When Did A Bra Become More Offensive Than A Decapitation?

31 comments

September 21st 2011 - it's the date that will go down in history as the day I looked at my fellow comic book enthusiasts, shook my head in disgust, and hung it low from embarrassment. It's the day when the top news story wasn't about the immediate success of the DC 52 relaunch, or the first new issues of Scott Snyder's Batman and Brian Azzarello's Wonder Woman hitting the stands. No. It was about the fact that Catwoman was not only seen in her bra for a handful of panels, but capped off her first issue having sex with Batman. Fans were dismayed, shocked, sickened, and declared definitively that the relaunch was a complete and utter failure. Yes, one bra was all it took to set the comic book world on fire (well, that and Starfire herself, but more on that in a bit). While this was going on, however, people within the DC universe were also cutting off faces, gruesomely stabbing people, decapitating them by the wheelbarrow full, and being sadistically tortured in a number of horrific fashions. I sat there reading the message boards, dumbfounded by what had become a taboo subject - the sanctity of Catwoman's virtue (as if she ever had any to begin with) - and the complete dismissal of the violence that was scattered throughout the month's books. So when did a bra become more offensive than a decapitation?

Catwoman's bra is seen for exactly nine panels in Catwoman #1, and she has implied PG rated sex for three pages - that's it. And yet this resulted in people branding Judd Winick a misogynist and calling for his head on a stick. The thing people have failed to acknowledge is the context of the bra in question, as the opening panels reveal it's because Catwoman is forced to flee from her apartment after being discovered by some masked goons. So it's not like the shots are gratuitous and Catwoman is lounging around just for readers to ogle. It's a natural part of the scene in question. The second instance is more revealing than the opening panels, but once again it serves a purpose. Catwoman uses her sexuality in order to catch a murderer, who we can only assume, based on a brief flashback, is from a horrible time in Selina's past. The book then ends with Catwoman having sex with Batman, which seemed to be the final straw for many.

How could one issue cause such anger and hatred from the notoriously fickle comic community? One complaint was the issue of the bra itself, as it was seen as uncharacteristic for Selina, despite the fact that she probably wears one every day- but out of sight out of mind, right? When she's fully zipped up and in her Catwoman outfit, however, it's business as usual, as the skintight leather number has become the norm for the feline anti-hero. Let's take the outfit out of the question and look at the issue of skin, since that is what seemed to irk people the most. If you were to go back and look at how the character of Catwoman has evolved over the years, you'd see that she has always pushed the boundaries of sexuality. A costume with an opening to reveal her back. A v-cut costume to reveal her ample cleavage. Yet another v-cut costume to reveal her cleavage, with two slits up the side to show off her legs. Catwoman has never been a character who is the epitome of decency. If you take into account her more modern bodysuit costumes, ranging from her Batman: The Animated Series gray to her purple and eventually leather ensemble, they've always been hip-hugging outfits that accentuated her chest. An interesting point of fact: Catwoman was yanked from comics in 1954 because of the Comics Code Authority - which had guidelines concerning women and sexuality - and it took until 1966 for her to make her next appearance. So when it comes to the question of "decency," it's not like Catwoman has ever shied away from straddling the fence.

The second problem was in regards to this being the first time Batman and Catwoman - to the best of my knowledge - have consummated their relationship on the page. I ask, why is this a problem? Have these two not been in a love-hate tug-of-war for years, as both Batman and Catwoman, as well as Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle? What's so wrong about two grown adults engaging in intimacy when they have obviously had feelings for each other for a long time? Fans accused writer Judd Winick of bastardizing the character, as if consensual sex is the last thing that Catwoman would ever have. Have people forgotten the history of Selina Kyle? In Frank Miller's Batman: Year One, Catwoman is depicted as a prostitute. In Catwoman: Year One, Selina decides to get off the radar of some local bad guys by going to work as a dominatrix. Following the One Year After storyline that took place after the Infinite Crisis event, we see that Selina has had a little girl named Helena. That means that somewhere along the way, everyone's favorite feline femme fatale got frisky at at least once. For that matter, if you look to the 1970s, Earth-Two actually had Batman and Catwoman as a married couple who had a child (that would go on to be known as The Huntress). When you look at all these instances combined - or even just one of them for that matter - it's hard to see how anyone could be offended by her having sex with Batman.

