NUDITY in comics -- do you wanna see Batman's Batpole?

[Username taken]

Looks like Batman: The Damned is currently the #1 seller on Comixology.
Must be a lot more adults buying digital comics than previously thought.


Too bad, though.
I hear it's edited to be less X.

Yeah, in my copy (digital) is was obscured which is good.

I have no desire to see any male or female superhero's genitalia. For me, it's not about being prudish, it's just why even draw it? How does it improve the comic?

Did Batman's dong make The Damned a better comic, hell no!

[Dr. Poison]

As long as he's not bald down south like a pre-pubescent boy, I'm fine with it. Man-scaping is one thing but bald crotches don't sit well with me. That being said, I don't see what value that nudity adds to superhero comics. A drama/romance comic? Sure. This just seems like it was done for controversy and shock value(which the writer has done in the past with making Martha Wayne the Joker in Flashpoint, having Wonder Woman crunch Orion's testicles & threaten to castrate him, and turning the Amazons into murderous sex-pirates). This was the first book in DC's new Black Label line so they needed something to get people talking about it and Azzarello delivered via the Bat-penis.

[OBrianTallent]

The fact that images of an implied penis on Batman (it wasn't full frontal, it was suggested through shadows and lighting with only a top outline) gets more people outraged over a full page close up of Dick Grayson shot in the head says a lot about our society. As a culture we are terrified of the human body but extreme violence is ok?

[numberthirty]

The fact that images of an implied penis on Batman (it wasn't full frontal, it was suggested through shadows and lighting with only a top outline) gets more people outraged over a full page close up of Dick Grayson shot in the head says a lot about our society. As a culture we are terrified of the human body but extreme violence is ok?

Well, let's not get carried away.

It's not really "Society". It's a far smaller subset of a subset that is trying to make this into a bigger deal than it is.

[MarquisAsh]

I don’t see a problem with it. If it’s a mature book for adults than I don’t see the problem.

[borntohula]

Didn't make much of it other than thinking that it made the case that Bruce is naked without his suit.

Most of the uproar I've seen are a bunch of "funny tweets" and 50 million click bait articles about it...

[Lee Stone]

Didn't make much of it other than thinking that it made the case that Bruce is naked without his suit.

Most of the uproar I've seen are a bunch of "funny tweets" and 50 million click bait articles about it...

Superheroes have been naked in comics countless times.
I don't think there was ever any doubt they were naked without actually having to show the bits to prove it, though.

This was done primarily to cause controversy and increase value in the collector's market.
Both of which will have a positive impact on the Black Label's chances of longevity, being that it occurred in the first issue of its first title.

It was actually well played, if you think about it.
With the digital version 'edited' to avoid minors picking it up, they also increased the value of the print edition.
I'm sure this made retailers very happy, and smart ones will keep a dozen or two on ice in the back until they're sold out and then mark them up considerably.

[SJNeal]

The fact that images of an implied penis on Batman (it wasn't full frontal, it was suggested through shadows and lighting with only a top outline) gets more people outraged over a full page close up of Dick Grayson shot in the head says a lot about our society. As a culture we are terrified of the human body but extreme violence is ok?

Well, let's not get carried away.

It's not really "Society". It's a far smaller subset of a subset that is trying to make this into a bigger deal than it is.

I agree about the subset of a subset part, but I think it is indeed symptomatic of a larger societal problem.

If Batman: Damned (male nudity) were a show it'd be TV-MA while Batman #55 (graphic violence) would be TV-14.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Newsarama is reporting today that DC has decided not only to edit the Digital version to censor the Batpole, but will also edit future hard copy reprints of Batman: Damned.

So, if you can still find a copy, it might be worth getting as a collector's item. For me, the store closest to me was already sold out, and I'm not motivated enough to search all over town for it because I wasn't really interested in the comic otherwise anyway.

Still, I think this gives credence that DC was just manufacturing some controversy as part of its promotional efforts of the Black Label line. It got referenced on late night TV on Stephen Colbert and Seth Myers, so I guess the nudity served its purpose. Now the whole thing seems rather gimmicky and even the pretense that it was done to push artistic boundaries is gone.

https://www.newsarama.com/41926-batm...-reprints.html

https://www.newsarama.com/41932-batm...acking-up.html

[Comic-Reader Lad]

The fact that images of an implied penis on Batman (it wasn't full frontal, it was suggested through shadows and lighting with only a top outline) gets more people outraged over a full page close up of Dick Grayson shot in the head says a lot about our society. As a culture we are terrified of the human body but extreme violence is ok?

I think in the print edition, the penis is more fully seen than it is in the digital version and the version linked in this thread. I don't think it's "implied" in the hard copy, if you get the point.

[Jackalope89]

I don't really think its a necessity. If people are really that desperate to see nude comic characters, there are comic series out there that have nudity in them. Excessive at times, even.

[Ascended]

My question now, I suppose, is; did this actually damage anything?

I haven't read the book, and only have some small interest in it, but from what I understand it's just a panel of Bruce taking off the costume. No attention is drawn to his bat parts from the narrative, and it stands out only because we're drawing attention to it. It doesn't sound like it was a immature attempt at depth by adding nudity or excessive violence, it sounds like it was just like any number of panels we've already seen in the main titles....only this time there wasn't a fortuitously placed sight gag to block the view. So, since this is an adult book where we don't require silly censorship and don't have to invent ways to hide the naughty bits, is it actually such a big deal? Can we not handle the batpole?

We're asking "why?" but....."why not?"

I also find it interesting that it seems to be mostly American posters taking issue with it. The few posts I've seen from posters outside the US don't seem overly bothered. Us Americans got hangups, I guess.

[Kyer]

Call me Kyer the Puritan: I dislike nudity. I can read about sex, but I categorically do not want to see it or anything related to it beyond a kiss and hug. Not even in real life. *...* Especially in real life. I can barely stand David in stone form! Those dangly bits and hidden particular things are visually boring to downright ugly. Why, dear god, why? Just think about the mechanics and the shared uses of the parts involved. Not to mention that there had to be a reason many cultures took to hiding behind fig leaves in the first place--- they didn't want to see it either and fig leaves by comparison were beautiful.
That said I REALLY DON'T WANT TO KNOW JUST HOW ALIEN KAL-EL IS! Sure it might be interesting as a thesis, but I don't want graphics.

Spare me.

[Kyer]

The fact that images of an implied penis on Batman (it wasn't full frontal, it was suggested through shadows and lighting with only a top outline) gets more people outraged over a full page close up of Dick Grayson shot in the head says a lot about our society. As a culture we are terrified of the human body but extreme violence is ok?

Grayson was shot in the head?! Is he dead? I mean dead dead as in comics dead which might last for an actual season or more. (bastards)

[Lee Stone]

Call me Kyer the Puritan: I dislike nudity. I can read about sex, but I categorically do not want to see it or anything related to it beyond a kiss and hug. Not even in real life. *...* Especially in real life. I can barely stand David in stone form! Those dangly bits and hidden particular things are visually boring to downright ugly. Why, dear god, why? Just think about the mechanics and the shared uses of the parts involved. Not to mention that there had to be a reason many cultures took to hiding behind fig leaves in the first place--- they didn't want to see it either and fig leaves by comparison were beautiful.
That said I REALLY DON'T WANT TO KNOW JUST HOW ALIEN KAL-EL IS! Sure it might be interesting as a thesis, but I don't want graphics.

Spare me.

They say that Kryptonians have tentacles.