"Too Racy"? Your thoughts

[friendly-fire-press]

As many of us are aware by now, this picture by Tony Daniel was posted online a few days ago. It was cut out of a previous issue of SMWW for apparently being "Too racy"



Personally I think it's a good tasteful drawing and should never have been cut out.

If you have an opinion on this please discuss.

NOTE: This is not a question of whether or not you approve of the relationship. It is a question of whether you think the image is 'Too racy" for a comic book rated 'Teen +' . Please be honest and relevant Thank you

[t hedge coke]

The image isn't showing up for me, and I hadn't heard anything about this.

The DC rating system doesn't seem to mean much in any concrete or consistent fashion, though.

[Vinsanity]

If that's racy than what is TV these days?

[j9ac9k]

They're just uncomfortable with the fact that Supes is showing more skin than Diana.

[DochaDocha]

Hardly too racy for a rated T book. The reason this panel was deep-sixed was for editorial reasons that aren't hard to imagine.

EDIT: I guess it would help to know which issue this was supposed to be a part of, but who knows if TD will ever let us know.

[Sacred Knight]

Not even in the slightest. Quite classy in fact. Only problem with it is I never have liked the idea of the suit in its dormant state resting as a small S still on his bare chest. Looks creepy. Beyond that though? The thought of it being racy is laughable.

[hellacre]

No. It's very tame actually imo. Why a very common scene used in many other types of media showing two people cuddling, and covered strategically be considered something to be censored baffles me. Sure it's implied they had sex but what is the big deal? They are a couple. We've seen more in DCTV that younger viewers have access to. The book is rated T. DC full well knows the audience who this book aimed at are not kids and the book is premised around a love story of two people in a relationship. I have seen way more "racier" art with many other DC couples pre new 52 and in the new 52. If this is racy then why do other things make the cut? DC, if anything, come across very inconsistent and it's a tad condescending to the readers of the book. Who did they think it would offend the readers / buyers of the book? I guarantee you they would not have been bothered. They might be worrying about the people who see sexism when they want to see it. People who have their own agendas. Because when you look at what we get with other couples and the resulting silence or the selected praise/ squeeing from other quarters or self appointed watchhdogs, one marvels at the hypocrisy of the whole thing.

My question to DC editorial would be why are you making decisions based on what detractors think than the people who enjoy the book? And if this is the way it is going to be then as a reader and someone who buys this book this highly annoys me.

[hellacre]

If that's racy than what is TV these days?

LOl. If this is racy then Movies/ TV...from Superman 2, to Smallville to Arrow is porn?

[Dispenser Of Truth]

DC's made some iffy decisions with this sort of thing before, especially since the start of the New 52, so it's almost surprising they balked at something as tame as this. Though of course, it's not really a surprise that the implication of Wonder Woman and Superman having a sex life in their monogamous relationship is too much, but Catwoman screwing a guy whose face she hasn't seen on a rooftop on-panel was approved for her first issue on day one of the DCnU, since Superman and Wonder Woman are after all virtuous and respectable, while Catwoman's a bad girl. Like I said, iffy as hell on DC's part for plenty of reasons, but unfortunately not surprising.

[hellacre]

DC's made some iffy decisions with this sort of thing before, especially since the start of the New 52, so it's almost surprising they balked at something as tame as this. Though of course, it's not really a surprise that the implication of Wonder Woman and Superman having a sex life in their monogamous relationship is too much, but Catwoman screwing a guy whose face she hasn't seen on a rooftop on-panel was approved for her first issue on day one of the DCnU, since Superman and Wonder Woman are after all virtuous and respectable, while Catwoman's a bad girl. Like I said, iffy as hell on DC's part for plenty of reasons, but unfortunately not surprising.

But I think that can't even be an excuse that SM is too respectable. There has been many scenes with SM and Lois or Lana in tv, movies and comics with sex scenes, post sex scenes, intimate moments to suggest they are a couple who share a bedroom etc. Unless WW has to be treated as if she is the madonna...anything else she is a whore because some fans can't see her as a sexual being. Which is pretty sad in 2015. The option we got I believe was a scene with her and Clark just sitting and talking in her apartment, and her pulling up her boots. And some bloggers were ranting. Interestingly these same bloggers have nothing to say about sex scenes with other couples they prefer. So is it really a case of DC trying to be demure with SM/WW after Batman/Catwoman? I don't even think the two couples and their situation can even be compared. One was flat out raw sex between strangers sort of a thing while the other is a committed couple lying covered in an afterglow. Or are DC listening to the thought police based on a prejudice against a particular pairing they ( the thought police) did not approve of from day one? DC doing this makes no sense to me.

[Dispenser Of Truth]

But I think that can't even be an excuse that SM is too respectable. There has been many scenes with SM and Lois or Lana in tv, movies and comics with sex scenes, post sex scenes, intimate moments to suggest they are a couple who share a bedroom etc. Unless WW has to be treated as if she is the madonna...anything else she is a whore because some fans can't see her as a sexual being. Which is pretty sad in 2015. The option we got I believe was a scene with her and Clark just sitting and talking in her apartment, and her pulling up her boots. And some bloggers were ranting. Interestingly these same bloggers have nothing to say about sex scenes with other couples they prefer. So is it really a case of DC trying to be demure with SM/WW after Batman/Catwoman? I don't even think the two couples and their situation can even be compared. One was flat out raw sex between strangers sort of a thing while the other is a committed couple lying covered in an afterglow. Or are DC listening to the thought police based on a prejudice against a particular pairing they ( the thought police) did not approve of from day one? DC doing this makes no sense to me.

Yeah, I think Madonna/Whore might be a pretty good way of putting the difference between how they're treating Wonder Woman and Catwoman in this instance. It doesn't speak particularly well of them.

[Lax]

Too racy? Not even close.

[NYCER]

The Comics Code Authority lives on. Who knew?

I suppose Amazons raping then killing seafarers and the Bat Boys Bruce and Dick can have non monogamous on panel sex with several women but heaven forbid Kal and Diana get the same treatment when it comes to intimacy.

Such BS. And a waste of great artwork.

[Loose Threads]

It isn't racey. Just a dodgy bit of art. No offense to the artist, just not a fan of the doodle.

And god do those two look awkward together. I just can't buy them as a couple.

[manduck37]

This isn't too racy at all. I've seen panels of Grayson that were more racy than this. So I have no idea why this was considered too racy to publish.