On the same day as the Catwoman fiasco, another DC character's sexuality was also a topic of discussion - Starfire. As depicted in Scott Lobdell's Red Hood and the Outlaws, Starfire is a woman who gets around. We know that's she's had sex with Jason Todd already, and despite one thinking there might be a relationship there, Starfire is quick to offer Arsenal his own encounter of the Tamaranean kind. We also gather that this is just a fling, as she quickly points out when Arsenal asks about the logistics of making love to one of her race. She responds by saying that "...love has nothing to do with it."

I can understand the complaints readers have had with Starfire's treatment more than Catwoman, but at the same time I question how much people know about these characters. Though she was never portrayed as a woman who gets around, Starfire's original origin is not unlike the one we see in the DC relaunch, as she began her life as Koriand'r - an alien princess who was sold into sexual slavery by her own sister. One could argue that Lobdell hasn't completely erased what Starfire once was, but embraced an element often never discussed. Where once she was a victim of rape, perhaps now she is taking back her power by using those who held sway over her. The simple fact is that we don't know yet, as the book has only had one issue. But that's still enough to make fans denounce it and burn it in holy effigy. There could be a great backstory behind Starfire's newfound sexual prowess, but it's sad that knee-jerk boycotters may never see her character fully realized.

I think a big reason behind the sexuality of these characters being a point of argument is the fact that DC Comic cartoons were probably the first introductions many readers had to them. Catwoman was flirty and had a sexy costume, but there was no skin on display. And because of the nature of cartoons, a relationship could never go beyond a date or a token kiss here and there. Starfire, meanwhile, was shown as a lovable young goof who cared about her friends in the Teen Titans, but this version of the character was a far cry from the adult version still playing a role in existing comics. One need only look at each version's costume to see how different the two were. I say the DC Comic cartoons are at fault to at least some degree because the sexuality in other books, where it was often more extreme, went largely overlooked due to the fact that these weren't wildly popular characters who fans grew up with through a cartoon medium. In Batwoman #1, for instance, there is more skin on display than seen in Catwoman. It's not just bra and panties either, as there are four panels with implied nudity, where the only reason you don't actually see anything is because of the careful positioning of an elbow, a person bending over, or a well-placed panel. How about Voodoo? Sure, the character has always been a stripper, but for many people the first issue of Voodoo #1 was probably their first real introduction to her, and almost the entire book is spent with her in several states of undress and engaged in provocative poses. Why didn't anybody raise a fuss over these two books when they got away with relatively "worse" material than either Catwoman or Red Hood and the Outlaws?

As I looked at the sexuality on display throughout DC's relaunch titles, I started to notice all the graphic violence from the former family friendly company, and that nobody was raising a fuss. There's no doubt that there have been grizzly deaths in some of DC's most well-known stories, but never to the extent that I witnessed in the new 52. Looking back on the month of September, I can't recall there being a week free of the graphic violence that used to be confined to DC's Vertigo imprint, and that of other, more independent comic book publishers.

So while Catwoman and Starfire were getting their freak on, here's what managed to get by without a word being said:

- All-Star Western - a dead prostitute is hung up as a message to Jonah Hex, who shoots five people and beats up almost everyone he comes across
- Grifter - a woman gets a pick to the eye and a man's neck is snapped in half
- Static Shock - someone gets their arm sliced off
- Demon Knights - an infant is used to channel a demon and then promptly killed
- Batman and Robin - one guy is shot multiple times in the head, while two others are boiled alive in acid
- Birds of Prey - a guy explodes
- Wonder Woman - two horses are decapitated and three girls are burned alive
- Batgirl - a guy is forced to drown in the water from a garden hose
- Batman – a man is found pinned to a wall with throwing knives
- Batwing - an entire precinct is killed, most by decapitation
- Deathstroke - two people are decapitated and numerous others are violently gunned down
- Detective Comics - a man's face is cut off
- Green Lantern - an alien is choked to death with piano wire
- Green Lantern Corps - another person is decapitated and two people are gutted/cut in half
- Red Lanterns - a person is killed by a brick to the head and an alien is sadistically tortured
- Suicide Squad - rats are encouraged to eat through a man's chest
- Swamp Thing - several people kill themselves by breaking their own necks
- Superboy - a guy explodes into a shower of blood

These aren't even all the instances, but rather a few of the more juicy ones. In most cases - the Detective Comics moment of violence leads the pack - these books have been celebrated for their dark, mature tones, and how far they push the envelope. A few of the books seem to warrant the violence, such as Deathstroke and Suicide Squad, but even those are pretty extreme for a DC book.

