I'm not reading any Red Hood comics. Partially because I'm not interested in either the characters or seeming arc of where DC is taking these characters and partially I'm just not interested in "back-to-life" Jason Todd. It was a bad narrative choice that should have been corrected with the ReLaunch.
I'm a little surprised by the one page I saw online that everyone is having conniptions over but
1) I have no idea what that exchange about not remembering any of Starfire's old pals the Teen Titans is about. Amnesia? Clever joke about continuity mishaps? I have no idea.
2) Its not exactly out of character from what I recall about Starfire - and this is going back to middle-school
3) complaining about Starfire's look in 2011 is approximately 30 years too late and only demonstrates - you haven't been paying attention. Those horses are out of the barn and across the state line.
4) she and Dick Grayson all-nekked-in-bed broke ground for comics... when I was in grade school
5) if Gail Simone wrote that scene, we'd all be throwing rose petals at her feet for being so darn clever
6) DC quit pretending to sell comics to kids with the conclusion of the CCA a year ago, so you are forbidden from playing that card
7) and most importantly: a woman dictating her own sexuality and when and with whom she has sex, is not sexist. For those of you who missed that class your freshman year of college: on the contrary, the power to make those decisions and not be sold to some guy over the hill for a goat and a couple of acres of land is the hardest won battle of women's rights next to the vote and pretty damned well ingrained in life outside your comic shop or, apparently, your Colorado City commune.*
Yeah, the scene was dumb and tasteless, but in comparison to what I see on prime time TV shows during the family hour, this was about par for the course. Any episode of Big Bang Theory is operating on about this level, or Bond movies circa 1967. That doesn't excuse it being juvenile and silly, but let us not pretend, comics readers, that our virgin eyes have been tainted.
As per Catwoman and the "rooftop scene" - what exactly do you think the comics have been implying since Year One? I mean, wow, yeah... they sure as heck showed that... (whatever that was) but since when has Catwoman supposedly been Mother Theresa and Batman been Pope Bruce the 1st?
I wasn't going to read Catwoman for any number of reasons (Winick. cough.), but it was advertised as being "SEXY" since the first solicitation. So, there you go, team. Sex. Y. Judd Winick brings a whole wing of comics fan-fiction into canon.
|Me: your expert on SEX|
But a few things: DC let Eddie Berganza run DC. This is what Eddie Beganza thinks is neat. See: his run on Supergirl. His run on Green Lantern. His statements in public at Cons. This was going to be an issue.
I know comics have lots and lots of issues with portrayals of women, I'm not completely thick. But I want to make sure we're in agreement about WHAT was offensive and WHY and not to just start declaring we saw Goody Proctor with the Devil every time we see sex discussed in a comic (which, really? Suddenly this is an issue?).
The internet has certainly trained comics readers to see anything related to sex in DC Comics as an immediate reason to become furious, and spend 24 hours dog-piling on DC. Sometimes its deserved. Other times... I have a hard time not reading it as a knee-jerk response devoid of critical reading. Or reading comprehension. Or something.
Looking at these two pages it seems that DC Comics, like a horny college freshman, is going about this badly. And they might be pandering, but... and I hate to use the word hypocrisy, but there it is. I just don't buy the teeth gnashing and breast-beating and Why Does DC Hate Women? Not in this case.
I don't know if the sex isn't what some fans have in mind for their favorite characters (do they need to see Bruce romantically laying rose petals down on a white bed for Selena?), or if we suddenly get squeamish thinking about the fact that superhero sex is a little to the left of vanilla (but we'll watch Game of Thrones and talk about how brilliant it is). I literally have no idea. Sometimes, by the way, bad sex is part of the story, and I don't think we should pretend that anyone is saying "oh, yeah, this is ideal".
I'd also point out: You have the right NOT to buy these comics and to vote with your dollars. Now, more than ever, that's important - DO NOT BUY ISSUE 2. Don't do it! I know its tempting, because you want to complain... but DON'T.
Honestly, I'm far more disturbed by the level of graphic violence appearing in some books, and perhaps more so that the graphic violence doesn't seem to be phasing the audience. I want to read Green Lantern comics, but the preview art of bi-sected Lanterns, etc... just isn't doing it for me. Yes, its upsetting and gross, and it sure seems like someone out there is a real threat to the Lanterns, but... there are artful ways to handle these things, and there are teen-agers who think watching Faces of Death is hilarious. I've never been a Faces of Death kind of guy. And I'm making that decision right now about whether I can read my GL comics or if I need to vote with my dollars.
late edit: We followed up on this conversation here.
*see: what Western Culture decided in the 20th Century (or go rent Season 1 of Sex and The City. Oh, go ahead, don't be such a Charlotte).