Originally Posted by
hellacre
Thank you twitter you have made my job a tad easier and thank you blacksun for informing dcwomen so promptly. Makes what misslane ask for up to date because some of these commentaries are over the years.
https://twitter.com/dcwomenkicknass
Right now we have eyes bleeding about this very pic and Tomasi's upcoming shot of them in bed.
What DCWKA just said is about Diana wearing Superman's emblem specifically and not that she and Superman had sex or look sexy. Her commentary has nothing to do with the sexual or racy nature of the scene at all.
This was about the seeming emphasis on sex over other matters, since fans and Soule seemed to focus more so on that aspect of the relationship and book than others initially. It wasn't, however, about the existence of sexually suggestive scenes altogether.
This was about romance in the vein of Twilight as what could attract female readers. The complaint is therefore about assuming that all female readers are interested in is romance, specifically Twilight style romance, and not about sex existing in the book in general. DCWKA's main point was stated as, "The problem is when the equation for female readers = romance. And further, when romance = Twilight. Twilight is a well loved series by many women. But it is also problematic for others. It should not be used as a touch point."
The only relevant bit is this:
In a way I feel sorry for the creators. Batman, of course, kicked off the new 52 with a bang, literally, by having sex with Catwoman on a rooftop. So while you can talk up Superman and Wonder with talk of “adventures” and “heroics” that’s not the reason they are together in this book now. After 50 years of being pals those reading this book are expecting the book to end up where Batman began. Essentially Soule is charged with writing, for the very short term I’m sure, the comic equivalent of foreplay.
It isn't at all suggesting that it would be a problem to include a sexy scene in the book. Rather, it is critiquing the idea of the focus of the book being sex and that being the reason readers want to read the book. She's more or less just following up on the publicity leading up to the book, in which the creators and fans seemed keen to promote that aspect of the book and relationship, by saying that those reading the first issue for those reasons may have been disappointed not to get that as soon as Batman/Catwoman did.
None of the commentary in this post addresses sex other than using DC's own PR terms like "Sexy Sidekick" in a title. I suppose one could reason that DC and its creators, like Daniel and Soule, made the mistake in the announcement and promotion of the relationship (and its book) of highlighting the sex appeal of it. Had they not done so, perhaps they wouldn't have second guessed the scene as confirming people's fears. In other words, the problem isn't with the scene in general, but the timing of it.
The criticism in this post is about the execution of the idea of a pre or post-coital scene and not the idea itself.
DCWKA's issue in this post is not at all about Diana and Clark having sex or Diana being shown having sex. Her concern is actually the opposite. To her, it is concerning that historically Diana's sexuality hasn't been treated the same way as men and other female characters. DCWKA is actually for Diana having her sexuality explored on panel. Her complaint is therefore that it's unfortunate Diana's possible first sexual experience with Steve Trevor was never written about or shown, despite Soule saying it happened on Twitter. It is odd to her that that first, important moment in her character development would be ignored, especially since it might make any subsequent decisions regarding sexual encounters shown on panel problematic either because it would confirm that Diana's only allowed to be sexy with Superman (not with other women and not with mortals) or, if her sex life with Superman isn't shown, continuing the trend of disrespecting Diana's sexuality by ignoring or downplaying it.
This post has literally nothing to do with sex. It's complaining about Wonder Woman being drawn more bloodied in a final version of a cover, which is a problem because it suggests there was a concerted effort to make sure she looked more vulnerable. It's all about how art relates to her powers and strength and not about sex at all.
This article is not about showing Wonder Woman in any sort of coital situation. It's about objectifying her in a shower scene for the male gaze. It's about whether the particular story told in this issue required such a scene and for it to be executed in the particular style that it was executed in. None of it suggests that, if the context was solid and the art tasteful, a scene with Diana post-coital with Clark would be worthy of criticism.