Batgirl cover cancelled

[VintageComics]

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.

 

I was in my teens when I read it (I think) and the thought of rape didn't cross my mind at all. At all.

 

My personal opinion is that North America is extremely high strung when it comes to nudity and innuendo and in an effort to censor it too much they create a society that wants it even more. It's psychology 101.

 

Many European countries don't think twice about nudity. Parents walk around the house (and their kids) totally butt naked, beaches are full of nudes, etc. Most people don't even bat an eye over there.

 

Lou was in Cornwall, England last summer with her kids on a nudist beach and after the initial comments by those that weren't raised there it became a non issue. And yeah, her English family members skinny dip - at any age!

 

Here you show just the edge of an areola and it becomes a poitical statement and cars crash. If it's a it's the end of the world.

 

But to bring this conversation back on track, sexuality has become a political and legal weapon on these shores.

[kav]

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 ...

Not if i was a superhero-I would grimly accept my fate while looking for a way to turn the tables. Batman never cried in the countless deathtraps he has been in.

[Crimebuster]

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.

 

 

Okay, then, if you really need me to show my work, here are your exact words:

 

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?"

 

 

And then you said this:

 

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.

 

In both cases you are implying that the person interpreting the scene as rape is doing so because they have some kind of mental or emotional predilection for imagining sexual overtones where none exist.

 

I do not think this is what is happening, as I explain below.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Are you honestly suggesting that in order to understand The Killing Joke, it's best to ignore the story in it in favor of studying previous interpretations of The Joker instead? Because that makes zero sense to me.

 

The whole reason Killing Joke became such a seminal work in the first place is because of the new, modern, gritty - whatever you want to call it - take on The Joker and Batman and their relationship.

 

You seem to be saying that in the context of how the Joker used to be portrayed, it wouldn't make sense to think there was rape. Okay, maybe you're right. But the Killing Joke intentionally, drastically - and, as we have seen in the stories that have followed, permanently - changed the context of The Joker and how he is portrayed.

 

Which brings me to this here:

 

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.

 

 

Honestly, I think you have this exactly backwards. You're suggesting that people are seeing sexual content that is not present because of whatever baggage they are bringing to the reading experience.

 

I think you're doing the opposite - you're not able to see sexual content that is clearly in the story because of your own pre-determined and deep-seated view that the Joker is not a sexual character.

 

 

[Icculus308win]

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 ...

 

(thumbs u

[VintageComics]

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 ...

 

(thumbs u

 

Gotta agree with CBT.

 

There's so much 'wrong' stuff on comic covers that this one has just managed to go viral (luck of the draw) and everyone is trying to leverage it in some way.

 

This drama will be forgotten in a week.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

I still say it was their choice.

 

Any corporation that can be sued by an artist or writer, and despite the bad publicity over year and years, unflinchingly drag it out... I just don't see them afraid of people's online opinion's.

 

I think that if they felt they would have made more money by keeping it, they would have kept it. After all....

 

DC didn't change the half dressed Batman/Catwoman page....despite violent complaints, and even worse a mom's blog pasted all over Facebook... they didn't change the slutty Starfire page, despite most of the same outrage.... they didn't bow to the Alan Moore army who complained tirelessly that Before Watchmen should't be done, and even included outrage from other artists and writers....

 

I'm wondering where everyone gets the idea that this happens all the time.

 

I mean really, if you think about it... what would the consequences have been if they HAD run it? The threat of violence all came from the people protesting the protest.

 

I think DC went with the artist's wishes because he was genuinely shocked that it had created the response it did.

 

In the past they've ignored the whining of the internet over stuff like this.

[Prince Namor]

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 ...

 

(thumbs u

 

Gotta agree with CBT.

 

There's so much 'wrong' stuff on comic covers that this one has just managed to go viral (luck of the draw) and everyone is trying to leverage it in some way.

 

This drama will be forgotten in a week.

 

But that's my point...

 

If the internet complainers are so powerful, why is Avatar still printing 'Crossed'?

 

Why is Howard Stern still on the air? Why does Crumb still even exist?

 

It baffles me that we think we're creatively oppressed in America in 2015.

 

 

[Buzzetta]

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.

 

I still say it was their choice.

 

Any corporation that can be sued by an artist or writer, and despite the bad publicity over year and years, unflinchingly drag it out... I just don't see them afraid of people's online opinion's.

