I'm sure you've heard by now that printed copies of last week's Batman: Damned marked the first on-panel appearance of Batman's, um, sidekick.

Batman: Damned #1, writer: Brian Azzarello, artist: Lee Bermejo

DC Comics promptly promised to remove, er, "Li'l Wayne" from future printings and all digital copies. IGN.com reported that a DC source justified the company's abrupt about-face by claiming that "it wasn't additive to the story." If that was the case, why was it there in the first place?

The obvious answer is that this was a stunt to sell comic books.

Gratuitous nudity has long been used in comic books and other visual media to increase sales. (Generally speaking, women are the subject of this sort of exploitation far more than men — the target audience for such things is generally male — so in a way, seeing Batman's, ah, primary sexual characteristic is kind of refreshing. Kind of.) But Batman is not an outlier property. He is arguably DC's most valuable property. His name alone in the masthead moves books. If any character shouldn't have to drop trou to get some attention, it's Batman.

Which brings us to the obvious question: who's next?

If they'll do it to Batman, they'll do it to anyone. If DC has reached a point were they are willing to release "mature reader" comic books of their headliners in birthday suits, how long until we get a better look at characters who are somewhat more obscure?

In other words, it seems only a matter of time until we see Booster Gold's penis.

That's a future I don't think I'm prepared for.

Comments (2) | Add a Comment | Tags: batman ign.com nudity