Batgirl cover cancelled

[fantastic_four]

When did Joker rape Batgirl?

Depending on the reader's interpretation Batman The Killing Joke.

 

 

I've read it probably 10 times and never once got that impression.

Thank you.

Same here, with the fist read when it came out. All I could think was WTF???

Between panels the imaginations of the forever-offended industry get real busy or something. Mercy.

 

Is the interpretation really that much of a stretch?

 

 

I was 12 years old when I read The Killing Joke. I was just a kid, but I knew what rape was.

 

I totally thought Joker stripping her naked & what they showed of the pictures was to imply Joker raped her without DC officially having it in a comic.

 

There is no such implication in those panels. If there is, please elaborate on what you're seeing in the art that suggests rape. All I see is maiming and degradation.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I just find it weird that anyone concerned with censorship would want to silence opinion's.

 

That's not what it's about. There is a vast, vast gulf of difference between "listen, people, you are wildly overreacting...calm DOWN, take a breath, and relax" and "if you don't shut up, I'll force you to shut up."

 

One is an appeal to reason.

 

The other is censorship, the same as those demanding the cover be cancelled, and just as bad.

 

The censorship here is self censorship on the part of the company.

 

They were frightened/intimidated/coerced/pressured/(insert whatever verb fits the "not what they intended, but bowed to public pressure" idea here) into cancelling it.

 

[maloney414]

....and, really folks, what IS with all this rape/sexuality stuff...?

 

I red Killing Joke when I was 18, and several times since then, and never once...ever....did it even enter my mind that the Joker had raped Babs.

 

Not even once.

 

Now...by the power of suggestion, I DO see how someone who might be inclined to think that might see it in that page...but that really begs the question of "why are you inclined to see that in the first place?"

 

Never has it entered my mind...and I'm not that stupid...that the Joker was pulling sexual offender tactics on the DCU.

 

Ever.

 

 

Yes. The 1st time I read the story, I thought she was raped.

 

I was young, and new to comics, so I hadn't read a ton of Joker stories to make me think it was out of character for him to go that far.

 

I just thought he was a really evil scary character that had no limits. A true adversary to Bats.

 

I've seen a bunch of posts questioning the people who thought she was raped. Saying they read the story a ton of times and the thought NEVER crossed their mind. Therefore, the people who did read it must be twisted in some way.

 

Let me put it another way with an analogy.

 

If someone kidnapped YOUR daughter in real life. Stripped off her clothes, took pictures of her naked body, and sent the pictures to you, you wouldn't think she could have been raped? The thought would NEVER cross your mind?!? Really? If my daughter had the same expressions and poses as the ones in the comic I'd be haunted and out of my F'N mind.

 

Furthermore, the police officer assigned to help you get her back responds, "I've seen tons of cases with girls being stripped of their clothes and I've NEVER even had a thought they could have been raped, is something wrong with you?? And it's not that he's trying to calm you down, he really didn't think of it. My opinion of his abilities would be

 

 

 

 

 

You know I love you lots, D, but the Joker is a fictional character. He doesn't exist. He's not real.

 

Not only is he not real, but he's portrayed as...pardon the pun...not_in_tune_with_social_norms crazy (yeah, I know, the board filter takes over...at least you can see the pun if you quote.)

 

Therefore, what he does doesn't really have much bearing on the real world. The thought of the Joker being sexual...in any way....is a completely foreign one to me, because, for 75 years, the character has never, ever been portrayed in such a light...except possibly with his pregnant wife, pre-accident.

 

The Joker is about as asexual a character...boners aside...as it gets.

 

So, no, I don't think of the Joker in the way I would think of a real human being at all.

 

Right back at ya! You know I respect you too! (thumbs u

 

My only point was I don't think its a stretch or unreasonable for readers to go there while reading those pages. (From previous posts, people here disagreed with that.)

 

I see your and AlexH's point of how you separate comic characters vs. real world.

 

Not everyone else thinks that way. Some people don't have restrictions on characters while they read comics. Or when they write & draw for that matter.

 

My way of separating comic characters vs. real world is that I wasn't "offended" by the story to the point of writing complaint letters, wanting it censored, or complaining in any way. The characters aren't real, they are as you said fictional characters. It's no different than watching a horror movie.