In almost all cases the violence is perpetrated by villains, so we as readers allow ourselves to let our guard down and accept it.  But when did something as beautiful as the human body or something as natural as two people having sex end up trumping exploding bodies and decapitations? How come people are fine with a baby being killed during a ritual, yet they start metaphorically picketing when Catwoman shows a little skin? Have we become so desensitized to violence that it doesn't register? Are comic fans so afraid of the opposite sex (and sex in general) that they run and hide or try to shoo it away like a spider? I'm also curious as to how many people actually read the books in question, and how many simply saw the headlines, read a few outspoken reviewers, and declared their opinion to be the truth?

I hate having to ask so many rhetorical questions, but I'm simply baffled by the hypocrisy on display. How come we care so much about the issue of sex (which we view with blinders on), yet violence doesn't even registering as a blip on our radar?

Image of Batman: Year One
Author: Frank Miller, David Mazzucchelli
Price: $11.99
Publisher: DC Comics (2007)
Binding: Paperback, 136 pages
Jason Van Horn

Column by Jason Van Horn

Jason has worked as the editorial manager and head writer for a number of sci-fi/fantasy and videogame related sites that were part of the IGN network once upon a time. He currently writes for LitReactor, where he puts his love of comics to good use, and the gaming website MPOGD, where he handles reviews, previews, and interviews for all things multiplayer.

To leave a comment Login with Facebook or create a free account.

Comments

Waterhouse's picture
Waterhouse from Columbus is reading Bullet Park, John Cheever November 8, 2011 - 1:41pm

Would it be better if in those scenes Catwoman did not wear a bra?*

 

 

 

(*The obvious answer is "yes", but that is just me.)

 

Tim's picture
Tim from Philadelphia is reading approximately eight different books. Most unsuccessfully. November 8, 2011 - 2:17pm

DC did a relauch!?!

amongthegoblins's picture
amongthegoblins from North Carolina is reading Among Others, The Three Musketeers, Bindoff's Tudor England, and Les Sortceliers November 8, 2011 - 2:23pm

May we also have a scene where Batman is hanging out in his underwear, and where we do not see his face at all for the first several pages? I'd consider that even steven.

Vinny Mannering's picture
Vinny Mannering from Boston, MA. USA is reading On Fiction Writing November 8, 2011 - 2:41pm

This is an excellent response given all the ridiculous media backlash - largely from a female perspective - to the DC relaunch. I haven't read comics in a while, but still have a passing interest in the characters. I read a lot of the initial knee-jerk response and basically thought "So what?" Characters aren't allowed to change? Someone should explain to all the people buying tickets to Nolan's Batman films that his Batman suit is missing the CRITICAL bat-nipples.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like November 8, 2011 - 3:04pm

@goblins -- Not to sound like a chauvinist, but I imagine there are books geared toward women with plenty of beefcake. (If I'm wrong, I deserve a good flame.) Why should Batman writers and artists feel compelled to show more nude men? Should the next Jane Austen adaptation have naked girls? Should Sex and the City have more T&A? I know not every girl likes those examples, but still...

Daniel Donche's picture
Daniel Donche from Seattle is reading Transubstantiate, by Richard Thomas November 8, 2011 - 3:10pm

This topic was also mentioned in a documentary I watched about the Motion Picture Association of America. Movies that depicted sex were more likely to garner an R rating than movies that showed graphic violence. I think it's a shame. Europe shows nudity, even in commercials. I also think Penn & Teller talked about this issue on Bullshit! and hypothesized that if we switched the violence out with the sex, maybe there wouldn't be so much violence in our actual lives. Again, that's just a hypothesis, but I think it's worth trying out. :)

amazingrobots's picture
amazingrobots from Savannah, GA is reading When You Are Engulfed In Flames November 8, 2011 - 3:37pm

Koriand'r, really?

I thought the issue was that mostly that it's expected of women to be sexual playthings and to be eye-candy, not that there was just sex. Mind you, I don't really follow comics, just caught the news story in passing. In which case, the issue runs deeper than just the two recent examples.

@J. Y. Hopkins - Because there are girls who like that sort of thing who also read Batman comics. If you're going to serve one audience, why not the other as well? If you're going to have a bunch of sex everywhere, there's no reason to restrict it to just girls. Women like Batman, too!

