"Too Racy" Your thoughts

[friendly-fire-press]

Yes. I also started this thread in the Superman forum. I thought I'd post it here was well, in case there were any fans opinions I may have missed.

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

[Vanguard-01]

Yes. I also started this thread in the Superman forum. I thought I'd post it here was well, in case there were any fans opinions I may have missed.

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

I already said it on the SM/WW Appreciation thread. Completely ridiculous.

Batman and Catwoman had full-on sex on camera, but Diana and Clark lying together, covered by a sheet, is somehow a problem?

I call double standards.

[SteveGus]

I tried to get into the SM/WW book briefly and bought a couple issues online. More focus on their lives together and less on whatever calamity Superman was enduring at the moment would have been welcome in the couple issues I read.

Wonder Woman seems to hardly have a life of her own any more; without Paradise Island, she has neither a home base nor inherently trusted allies. Her only friends are the Justice League, it seems, and that's more of a working relationship. An extended sex scene with Superman might at least give us a few pages in which Diana was happy.

[Black Angel]

Double standard at its finest i swear. So unless batman is involved no risks can be taken come on DC. Yes i know a few people would moan but come on no reason to leave this out.

[Awonder]

It's not "too racy" for me, but I can see DC wanting something less racy. Not a big deal either way.

I already said it on the SM/WW Appreciation thread. Completely ridiculous.

Batman and Catwoman had full-on sex on camera, but Diana and Clark lying together, covered by a sheet, is somehow a problem?

I call double standards.

I don't understand how "double standards" really fits here. Would you suggest that what's good (or bad) for one character (or couple) is good (or bad) for all characters (or couples)? I don't see a problem in wanting one thing in one book while having something else in another book. Besides, DC got a lot of flack for that Catwoman scene, so maybe that influenced their decision here?

Eta- It's worth noting that SM/WW is rated "T" while Catwoman is rated "T+."

But the real question - what is that small S-shield? Man-scaping?

[Vanguard-01]

I don't understand how "double standards" really fits here. Would you suggest that what's good (or bad) for one character (or couple) is good (or bad) for all characters (or couples)? I don't see a problem in wanting one thing in one book while having something else in another book. Besides, DC got a lot of flack for that Catwoman scene, so maybe that influenced their decision here?

Batman is allowed to have overt sex scenes. Grayson, in like his second or third issue, was shown having sex with a woman he'd just recently met. Clearly the Catwoman flack didn't stop that scene from being done.

I don't need an overt sex scene between Clark and Diana, but that image isn't an overt sex scene. It's an "afterglow" scene. It's the two of them spending some time in each other's arms after sex had clearly taken place. It's a tasteful way of showing that Clark and Diana are intimate, and it's well within the rating level for SM/WW to begin with.

This all harkens back to DC's constant reluctance to show Superman or Diana in a sexual situation. Even when he was married to Lois, Superman was rarely shown in any kind of sexual situation with Lois. Diana? If you go strictly by what you see on the page, then Diana is a seventy-five year-old virgin. DC, for whatever reason, is afraid to show those two being sexual in any way, but they have no problem showing Catwoman and Batman having sex, Grayson having sex with a woman he'd just met, or even a sex scene between Wonder Girl and Superboy not so long ago.

But the real question - what is that small S-shield? Man-scaping?

That was during the period where Clark was wearing the Jim Lee Kryptonian armor. The S-shield was where the armor was stored when not in use. It would emerge from the S-shield whenever Clark needed to "suit up."

[hellacre]

Will post what I said about this on sm forum.

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 committed 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.

I am sure we can get many other images with SM and Lois, other couples both in the movies, ( Heck SM 2 which was over decades ago aimed at general audience has a post sex implied shot) tv ( he was with Lois and Lana in Smallville and sex was made a big deal as was the Lois and Clark tv honeymoon) , pre new 52 and new 52 that has way more innuendo and this is very demure by comparison. Diana I think when with Steve before the 80ties reboot...at least had scenes where it's implied they did the deed ie in intimate scenes many couple share in a bedroom etc. So if anyone wants to come and say it is because they treat SM or WW to a higher standard ...no they don't. It is as Vanguard says utter hypocrisy.

[hellacre]

Batman is allowed to have overt sex scenes. Grayson, in like his second or third issue, was shown having sex with a woman he'd just recently met. Clearly the Catwoman flack didn't stop that scene from being done.

I don't need an overt sex scene between Clark and Diana, but that image isn't an overt sex scene. It's an "afterglow" scene. It's the two of them spending some time in each other's arms after sex had clearly taken place. It's a tasteful way of showing that Clark and Diana are intimate, and it's well within the rating level for SM/WW to begin with.