 

In fact, The Killing Joke is one of my favorite Batman comics.

[Sauce Dog]

At the end of the day the Batgirl cover was not ideal for the people who enjoy that book. Wrong tone. Pulling it was a very reasonable decision and the choice of the creative staff who works hard on that book and the direction it has gone to bring in new female readers into the market. The creators of the book and the artist himself all agreeing that the cover was inappropriate. There's no censorship. In fact the creators even said OTHER people we getting threats over the cover (bloggers for voicing an opinion - which they shared) and felt this was even more of a reason (in addition to their original feelings on the matter) to pull the cover.

 

Here is an excerpt from an interview with the artist about it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2zkpek/i_translated_rafael_albuquerques_brazilian/

 

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

[fantastic_four]

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

What in those panels implies rape? The pained look on her face would imply that if we didn't know she had been shot in the back.

[F For Fake]

At the end of the day the Batgirl cover was not ideal for the people who enjoy that book. Wrong tone. Pulling it was a very reasonable decision and the choice of the creative staff who works hard on that book and the direction it has gone to bring in new female readers into the market. The creators of the book and the artist himself all agreeing that the cover was inappropriate. There's no censorship. In fact the creators even said OTHER people we getting threats over the cover (bloggers for voicing an opinion - which they shared) and felt this was even more of a reason (in addition to their original feelings on the matter) to pull the cover.

 

Here is an excerpt from an interview with the artist about it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2zkpek/i_translated_rafael_albuquerques_brazilian/

 

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

+1. Whether he followed through and actually raped her, the fact that he stripped her nude and took pics is still pretty clearly sexual assault. It's all awful. Arguing the degree of the awfulness seems pointless.

[MatterEaterLad]

At the end of the day the Batgirl cover was not ideal for the people who enjoy that book. Wrong tone. Pulling it was a very reasonable decision and the choice of the creative staff who works hard on that book and the direction it has gone to bring in new female readers into the market. The creators of the book and the artist himself all agreeing that the cover was inappropriate. There's no censorship. In fact the creators even said OTHER people we getting threats over the cover (bloggers for voicing an opinion - which they shared) and felt this was even more of a reason (in addition to their original feelings on the matter) to pull the cover.

 

Here is an excerpt from an interview with the artist about it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2zkpek/i_translated_rafael_albuquerques_brazilian/

 

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

+1. Whether he followed through and actually raped her, the fact that he stripped her nude and took pics is still pretty clearly sexual assault. It's all awful. Arguing the degree of the awfulness seems pointless.

 

+2

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

Nudity and torture does not, of necessity, mean sexual assault.

 

It's not something that is explicit in the work itself, so you have to look at the broader depiction of the character to find out what's going on....and, up to that point in the Joker's history (and well beyond), there wasn't even a peep of sexuality in his nature at all (unlike, for example, Catwoman, who had an undercurrent of sexual tension with Bats almost from the beginning.)

 

It's a bit like the folks who saw homosexual undertones in Batman and Robin in the 40's and 50's.

 

Were there occasional shenanigans from the creators in that vein? Sure, but they were very, very, very understated, and most of the stuff that is pointed to really is quite innocent in the context of the time period.

 

It simply wasn't consistent with the Joker's character, as depicted for nearly 50 years at that point, to be a rapist. Not that it was out of the question...he WAS not_in_tune_with_social_norms crazy....but he was not_in_tune_with_social_norms crazy in a way that was distinctly non-sexual.

[RockMyAmadeus]

At the end of the day the Batgirl cover was not ideal for the people who enjoy that book. Wrong tone. Pulling it was a very reasonable decision and the choice of the creative staff who works hard on that book and the direction it has gone to bring in new female readers into the market. The creators of the book and the artist himself all agreeing that the cover was inappropriate. There's no censorship. In fact the creators even said OTHER people we getting threats over the cover (bloggers for voicing an opinion - which they shared) and felt this was even more of a reason (in addition to their original feelings on the matter) to pull the cover.

