Robot 6

Quote of the day | Dave Dorman takes offense at Saga art

Saga, by Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples

“It seems that in today’s desperate-for-sales comic book market, nothing is sacred. In the midst of world-saving adventures, today’s modern heroine breast feeds her child with zero modesty. Talk about work-life balance! It hearkens back to those Enjoli fragrance TV ads of the ’70s — I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan, and never, never let you forget you’re a man…”  I’m just so impressed with this I-can-have-it-all super heroine. I had to wonder, did La Leche League (or as my wife took to calling them after she delivered our son,  ‘The Breast Milk Mafia’) pay big-time sponsorship money for this cover? What a wholesome, family-friendly image!

I find this image offensive, not only for promotion of a comic book, but specifically for a comic that Brian clearly states that he would like to see today’s younger generation pick up and read as he did when he was kid. Rather than a family-friendly heroic saga, this promo art is telegraphing to the world that it’s a series I cannot share with my 7-year-old son. Is the comics industry really so dead that they have to stretch to these desperate, shock value measures to incur readers? Really?”

— artist David Dorman, attempting to explain “Why Dave Dorman Finds New Image Comic Saga Offensive,” but not exactly succeeding. While he has insisted on Twitter (three times now) that he isn’t offended by breastfeeding, nor it turns out by “boobs” — “I paint boobs on canvas for a living” — Dorman has yet to elaborate on what makes the above promotional image for Brian K. Vaughan and Fiona Staples’ mature readers sci-fi/fantasy epic offensive, unwholesome, or emblematic of “desperate, shock value measures” used to rope in readers.

There’s nothing titillating about Staples’ image; for all its fantasy trappings, it’s incredibly understated … casual, even. To be honest, it didn’t even register with me that it depicted breastfeeding until I read Dorman’s rant. Heck, ram’s horns and gossamer wings aside, I’ve encountered virtually identical scenes in cafes, movie theaters and public parks — all with minimal offense.



Wow. What a jerk.

That’s not sexy, it’s striking, but it’s not at all sexy.

Dave Dorman’s being a bit of a douche if this bothers him. I saw that pic and thought, “I really hate insect wings on women, but that looks cool otherwise.”

Much more of a bird wing fan.

Presumably it’s mostly the fact of “The Breast Milk Mafia” having now infiltrated comics, too. Obviously they’re out of control, and only Mr. and Mrs. Dorman (and perhaps some sort of “silent majority,” per the usual routine for this kind of hissyfit) even care. Just terrible isn’t it???

Douche is the right word.

I think the problem is that Dorman is under the impression that the image is for a kid-friendly comic, not a “mature” readers comic.

Ugh. This offends him? The purely natural act of feeding a baby? (The Horror!)

I’m not even going to talk any more…this…

What an a**.

Who is Dorman again? She’s breast feeding not doing meth!! Grow up or find a different profession.

Even if it was aimed at younger readers, you can see less of this character’s breast than you can in 90 percent of the costumes designed for female super-hero characters.

What’s more titillating — a mom breastfeeding her kid, or Slave Leia in Star Wars, the images that launched a million nerd fantasies?

The act of making a baby is a purely natural act as well. Doesn’t mean we need to see it in an all ages comics.


breast-feeding, it’s horrific! it’s disgusting!

HOW CAN WE LET OUR CHILDREN SEE THAT?! After all, we only let them take part of it when they were infants. I

Seriously, Dorman, you are a ridiculous, ridiculous little man.

And if you find that image titillating or sexually suggestive? Well, I think you’ve seen Shoot ‘Em Up a few too many times.

Dave Dorman, the woman is braest-feeding her child. If that is OFFENSIVE, then that says more about you than anything else. If anything, it is quite refreshing to see people trying to elevate our consciousness about this oddly “taboo” topic.

Dave, check your own reaction. Why is this offensive, and scenes of indescribable violence and cruelty go unmentioned?

I’d be okay about not letting women breast feed in public as long as no one else got to eat in public. Some people’s eating habits are SO MUCH WORSE than that…

I’d like to hear from the artist why he chose the first image people will see of this new character is of her breast feeding. Is it pertinent to the story? Is it one of her superpowers or advanced skills? If not, did you simply draw it just to shock and awe? A lot of people complain about cheesecake art in comics, especially for female characters. Impossible body shapes, way too revealing clothes, and provacative poses all just to unnecessarily show off T&A (some would argue). So how is this different? Why would the artist and editor think this pic is a better cover than if she was just holding the baby, sans lunch? Personally, I have no problem with it, but I can see someone thinking “dude, I don’t need to see breastfeeding on a comic cover while I’m in the shop. And I sure as hell don’t need to explain what she’s doing to my seven year old, who will inevitably ask me “but why is she doing it on this comic book cover? Is the series about breast feeding???” I think it’s pretty obvious he chose this image just to make it stand out and shock the viewer a bit, and there is going to always pros and cons to the backlash for that. Not saying Dorman is right, but I certainly echo his sentiment of “WTF???”

