldn't suffice. Heck... even some implication is too much. The Hank Janet thing was way too much. The Gwen Norman thing wasn't as bad but not necessarilly needed. The Alias thing was the closest to necesary of those examples but still not so much. That may have been because it was graphic though.

And on that note... why does everyone assume it was anal sex between her and Luke? Yeah, he was behind her (judging by her facial expressions, which was all we saw) but you can be in that position and still be going in through the vagina. Did they have sex anywhere else in the series? (I stopped reading around issue 6 so I don't know). If not then it'd make sense being that he impregnated her.
 
Going back to what I said earlier...



Does anyone know why this is so?
I suspect it's because the scene caused some controversy when the comic itself came out. They probably took that as a sign they'd gone too far and altered it for the trade.
 
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that was a Chuck Austen issue. :dry:
 
Johns, actually. I should've probably guessed that he could potentially suck back then. :o
 
I honestly don't think it's needed in the comics. I can't think of a single situation where a story would HAVE to show a major sex scene to make it better where implication wouldn't suffice. Heck... even some implication is too much. The Hank Janet thing was way too much. The Gwen Norman thing wasn't as bad but not necessarilly needed. The Alias thing was the closest to necesary of those examples but still not so much. That may have been because it was graphic though.

And on that note... why does everyone assume it was anal sex between her and Luke? Yeah, he was behind her (judging by her facial expressions, which was all we saw) but you can be in that position and still be going in through the vagina. Did they have sex anywhere else in the series? (I stopped reading around issue 6 so I don't know). If not then it'd make sense being that he impregnated her.

Well, I'd have to say the whole anal sex thing was implied because they showed what you just stated they showed, plus, they put the caption, "I let him do whatever he wanted to me that night." Both of these on there own, sure, you could say it was just sex. Together? That's butt sex baby.

And as far as the fact that he impregnated her, whose to say he finished up there? We just saw them doing, what they were doing, we didn't exactly see the whole thing. Also, they could have done it multiple times that night. We don't know.
 
I would love to see a Batman Wonder Woman scene
 
No. But I know I want to see more of some of our superheroines that are depicted in a suggestive way when they're drawn the way they are. I mean there are other vantage points that some of these super ladies could be drawn from... the penciler is drawing what he wants you to see...and any male artist out there that claims ignorance or innocence on this one is full of it...
 
However, in the actual comic the love scene between Hank and Jan is quite different. Hank shrinks down and goes inside of Janet, bringing her to orgasm. This was removed from the trade for some reason. I find that interesting.

Well they do leave it up to your imagination. Nothing is shown. I never thought of it as Hank being shrunk down inside her. I just thought he was giving her Delores some up close and personal attention.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"