 

Here is an excerpt from an interview with the artist about it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2zkpek/i_translated_rafael_albuquerques_brazilian/

 

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

+1. Whether he followed through and actually raped her, the fact that he stripped her nude and took pics is still pretty clearly sexual assault. It's all awful. Arguing the degree of the awfulness seems pointless.

 

+2

 

 

Nudity and degradation is not, of necessity, the same as sexual assault.

 

People have been, and still are, stripped down and degraded throughout history, and there's nothing sexual about it. It is a powerful form of degradation, for quite obvious reasons.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Remember...Batman #66 is filled with "boners." In 1951, the word "boner" meant "dumb mistake"...not "."

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Huh. "" is spooned.

 

I guess when we discuss the of a new building, people will think we're being naughty....

[james1miller]

Remember...Batman #66 is filled with "boners." In 1951, the word "boner" meant "dumb mistake"...not "."

 

Can we get an example of how they used boner in a sentence back then. Did they say "my boner yo my boner." Which today meant "my bad yo my bad."

[fantastic_four]

I suspect most people around here get subjected to chortling exactly like this.

 

[Sauce Dog]

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

What in those panels implies rape? The pained look on her face would imply that if we didn't know she had been shot in the back.

 

As a younger reader that was my take away. Had I read it now, knowing proper definitions I would simply say it was a form of assault that could also be defined as a sexual assault (regardless of the Jokers history or intentions) rather than rape. But as a younger reader, most often whenever I saw nudity in a comic it was always presented as sexual in nature.

 

[Sauce Dog]

At the end of the day the Batgirl cover was not ideal for the people who enjoy that book. Wrong tone. Pulling it was a very reasonable decision and the choice of the creative staff who works hard on that book and the direction it has gone to bring in new female readers into the market. The creators of the book and the artist himself all agreeing that the cover was inappropriate. There's no censorship. In fact the creators even said OTHER people we getting threats over the cover (bloggers for voicing an opinion - which they shared) and felt this was even more of a reason (in addition to their original feelings on the matter) to pull the cover.

 

Here is an excerpt from an interview with the artist about it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2zkpek/i_translated_rafael_albuquerques_brazilian/

 

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

+1. Whether he followed through and actually raped her, the fact that he stripped her nude and took pics is still pretty clearly sexual assault. It's all awful. Arguing the degree of the awfulness seems pointless.

 

+2

 

 

Nudity and degradation is not, of necessity, the same as sexual assault.

 

People have been, and still are, stripped down and degraded throughout history, and there's nothing sexual about it. It is a powerful form of degradation, for quite obvious reasons.

 

 

Sexual violence/assault includes any act that undermines an individual’s sexual or gender integrity.

 

As defined by the United Nations is “[a]ny violence, physical or psychological, carried out through sexual means or by targeting sexuality”. The 'targeting sexuality' is the key part as it includes degradation through ones own body (shaming, stripping down - exposing / revealing against your will), not necessarily for the abusers own (physical) sexual gratification.

[Crimebuster]

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

Nudity and torture does not, of necessity, mean sexual assault.

 

It's not something that is explicit in the work itself, so you have to look at the broader depiction of the character to find out what's going on....

 

Which in this case means you can look at the fact that after taking these pictures, Joker stripped James Gordon, put him in S+M bondage gear, and forced him to look at the nude pictures of his daughter.

 

You keep trying to blame people for seeing a sexual angle to this story, as though anyone who sees this stuff is some kind of deviant, when it is very clearly present and intended in the story itself.

 

I never thought Joker actually raped Barbara, but there's an obvious sexual element to the Joker's torture. Arguing that it isn't present in this story because Joker stories from the 1950's weren't sexual in nature is just weird.

 

I don't always agree with your opinions on things, but usually you have a pretty solid logic behind your arguments. This time, though, I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

[CBT]

Facts:

1.) It did not glorify or promote anything.

2.) The people that dont like the Image, have the right to not purchase it, not to try and shame/censor it.

3.) Yes, the artist asked them to pull it, but only after he was assaulted by the hordes of PC brainwashed mindless sheep, and the self-righteous, much ado about nothing, cant speak the truth, pick-a-daily cause, blogosphere clowns.

4.) The tone doesnt matter, tons of variant covers have nothing to do with whats in the book, let alone matching the current portrayal of a character, tone, etc.

