I know!

I disagree that the new cover is better. Sure the first cover was disturbing, but what's art for if not to disturb the comfortable. Anyway it's Batman, he's supposed to be at least a little creepy.

The original was interesting in its creepiness. I think something is lost with the changes.

This comment thread is balanced between people actually discussing the cover and guys with underdeveloped sexuality and socialization skills.

But I suppose that depends on your definition of "under."

Wait, that’s Barda?!

It isn't is it? She looks nothing like Barda. And someone said she was Orion's wife. I wasn't aware that Orion was married, but even if he is, surely Barda's still married to Scott. They're one of the unbreakable marriages in comics - like Ralph and Sue Dibney and.... pretty much no-one else.

The change isn’t an editorial muzzle but rather a response to dialogue.

Same as that silly Michael Turner Power Girl cover, which got toned down for the betterment of everyone.

I would certainly imagine that my idea of what is over-sexualization would be based upon my definition of what “over” is.

I'm not sure whether you got the joke and were playing along with it, or didn't get the joke and were trying to be smart. I'm going to assume the former, because I feel like it.

There is clearly a set level of sexualization that is entirely appropriate in a superhero comic.

A set level? No. But sexuality in a comic isn't automatically "oh noes! teh b@d!" which seems to be a lot of folks' opinion on the matter.

And if there was anything over-sexualized about the original, it wasn't Batman's hand placement - that's a possessive gesture, but not a sexual one. "Over sexualized" would have been one hand-span lower and four inches to the side...

I don’t think the majority of our audience thinks that touching a woman’s breast is creepy.

Regardless of what the majority of your audience thinks, touching the breast of someone else's wife is definitely creepy. Especially when you're standing behind her.

beyond being a shitty drawing of Barda

You're going to have to elaborate on "shitty" because that cover looks pretty well rendered from where I'm sitting.

I don't think the majority of our audience thinks that touching a woman's breast is creepy. Not to get all frat guy on ya, but I like boobs because they are shapely and beautiful and kinda squishy and nice. I can SORTA see the JSA-guy-who-didn't-have-an-erection-after-all being creepy, but here - I think it's the wrong word in this context. It's linguistically inefficient enough to separate your audience from the piece.

I think it's fine to argue against too much sexuals in comics - I don't agree that the original image was inappropriate, beyond being a shitty drawing of Barda- but I see your point.

But "creepy?" Nuh-uh.

I think having his other hand on her waist would have either framed her assets, er, boobsets even more, or it would have made it look like he was getting a grip to do something more inappropriate. When you've got Batman on a cover with a damn fine woman, you're damned no matter where you put his hands.

Personally, I think he should have had a cigarette in it.