This all harkens back to DC's constant reluctance to show Superman or Diana in a sexual situation. Even when he was married to Lois, Superman was rarely shown in any kind of sexual situation with Lois. Diana? If you go strictly by what you see on the page, then Diana is a seventy-five year-old virgin. DC, for whatever reason, is afraid to show those two being sexual in any way, but they have no problem showing Catwoman and Batman having sex, Grayson having sex with a woman he'd just met, or even a sex scene between Wonder Girl and Superboy not so long ago.



That was during the period where Clark was wearing the Jim Lee Kryptonian armor. The S-shield was where the armor was stored when not in use. It would emerge from the S-shield whenever Clark needed to "suit up."

Batman/Catwoman scene right now, that was quite in the face as well as the Dick Grayson one but in the sm and ww books off the top of my head so far...

We had Hippoylta/Zeus having sex. There was a shot of Jimmy Olsen caught by Clark in the shower with a lady friend. It's clear they naked together. Steel and Lana in Action Comics...it's clear Steel was naked in that bed with Lana and they had sex. Lois and Jonathan Carroll implied sex. He was topless and she told him to get into bed. I believe Smallville the comic had sex and there is one of those intimate couple moments between Lois and Clark in Injustice before she gets killed.

I think this shot might have been for SM/WW #4 after she gave him the gift of time. Clark wasn't even allowed to be shown topless and there are the usual sm/ww detractors pissed Diana was pulling up her boots in that scene. Wonder what this would have cause if this had made the cut. Funny how some vocal with their annoyance turn their blind eye to other couples or their favorite couple. Being "sexualised" is a selective thing it seems. People have their preferences but some fans also have their agendas based on who they ship. That much is pretty clear.

So is it Diana must be seen as the Madonna...who must never be seen as a sexual being? (because Clark sure has had his moments) and anything else like this pic then she must be the whore, even if she is in a monogamous relationship? In 2015 that is pretty sad. And that some fans might be pressuring DC into inconsistency and doubting themselves on what to print in a clear T rated book is unfortunate and mind boggling.

[brettc1]

Batman is allowed to have overt sex scenes. Grayson, in like his second or third issue, was shown having sex with a woman he'd just recently met. Clearly the Catwoman flack didn't stop that scene from being done.

I don't need an overt sex scene between Clark and Diana, but that image isn't an overt sex scene. It's an "afterglow" scene. It's the two of them spending some time in each other's arms after sex had clearly taken place. It's a tasteful way of showing that Clark and Diana are intimate, and it's well within the rating level for SM/WW to begin with.

This all harkens back to DC's constant reluctance to show Superman or Diana in a sexual situation. Even when he was married to Lois, Superman was rarely shown in any kind of sexual situation with Lois. Diana? If you go strictly by what you see on the page, then Diana is a seventy-five year-old virgin. DC, for whatever reason, is afraid to show those two being sexual in any way, but they have no problem showing Catwoman and Batman having sex, Grayson having sex with a woman he'd just met, or even a sex scene between Wonder Girl and Superboy not so long ago.

Batman is semi-psychotic and his relationship with Catwoman is all manner of messed up. Superman, of course, was shown having had sex with Lois in Superman II.

But you are right in that DC seems to be deliberately avoiding the idea of showing them having sex, having had sex, or indeed wanting to have sex. Clearly the writers did, but they are bound to the will of the editors who are also part of the story telling process and have final say on what does or does not end up on the page.

Per the question, no it's not racy by teen standards. It's certainly not racy by the standards that were applied to tv episodes of Smallville between Clark and Lana or Clark and Lois.

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.

While its flattering to be given this kind of credit I think there is another reason as to why the editors didn't want it in there.

My strong belief is still that they don't want to have to deal with visual evidence of Superman having done it with Wonder Woman when they want to bring Lois back as his love interest. It just opens a whole complex and unpleasant can of worms about Superman and Wonder Woman being in the Justice League together after they have had sex and then don't anymore, and Lois having to deal with that.

I mean, if you were Lois Lane would you want to be compared in bed to Wonder Woman? Would any female human? Or for that matter would Steve want to be compared to Superman?

[NYCER]

The Comics Code Authority lives on. Who knew?

Clearly DC's on board with panels of Amazons raping then killing seafarers and the Bat Boys Bruce and Dick having casual on panel sex with randos but heaven forbid Kal and Diana get the same treatment when it comes to intimacy.