 

I think that if they felt they would have made more money by keeping it, they would have kept it. After all....

 

DC didn't change the half dressed Batman/Catwoman page....despite violent complaints, and even worse a mom's blog pasted all over Facebook... they didn't change the slutty Starfire page, despite most of the same outrage.... they didn't bow to the Alan Moore army who complained tirelessly that Before Watchmen should't be done, and even included outrage from other artists and writers....

 

I'm wondering where everyone gets the idea that this happens all the time.

 

I mean really, if you think about it... what would the consequences have been if they HAD run it? The threat of violence all came from the people protesting the protest.

 

I think DC went with the artist's wishes because he was genuinely shocked that it had created the response it did.

 

In the past they've ignored the whining of the internet over stuff like this.

 

That's what CBT doesn't get. The artist saw something that he did not see before. If I created something and it just so happened that people interpreted it in a way that I had both not intended or would have wanted, I would remove my own work also.

 

There are plenty of times on the boards that I edit my own words after posting something and re-reading it realizing that those words will be taken in a manner I may not want.

 

And CBT... if my post is blockworthy... so be it. I'm cool with that.

[Dano]

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.

 

 

Okay, then, if you really need me to show my work, here are your exact words:

 

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?"

 

 

And then you said this:

 

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.

 

In both cases you are implying that the person interpreting the scene as rape is doing so because they have some kind of mental or emotional predilection for imagining sexual overtones where none exist.

 

I do not think this is what is happening, as I explain below.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Are you honestly suggesting that in order to understand The Killing Joke, it's best to ignore the story in it in favor of studying previous interpretations of The Joker instead? Because that makes zero sense to me.

 

The whole reason Killing Joke became such a seminal work in the first place is because of the new, modern, gritty - whatever you want to call it - take on The Joker and Batman and their relationship.

 

You seem to be saying that in the context of how the Joker used to be portrayed, it wouldn't make sense to think there was rape. Okay, maybe you're right. But the Killing Joke intentionally, drastically - and, as we have seen in the stories that have followed, permanently - changed the context of The Joker and how he is portrayed.

 

Which brings me to this here:

 

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.

 

 

Honestly, I think you have this exactly backwards. You're suggesting that people are seeing sexual content that is not present because of whatever baggage they are bringing to the reading experience.

 

I think you're doing the opposite - you're not able to see sexual content that is clearly in the story because of your own pre-determined and deep-seated view that the Joker is not a sexual character.

 

 

Excellent rebuttal.

 

Dan

[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.

 

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, you're among friends here. You can feel free to share with us, and we will not judge you. Who touched you inappropriately in the years leading up to your reading of "The Killing Joke"?

[CBT]

But that's my point...

 

If the internet complainers are so powerful, why is Avatar still printing 'Crossed'?

 

Why is Howard Stern still on the air? Why does Crumb still even exist?

 

It baffles me that we think we're creatively oppressed in America in 2015.

 

 

To hit the sheeple/blogosphere sweet spot, you have to "offend" one of their issues and you have get it to go "viral" as mentioned.

 

If Slate or the Huffington Post, etc had a hipster "blogger"/"journalist" reading or watching one of the things you mentioned, and it touched on a pet issue to the point of imagining supposed slights, then you could get a "backlash" against it.

 

Even more than foisting their socio-political view on the majority, they want page views. It keeps them employed and able to find things to be "outraged" by.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

This thread is headed in an odd direction. I want to look away, but I'm not sure I can.

[fantastic_four]

I think you're doing the opposite - you're not able to see sexual content that is clearly in the story because of your own pre-determined and deep-seated view that the Joker is not a sexual character.

 

Rape is more about control than sex anyway. Who knows, he may have raped her, but I don't see that the artist or writer put any elements there to suggest that he did. It's left entirely open, so to assume it did happen is a complete assumption.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I think you're doing the opposite - you're not able to see sexual content that is clearly in the story because of your own pre-determined and deep-seated view that the Joker is not a sexual character.

 

Rape is more about control than sex anyway. Who knows, he may have raped her, but I don't see that the artist or writer put any elements there to suggest they did. It's left entirely open, so to assume it did happen is a complete assumption.