 

 

misskokamon's picture
misskokamon from San Francisco is reading The Moonlit Mind November 8, 2011 - 4:44pm

It isn't about the women of the DC universe taking charge of their sexuality. It is about how it was done.

That picture of Starfire up there is a great example. She's drawn in a sexy pose, but who is she posing for? Is she proving to all that she is free to choose whatever man she wishes by thrusting her breasts out and fondling the water? No. She's posing for the reader while talking about sleeping with another character. There is a way to show us she is a strong woman who takes advantage of her right to sleep with anything that walks, but turning them into sexy mannequins is not one of them.

Women aren't angered by Starfire being a slut. Women are angered because her sluttiness doesn't seem to serve a purpose. I have yet to see how it helps their character development or the story.  Sex is never pointless in a story--it always serves a purpose. The only time it hasn't served a purpose is in horror film, in my experience. So what is the point of it in this relaunch? 

Batman and Catwoman's dirty rooftop scene was surprising, but it served a purpose--it represented their relationship, the intense sexual attraction they have for one another. It was an attention grabber, too. It's Starfire I don't agree with.

Goblin has a point. The women in the series are being objectified. I don't see the men standing in pointless sexy poses. I don't see their personalities being flattened into a one demensional piece of cardboard. And you know what? if it was a dude in Starfire's place, I'd still be annoyed. 

 

DC can find a balance. They can make these women sexy and empowered, they can slide in sex scenes and sluts. but they have to know that these things don't define the character--these characters have backstory, their actions need to tie in to who they are or where their story will be going. They need to try harder.

Side note: of course women are the ones bitching about this. If a guy complained about this to his buddies, he'd lose masculinity points. 

@Robots that's the word I was looking for: eyecandy. THAT is the issue.

Casey Dee's picture
Casey Dee from StoneyHell is reading The Brothers Karamazov November 8, 2011 - 4:43pm

Speaking from the perspective of a woman; bra? sex? I'm in. I wear bras, I have the occasional sexual encounter, not with a mask etc, but the point remains. Adding the sexual aspect to the characters gives them a fuller dimension. This isn't porn, I'm sure there are other events the writers can explore, like kicking bad guy ass. 

Now I'm going to be disappointed when I don't get to see anything good. ;)

Renfield's picture
Renfield from Hell is reading 20th Century Ghosts November 8, 2011 - 5:43pm

Maybe if they just ease the sexual undertones slowly into the violence it will be easier for people to grasp.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like November 8, 2011 - 8:39pm

@amazingrobots -- Batman became so popular (even amongst women) without specifically trying to please women so why mess with a good thing? Why artificially introduce something whose absence has never hindered the comic? You might gain a few more female readers and lose three times as many fanboys. Not that I would care that much if they did...

Joshua Chaplinsky's picture
Joshua Chaplinsky from New York is reading Stories of YOUR Life November 8, 2011 - 11:13pm

Should Sex and the City have more T&A?

As far as I know, Sex and the City had plenty of T&A. Unfortunately, it was mostly Samantha's. [Shudders]

misskokamon's picture
misskokamon from San Francisco is reading The Moonlit Mind November 9, 2011 - 11:36am

@Josh but that was Samantha's character. She was an aging woman who needed to feel sexy again, who needed to feel like she didn't need a man. Or maybe she was looking for a man. I don't know. I do know I didn't watch the show really, yet I can still tell you how sex played a part in Sex and the City.


Starfire, not so much.

 

Typewriter Demigod's picture
Typewriter Demigod from London is reading "White Noise" by DeLilo, "Moby-Dick" by Hermann Mellivile and "Uylsses" by Joyce November 17, 2011 - 2:46pm

imho, the answer is that the american public is OK with violence, but has  HUGE breasts and sex hang-up.

Shea's picture
Shea from Ontario, Canada is reading The Eagle of the Ninth April 15, 2012 - 12:55pm

@Goblins - Agreed.

@J.Y. Hopkins - A little tip, if you have to start a sentence with "Not to sound like a chauvinist, but" you probably ARE a chauvinist.

I haven't read the series, not really my style, but this article alone makes the women in these comics sound pretty fucking pathetic. Who cares about sex and nudity, (I personally enjoy plenty of both) but why are the only roles available for women that of whore, rape victim, or slut? 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like April 15, 2012 - 2:15pm

@Shea --  

1.  I didn't have to start the sentence that way, I did so because people sometimes jump to conclusions.  It seems I failed to prevent that.  I was hoping someone would actually answer my question.