My favourite part is that he takes a swing at the industry as a whole for no reason at all.

“This movie has a breast in it! All movies are dead to me!”

The cover he drew for Airboy #12 (now everyone Google it!) was far more titillating than that drawing by Fiona Staples. Ditto the covers he did for Zoot Marlowe Books 1 and 2.

This kind of comment from the painter who did this:

Hypocrite much?!

I think it is funny people are actually offended by breastfeeding.

There’s nothing offensive about this. But at the same time, it only reinforces my own concern that BKV and Staples will be producing a comic that isn’t for me. I don’t offend easily, but I don’t really go for nudity, either, even in cases like this.

Dorman’s rant seems a bit off the rails, but he does get points for the totally out-of-left-field Enjoli ad reference (which, if memory recalls, featured Shelly Hack, the Curly Joe of Charlie’s Angels). .

Seriously?! I’m going to set aside the completely ridiculous and misogynistic idea that a breastfeeding woman should cover herself from the eyes of decent menfolk, or the ridiculous notion that nursing, one of the most purely wholesome acts in life, could be construed as offensive. I’m just going to point out that in a post-apocalyptic story setting, there’s no formula to be had.

Oh, and “Breast-Milk Mafia?” Seriously? If only La Leche League had the buying power of Nestle, maybe more people would have slightly less repressive ideas about breastfeeding.

“A lot of people complain about cheesecake art in comics, especially for female characters. Impossible body shapes, way too revealing clothes, and provacative poses all just to unnecessarily show off T&A (some would argue). So how is this different?”

Let’s see… Well, the character’s body shape isn’t impossible. And, assuming she’d zip her jacket up if she wasn’t feeding her baby, she’s not wearing revealing clothes. Even without the zipped up jacket she’s showing less skin than Vampirella or Psyclocke. The pose isn’t provocative in any way, unless you think breastfeeding a baby is provocative (which apparently some moro–er, people with strong opinions, do.)

So I guess I’d have to say this image is different from cheesecake art in pretty much EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.

Forgot to mention my last post was in response to jloder24.

Sean T. Collins

January 9, 2012 at 11:57 am

Whoa. Trying to stay calm, here…

Long story short, my wife had an emergency c-section and delivered our daughter two months prematurely. She spent six weeks in an isolette in the neonatal intensive care ward, including weeks first on a respirator, then on a CPAP. There was no way my wife could put her to the breast, and her emotional and physical struggles to come to grips with that and to provide breastmilk exclusively through breastpumping were enormous. La Leche League was there to support her every step of the way, and the comfort and knowledge she gained from them was invaluable.

How dare Dorman insult an organization that does nothing but help those who ask for it, and degrade a beautiful, life-sustaining act that the most important woman in my life would have given, you’ll pardon the expression, her left boob to be able to perform. Whatever issues Dorman is bringing to the table on this — and clearly, by reacting so vehemently to such an innocuous image, he’s demonstrated that he has quite a few — are his and his alone.

Everybody click on Dan M’s link.

Dorman doesn’t have a leg to stand on and this is a non-story.

Dorman’s reaction is equal parts funny & pathetic.

I don’t understand why some people get so bent out of shape over seeing breast feeding done…

Just posting a comment to say that this illustration is pretty nice and i love seeing positive representations of mothers in comics. A mother standing proud while caring for her child! Wonderful. Moms are great :)

I clicked on Dan M’s link.
Geez this Dave Dorman guy is a dick.

I think men don’t like the image of breast feeding because it forces them to reconcile something they almost exclusively regard as sexual is also something used to nourish children, which when you think about it that way, it is kind of weird. I think on a lower level, immature men want to only think of boobs in a sexual context, despite their essential functionality.

Which is why this is a good cover. Essentially, the art is making him uncomfortable, but that is exactly why it is good art.

I think his whole crazy rant stems from the fact that he thinks this comic will have nudity and all that jazz based on the cover then hears about BKV stating he wants the “younger generation” to read this comic. So Dorman kinda flipped his lid thinking his son will be corrupted by breast feeding or something, and not by the sado-masochistic exploitation paintings his dad does for a living.

From the image Dan M posted, my best guess is that Dorman is offended by any portrayal of female nudity that is not in part or in whole connected to an insane, violent rape.

There’s a reason people who rampage against public breastfeeding generally end up sounding like petulant little boys.

While I think Dorman is wrong to think the image is offensive, I don’t think it’s hypocritical that he has done nude/sexual images himself. It’s about when and where, not what.