Such BS. And a waste of great artwork.

Too racy? Not at all.

[brettc1]

Or its because if they ever broke up the only person Wonder Woman could ever have sex with is Batman.

Although one good thing about this pic is that since the room has not been trashed then the ridiculous argument that they are incapable of non-mountain shattering sex is also put to bed

[numberthirty]

As for the page/image in question, it is always odd where DC decides to draw the lines.

[Outside_85]

What is deemed unsuitable for kids seem to vary from editor to editor, Catwoman and Batman going at each other while mostly clothed was considered fine, Catwoman standing butt naked on the lawn of Wayne Manor (having figured out the secret) was cut out, and so was this.

Although it has be said, being too adult might not be the reason this was cut from the book, could have been due to space and how little it adds to whatever story it belonged to or going in a direction DC was turning away from (like Selina knowing Bats=Wayne).

[hellacre]

Batman is semi-psychotic and his relationship with Catwoman is all manner of messed up. Superman, of course, was shown having had sex with Lois in Superman II.

But you are right in that DC seems to be deliberately avoiding the idea of showing them having sex, having had sex, or indeed wanting to have sex. Clearly the writers did, but they are bound to the will of the editors who are also part of the story telling process and have final say on what does or does not end up on the page.

Per the question, no it's not racy by teen standards. It's certainly not racy by the standards that were applied to tv episodes of Smallville between Clark and Lana or Clark and Lois.



While its flattering to be given this kind of credit I think there is another reason as to why the editors didn't want it in there.

My strong belief is still that they don't want to have to deal with visual evidence of Superman having done it with Wonder Woman when they want to bring Lois back as his love interest. It just opens a whole complex and unpleasant can of worms about Superman and Wonder Woman being in the Justice League together after they have had sex and then don't anymore, and Lois having to deal with that.

I mean, if you were Lois Lane would you want to be compared in bed to Wonder Woman? Would any female human? Or for that matter would Steve want to be compared to Superman?

Heh, not talking about you Brett. But places like Comic Alliance and DC Women Kicking Ass.

But the idea that DC could be doing this to preserve Lois Lane's dignity is rather nonsensical. First of all in the history of Superman as in Superman 2 Lois and Superman break up even after a night together. Clark was with Lana in comics and tv and are you saying no one cares about her dignity? Diana has been shown in some post sex implied scenes with Clark in Elseworlds from Distant Fires to Dark Knight 2 and she has the kids with him in the earth 22 verse. So the notion that she and he has had sex is already there. And in some cases put out there. Whether we see it or not...it's there. Clark and Diana have been intimate. If DC really wanted readers to believe Clark can only worship at the altar of Lois maybe Clark should just shrivel and die since Lois died and he can't be looking at no woman or go roam the universe as a monk in those stories.

This sounds an even worse reason they could be doing. Because it is rating women or trying to define their emotions and mentality based on someone's sexual past. It is more or less saying in a round about way as well Lana is just some throw away character because who cares what is shown with her but Lois...oh you can't show any scene to suggest to make Lois seem like any other woman and perish the thought Clark could be intimate with someone before her. If one was Lois Lane if Clark and Diana had broken up and it was a respectable mutual break up and he moved on why has Lois Lane got to sit there and compare herself to Diana? Unless Lois was that lacking in self esteem. Lois Lane last I checked was far from unattractive, was deemed to be a famous face in Metropolis. Have you seen any plain actresses portray Lois? The idea we could have anyone say Lois is some underdog is laughable. If Chris Pine is cast as Steve, yeah we all going to sit there and bemoan how he can't compare. Not really Brett. I think this notion is selling all the characters short.

Also do DC think women are such fragile creatures we can't deal with the fact a man we are currently with had a past? If he had a girlfriend who was attractive and accomplished (there many women in the world who are beautiful and accomplished) that we have to sit there and angst over it and we must have hangups? An intelligent confident woman simply would know/ recognize he and his former were not compatible. Hence that is why they no longer together and he's moved on. A sane man like Steve should be man enough to understand that too.

This paints a weak picture of people, mostly women as emotionally weak individuals who can't deal with the fact men actually could date before being with them. It is a rather narrow and unhealthy way of looking at relationships. Other characters can date among the meta community and non meta community and it's not a big deal because end of the day it's dealt with maturity. If this is the reason it's quite backward thinking.

[Nyssane]

That seems incredibly tame compared to some of the stuff Marvel has put out, like the She-Hulk and Hercules scene, or the X-Factor cover featuring naked Gambit.