2.  If you have to start a sentence with "A little tip" you probably ARE condescending.  Oops, I landed on a conclusion.

mwmullin's picture
mwmullin from New Zealand April 15, 2012 - 3:49pm

These comics are the work of other people. To tell them they shouldn't portray their characters as they wish, and even that it is not the character of their characters is incredibly insulting to the creators. If you don't like their work, don't read it. If you don't like their work because you feel you are a free, independent woman who should not be seen as a sexual "plaything", realise that not all women (and men) see female promiscuity as creating this perception and that they are also entitled to be entertained.

Do not make demands of successful people, who most likely love their jobs, to change their work to accomodate your ideology.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated April 15, 2012 - 5:03pm

I think it was crap, all else aside, because Cat-Woman is the tease, the 'lady' just out of reach. If she is sleeping with Batman the whole thing loses it's validity. After 6 months he'll go "what was I thinking" and throw her in Arkham.

Shea's picture
Shea from Ontario, Canada is reading The Eagle of the Ninth April 16, 2012 - 7:13am

@Y. J. H. Apologies if my meeting your chauvinism with condescension is offensive, but I think it was deserved. Read you comments, they aren't exactly flattering to women or men.

To answer your questions, no, as far as I know there isn't a female-targeted equivalent. The only graphic novels I can think of that are targeted to females are for children. The examples you gave are not equivalent because while the target audience may be female they still portray men as multifaceted characters. From what I've read in this article, Batman doesn't do the same for women.

I also disagree with your "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" response to Amazingrobots. Why should it be tweaked to make the women more multidimensional at the risk of losing fanboys? Because it's smart business for one - we do make up 50% of the population. Second, because you don't have to objectify and alienate women to make a book readable for men. You like sex in your books, fine keep the sex, but don't make it the only purpose female characters serve.

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like April 16, 2012 - 7:23am

we do make up 50% of the population

If any book ever managed to appeal to 50% of the population, it would set a new standard. 

On a related point, you're acting like all women want to see the same thing.  Are all women actually so predictable?  How can one cater to "WOMEN" when (as you and I both know) their tastes vary widely.  Like I said, there are women who already like Batman.

And as far as the depth of female characters in comics is concerned, most comic book characters of any sex aren't particularly deep.  Batman gets more attention becuase it's his comic.  There are countless examples of shallow, stereotypical male characters in comics.  More shallow men than women, I'd wager.

Shea's picture
Shea from Ontario, Canada is reading The Eagle of the Ninth April 16, 2012 - 8:05am

You are missing my point. Imagine the discussion as if the comic were accused of being racist instead of sexist. Now, sub out the women for some visible minority, and the role of "play thing" for some stereotypical role associated with the minority of choice. Look at your comments from that perspective and tell me they aren't offensive. I'm no longer trying to slam you, I'm just trying to help you see where I'm coming from. 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like April 16, 2012 - 8:16am

Please just tell me which of my comments offended you and why.

 

Imagine the discussion as if the comic were accused of being racist instead of sexist. Now, sub out the women for some visible minority, and the role of "play thing" for some stereotypical role associated with the minority of choice.

Do you really believe that sexy (if somewhat limited) depictions of women in a book targeted towards men and boys are comparable to Sambo/Jim Crow-style portrayals of a black people?

Shea's picture
Shea from Ontario, Canada is reading The Eagle of the Ninth April 16, 2012 - 8:36am

I am offended that you don't see limiting a female character to nothing more than a play thing is sexist and that you cannot see the value in changing that.

No, sexy is not as offensive as racism. Sexism is. Neither need be as blatant as the example you give above to be real.

 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like April 16, 2012 - 8:50am

Not all characters can be fully-formed, completely realistic people, male or female.  That's just how it is.  What a creator chooses to portray defines what the reader is able to perceive of that character.  They can imagine there's more to the character, but due to the limitations of efficient story-telling (especially in comics where an issue runs 24-32 pages and is mostly pictures) no character can be totally realistic.  Most comics rely on a stylized depiction of not-entirely-realistic things anyway, so if the women aren't realistic, it's not like they're alone in that.