 

Isn't interpretation a 50/50 thing though? To assume it isn't there is a complete assumption, right?

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I'd also add, I think we can all agree there was some sexual assault that occurred, right? It may not have been a "Rape" but he clearly stripped Babs and took advantage of her.

 

Alan Moore really did a nice job leaving a lot of things in the book open. That is great literature, if you ask me (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

I think you're doing the opposite - you're not able to see sexual content that is clearly in the story because of your own pre-determined and deep-seated view that the Joker is not a sexual character.

 

Rape is more about control than sex anyway. Who knows, he may have raped her, but I don't see that the artist or writer put any elements there to suggest they did. It's left entirely open, so to assume it did happen is a complete assumption.

 

Isn't interpretation a 50/50 thing though? To assume it isn't there is a complete assumption, right?

 

No, assuming nothing isn't the same as assuming something. Assuming nothing until there is evidence to suggest otherwise is where you should fight to be every single moment of every single day of your adult life. I'm not saying there isn't evidence in those panels that he didn't rape her, just that I can't find evidence that he did. If anyone notices such an indication other than the vague fact that she's nude, please do share.

[CBT]

That's what CBT doesn't get. The artist saw something that he did not see before. If I created something and it just so happened that people interpreted it in a way that I had both not intended or would have wanted, I would remove my own work also.

 

There are plenty of times on the boards that I edit my own words after posting something and re-reading it realizing that those words will be taken in a manner I may not want.

 

And CBT... if my post is blockworthy... so be it. I'm cool with that.

 

Oh, I get it, I just dont agree. He asked them to pull it because he was being flooded with hate mail, and doesnt want to be labeled as sexist or misogynistic (both of which of course, are ludicrous). Once the machine got rolling, he just opted to get himself out of the way, before it ran him over.

 

As for blocking, I did not mean I was going to block people, nor are you on my blocked list. I was just laughing at the usual suspects that lurk around drama threads, lots of toggled out posts in these pages.

 

Mostly I am just stirring the pot. I am all for pulling a cover if it was promoting violence against women, rape, etc. But those issues have been invented and glued on to this story.

 

The real jist of it is, people that havent read the comic or the killing joke, love to try and get page view from posting about controversy. So they throw around buzz phrases like "girl in a fridge", and "countering progress", to imagine some supposed feminist slight.

 

It was an homage cover, and a good one at that. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

As several have noted here, 99.9% of the people who have seen the cover, would not have seen it if not for the supposed outrage making it go viral. The very thing they supposedly cared about, the image being disseminated, has occurred.

[fantastic_four]

I'd also add, I think we can all agree there was some sexual assault that occurred, right? It may not have been a "Rape" but he clearly stripped Babs and took advantage of her.

 

Alan Moore really did a nice job leaving a lot of things in the book open. That is great literature, if you ask me (thumbs u

 

He shot her and stripped her. Beyond that, I couldn't tell anything.

 

Moore probably would've done more if DC would have let him. Who knows, maybe he did have rape in mind, but I can't tell that he put any suggestion of it there.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

I'd also add, I think we can all agree there was some sexual assault that occurred, right? It may not have been a "Rape" but he clearly stripped Babs and took advantage of her.

 

Alan Moore really did a nice job leaving a lot of things in the book open. That is great literature, if you ask me (thumbs u

 

He shot her and stripped her. Beyond that, I couldn't tell anything.

 

Moore probably would've done more if DC would have let him. Who knows, maybe he did have rape in mind, but I can't tell that he put any suggestion of it there.

 

I think that is the big thing: DC would have never let a character get raped in a book. Even if it was implied, I find it hard to believe they would have let it happen. Heck, Marvel wouldn't even let Spidey get divorced. Could you imagine how pissed people would have been if a character had been raped?

[RockMyAmadeus]

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.

 

 

Okay, then, if you really need me to show my work, here are your exact words:

 

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?"

 

 

And then you said this:

 

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.

 

In both cases you are implying that the person interpreting the scene as rape is doing so because they have some kind of mental or emotional predilection for imagining sexual overtones where none exist.

 

That is a fairer analysis than "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."

 

And yes, I am. I'm not suggesting it is (necessarily) negative; for early teenage boys, it certainly wouldn't be.