5.) You'd be crying too if the Joker captured you and had a gun to your head

 

Continue arguing (or being blocked), whichever may apply to you ...

[RockMyAmadeus]

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

What in those panels implies rape? The pained look on her face would imply that if we didn't know she had been shot in the back.

 

As a younger reader that was my take away. Had I read it now, knowing proper definitions I would simply say it was a form of assault that could also be defined as a sexual assault (regardless of the Jokers history or intentions) rather than rape. But as a younger reader, most often whenever I saw nudity in a comic it was always presented as sexual in nature.

 

Were you between the ages of 10-14 at this point?

 

Because, to most 10-14 year old boys, ALL female nudity is sexual in nature. It comes with the territory.

 

That would explain quite a bit.

 

And no, sexual assault has a very specific meaning, and simple nudity in the context of violence isn't (necessarily) sexual assault. It can be, and many times is, but not always.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

Nudity and torture does not, of necessity, mean sexual assault.

 

It's not something that is explicit in the work itself, so you have to look at the broader depiction of the character to find out what's going on....

 

Which in this case means you can look at the fact that after taking these pictures, Joker stripped James Gordon, put him in S+M bondage gear, and forced him to look at the nude pictures of his daughter.

 

No, because that would be in the context of the work itself.

 

You keep trying to blame people for seeing a sexual angle to this story, as though anyone who sees this stuff is some kind of deviant,

 

Those are your words, not mine.

 

when it is very clearly present and intended in the story itself.

 

In your opinion. Others, quite obviously, disagree.

 

I never thought Joker actually raped Barbara, but there's an obvious sexual element to the Joker's torture.

 

To you.

 

Arguing that it isn't present in this story because Joker stories from the 1950's weren't sexual in nature is just weird.

 

That's not my argument, so debating something I didn't say isn't very productive.

 

I don't always agree with your opinions on things, but usually you have a pretty solid logic behind your arguments. This time, though, I think you're missing the forest for the trees.

 

That's fine, but do try and debate what people actually SAY, not what you think they might have said.

[RockMyAmadeus]

At the end of the day the Batgirl cover was not ideal for the people who enjoy that book. Wrong tone. Pulling it was a very reasonable decision and the choice of the creative staff who works hard on that book and the direction it has gone to bring in new female readers into the market. The creators of the book and the artist himself all agreeing that the cover was inappropriate. There's no censorship. In fact the creators even said OTHER people we getting threats over the cover (bloggers for voicing an opinion - which they shared) and felt this was even more of a reason (in addition to their original feelings on the matter) to pull the cover.

 

Here is an excerpt from an interview with the artist about it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/GamerGhazi/comments/2zkpek/i_translated_rafael_albuquerques_brazilian/

 

 

Also for what its worth when I was younger and read the original killing job I too thought it implied rape (or some sort of other sexual assault). Regardless if that was the original intention it is STILL sexual assault.

 

+1. Whether he followed through and actually raped her, the fact that he stripped her nude and took pics is still pretty clearly sexual assault. It's all awful. Arguing the degree of the awfulness seems pointless.

 

+2

 

 

Nudity and degradation is not, of necessity, the same as sexual assault.

 

People have been, and still are, stripped down and degraded throughout history, and there's nothing sexual about it. It is a powerful form of degradation, for quite obvious reasons.

 

 

Sexual violence/assault includes any act that undermines an individuals sexual or gender integrity.

 

As defined by the United Nations is [a]ny violence, physical or psychological, carried out through sexual means or by targeting sexuality. The 'targeting sexuality' is the key part as it includes degradation through ones own body (shaming, stripping down - exposing / revealing against your will), not necessarily for the abusers own (physical) sexual gratification.

 

I don't really take much stock in the opinions of the UN, but I'll say it again: nudity does not necessarily mean sexuality.

 

For centuries, defeated warriors were stripped naked and paraded in front of the victors. Nothing sexual about it, and substantially degrading.

 

Slaves frequently wore no clothing...again, not sexual, very degrading, indicative of their status.

 

Sorry, but the idea that EVERY act of involuntary nudity is sexual in nature, or is an act of sexual assault, is beyond reasonable.