Also, if a man drawing a picture makes it sexy, it doesn't make him a sexist.  If a man writing a woman makes her sexy, it doesn't make him a sexist.  If a man reading a book about a woman thinks she's sexy, it doesn't make him a sexist.  Any of these men could be sexist, but the activities themselves are not necessarily so.

Besides which I'd like to point out that, to me, "play-thing" female characters are not the only sexy female characters.

Shea's picture
Shea from Ontario, Canada is reading The Eagle of the Ninth April 16, 2012 - 9:11am

When you define all women as only one thing, in this case a sex kitten, that is, by definition, sexism.

Perhaps, I should actually read Batman and you should research feminism, and then try this conversation again some other time. Then we could both stop procrastinating and get back to what we should be doing. 

jyh's picture
jyh from VA is reading whatever he feels like April 16, 2012 - 9:15am

When you define all women as only one thing

I don't know of anyone who's ever done that.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated April 16, 2012 - 12:02pm

@Shea - You seem to have missed the point. This stuff sells and lacks any easy to show impact like cigarettes or poor working conditions, so it isn't going away. The debate about it being sexist is extra pointless. As long as there is a market for it, it'll be there. Throw on the fact that some folks don't agree with you that it's sexist and you pretty much have the facts of the situation. The best you can hope for is someone else to put out comics that are more in line with something you want to read, and be supportive of them.

Shea's picture
Shea from Ontario, Canada is reading The Eagle of the Ninth April 16, 2012 - 2:21pm

@Dwayne - Nope, I get that it sells and I never said it should go away. All I'm saying is would it really be that hard to add a few female character that serve a purpose other than to be eye candy? The point that it may be sexist is exactly the point given that, according to the article, it is the readers who are making such claims. The readers, the fans, as in the people buying the thing, so how could that not be the point? Clearly enough people feel that it is sexist otherwise this article never would have been written.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated April 17, 2012 - 10:29pm

You're trying to use logic with against people who are using facts. It doesn't exactly make sense that you put these books out this way, but it seems to work. What reason do they have to rock the boat? 

ekmahoney's picture
ekmahoney from New England is reading lots of short stories November 10, 2013 - 4:45am

@Shea. I agree with some of the points you are making. There is a better way to portray these characters, ways to use their sexuality to enhance character rather than take over the character. There are also better ways to to show sexy and sexual confidence in women but I also think you may be overlooking some things. You say all women are being categorized as sex kittens and victims of sexual abuse and thats not true. In these two cases yes. They were both exploited and treated as victims. In Catwoman's case I don't think she is being overly sexualized (anymore than usual anyway). Her relationship with Batman has been going on for years, it would make since that as two adults with clear feeling for one another that they would sleep with one another. Starfire is being used a little gratuitously, a lot gratuitously, but I can't find it overly offensive for the same reason you do; they are all being used as sex kittens. They aren't while these are being published Marvel is also putting out an X-Men series casted entirely by their female hard hitters. The woman aren't running around sleeping with everything that moves and walking around topless they are defending earth's last hope. Marvel has actually released many comics lately that have strong female leads with plot lines that revolve around their badassery more than their cup size. What I'm saying is I can over look the occasional gratuitous slut because to be real to life there need to be a few. There will always be women in the world trying to sell themselves as sex objects and I think that Starfire's history would skew her view of sex and relationships. Her sexuality is believable.

 

@Dwayne using logic inherently implies using facts. Your argument is invalid.

Dwayne's picture
Dwayne from Cincinnati, Ohio (suburbs) is reading books that rotate to often to keep this updated November 10, 2013 - 5:47am

@ekmahoney - Well, no. Logic doesn't imply using of facts, it implies the use of 'proper thought' in a reasonable manor.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic

Since the comic companies in general, and DC in particular aren't people able to think, they don't care about logic. To be ultra literal you could say they don't care about anything and that would be fair, but they do motivate employees to increase sales/profits in a demonstrable way which doesn't include having to do things that make sense so I'm saying for the ease of post that they care about 'facts'. 

DC, Image, and Marvel had the number one spot monthly slot 11 years and 6 months (April 2002, Transformers Generation 1 published by Dreamworks) so they do not have much motivation to change the portrayal of women, which you disagree with as not sexist/not stupid, beyond experiments they hope result in increased sales. I might agree there should be a certain number of women who have low standards, but it seems most of the time they just do dumb stuff with the plot (Batman who has had more trauma than almost any other character from theft dating a thief) because it seems to be working.