 

I do not think this is what is happening, as I explain below.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Are you honestly suggesting that in order to understand The Killing Joke, it's best to ignore the story in it in favor of studying previous interpretations of The Joker instead? Because that makes zero sense to me.

 

I'm not surprised that would make zero sense to you, because it makes zero sense to me, too.

 

The scene is AMBIGUOUS. It is not EXPLICIT, obviously, or none of us would even be having this conversation.

 

Therefore...to interpret it as sexual assault, either on Babs, or Gordon, or BOTH, one would need to look outside the story itself to determine if it fits in with what we know about the character.

 

And what we know about the Joker, up to and through 1988 at the very least, is that the character...from 1940 until 1988 and beyond...had never (and by all means, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) been portrayed as a sexual sadist, nor was there anything even remotely sexual about him.

 

So, when you consider the broader context of the character, together with the scene itself, you cannot definitively conclude that the scene is sexual in nature prima facie.

 

I said it before...I suspect a GREAT deal of perspective has to do with how old one was when one red it. Roy is two years older than me, I was 18 when I red it, others, too, were on the older side of young adulthood when they red it, and we have responded that we didn't think it implied rape in any way.

 

And yet, there are guys here who, I suspect, were on the young side of adolescence when they red it, and it is a generally true: young teen men tend to look at ANY female nudity and sexualize it, without even thinking about it. And, normal psychology says "Nudity = sex, sex + violence = rape", so it's not surprising....if I have the facts correct here...that that age group HAS considered it rape.

 

The whole reason Killing Joke became such a seminal work in the first place is because of the new, modern, gritty - whatever you want to call it - take on The Joker and Batman and their relationship.

 

You get no argument from me about that.

 

However...the genius of Alan Moore was that he took what already existed and didn't jettison it to tell his own stories. He took what was before him, flipped it upside down, shook it, and then looked at what was already there to see if any new, interesting ways of looking at what was already there could be seen.

 

In that sense, there wasn't a shred "new" about Killing Joke that we didn't already know...or, at least, subconsciously suspect...all along.

 

You seem to be saying that in the context of how the Joker used to be portrayed,

 

Not used to be....was, IS, and WOULD BE. Past, present, and into the (then) future.

 

Now, I can't speak to the character today, but if we're just talking about Killing Joke...no, there's nothing inconsistent in it with what we already knew about the Joker.

 

it wouldn't make sense to think there was rape. Okay, maybe you're right. But the Killing Joke intentionally, drastically - and, as we have seen in the stories that have followed, permanently - changed the context of The Joker and how he is portrayed.

 

I vehemently disagree. One need only read Engelhart and Rogers' masterful "the Sign of the Joker" to see that. Or, Adams and O'Neil's "The Joker's Five-Way Revenge!", too.

 

No, no, Moore didn't change anything about the Joker and how he was portrayed. He simply took the flashlight into the dark recesses of the psyche, and shined the light on what was lurking in the corners.

 

That is what made Alan Moore such a genius. He didn't create anything we didn't already know (but weren't willing to admit publicly)....he just exposed the uncomfortable truths, the filthy underbelly of humanity, the black side of "long underwear types", put it on the stage, and displayed it for all the world to squirm.

 

One needn't read any further than Swamp Thing to see that, but it's on display all over his work...Miracleman, Watchmen, Killing Joke...even his one-offs, like Superman Annual #11 and DC Presents #85.

 

It was all there. We just weren't willing to look at it.

 

Which brings me to this here:

 

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.

 

Honestly, I think you have this exactly backwards. You're suggesting that people are seeing sexual content that is not present because of whatever baggage they are bringing to the reading experience.

 

I think you're doing the opposite - you're not able to see sexual content that is clearly in the story because of your own pre-determined and deep-seated view that the Joker is not a sexual character.

 

Deep-outside-affiliatelinksnotallowed..? Pre-determined...? I hadn't even PONDERED such a thing until this topic! Such a thought had never even crossed my mind until this topic. Never before had I ever considered the Joker in a sexual context, simply because the Joker has never been WRITTEN in a sexual context.

 

You cannot see what isn't there to BE seen.

 

I am suggesting that 10-14 year old boys...I know, because I was one of them...see ALL nudity and sexualize it...it's perfectly normal and natural, because the body is changing, and hormones are in high gear.

 

Do you disagree...?

 

This has certainly taken a fascinating turn!