I liked the phrase ‘corrupted by breastfeeding’ that was used in the previous post. Could anybody actually be corrupted by breastfeeding? I really can’t imagine how anything is shocking about the image. My wife breastfed both our children. A mother couldn’t find better nourishment for her newborn child. Most children probably don’t even give a second thought, unless their parents say something,

Ugh. First artist complains about second artist. All first artist’s books are dead to me!

I could be crass and say that Dorman is just jealous his own moobs couldn’t nourish life.
Or make a pun about for all the cheesecake he’s churned out, he’s offended by this – he must be developing lactose intolerance.

But in all seriousness, dude seems to have more issues than a Barnes & Nobel magazine rack.

I’m like one of the many who didn’t even register that she was breastfeeding until it was pointed out.

I think it says something about the folks who notice, and fixate on this aspect of the art.

This is coming from a hetero man, who enjoys this aspect of a woman’s body very much (among others, but I digress), but has never in any way been turned on by a woman breastfeeding. A kid is eating people. A wee baby is getting their eat on. Relax.

Btw, i got a sneaking feeling this Dorman guy’s got stakes in this series. I mean, what brings more attention to something than an idiot blabbing his antiquated ideas these days? Oh yeah, nothing does.

Just going to join the pile on here.
I don’t get the problem.
Obviously you wouldn’t put intercourse in an all ages comic (Duuuu Jeff B) but a mother feeding a child is a perfectly acceptable act, and very family-centric and positive.
I assume the family aspect plays a big role in this series, otherwise why show the kid at all right?.
If Vaughan and Staples wanted to do an easy salacious teaser I’m sure there’s roughly 65 thousand other images they could have created to do it.

Just so I’m sure I have this straight, beheading, psychotic murderers, rape, 5/6th naked super-heroines, demonic monsters from hell, bloodied slug-fests that go on and on and on are all okay.
1 baby feeding = the end of decency as we know it.
Is that right?

“What’s more titillating — a mom breastfeeding her kid, or Slave Leia in Star Wars, the images that launched a million nerd fantasies?”

Maybe breastfeeding-Saga-character will be the hot cosplay at SDCC next year.

Wow. Ill-informed, half-cocked, and ridiculous. I don’t think any adult male can be blamed for feeling slightly uncomfortable about seeing a woman other than his wife breastfeed, but to take offense at it points to deeper, unresolved issues on part of the offended.

The La Leche League part was just downright odd. SARCASM FONT ON How dare they promote the health benefits of biological design!? I mean, maybe it was a bit harsh when they came to my wife’s hospital room and held a gun to her head until my son got a good latch, but I knew it was for our own good. SARCASM FONT OFF

Brian Nicholson

January 9, 2012 at 1:49 pm

Just wanted to point out to jloder24 that this promotional image is drawn by a woman- Fiona Staples.

What an absolutely foolish thing to be offended by.


A couple of things” (A) Do we know that this image is actually from the cover of the book and not simply a promotional image? Because it it’s not, your entire argument is rendered moot. (B) As for why this image was used . . . I think that’s pretty clear: Because its design and content impart a lot of interesting info about the book’s premise and characters at a glance. I think it’s one of the better thought out promotional images I’ve seen in a while. It juxtaposes a lot of different elements in a way that catches the attention. Which, of course, is the sole purpose of a promotional piece.

At no point in this article does Dorman state he is offended by breastfeeding. What he does state is that he’s offened that a drawing of breast feeding is being used as a promotional image for a new comic. I could definitely see a mother’s response to this pic as “breastfeeding is a natural, beautiful thing. Don’t devalue it by using it as cheap, “shock tactic” art work to drum up publicity for a comic book”. And she’d be absolutely right. And saying exactly what Dorman is trying to. I doubt Dorman wouldn’t even care about breastfeeding in a comic book. If Harvey Pekar took a stroll through Cleveland and saw a mom breastfeeding a baby on the beach at Lakeview in an American Splendor comic, I’m thinking Dorman wouldn’t give a rat’s ass. Slice of life. But to use breastfeeding in a new comic promo (or first cover, doesn’t make a difference and doesn’t make any of my argument moot, thank you)? Again, unless that character is Breast Feeding Woman, having her whipping out some baby breakfast to help sell a book is pandering, bush league stuff (like cheesecake art).

One other point: Pointing out a racy image that Dorman did in the past has absolutely nothing to do with this topic at all. So all the name-callers and amateur psychologists need to chill. Again, Dorman never said he was offended by an almost-exposted boob; he even admitted to basing a lot of his work on it. As for the cover that someone linked to: never read (or even heard of) the book, but I bet that cover scene was related to some type of action in the story. Remains to be seen if breastfeeding is an important plot point in this new book, but I’ll roll the dice and side with “hells no” for now.

Honestly, I think the fact that Lloyd Dobbler with ram horns on the cover is much more scandalous than half a boob.


actually, i’m pretty sure we do know what role breastfeeding plays in the comic, since the preview that we’ve had is the birth of the child being breastfed. so, yeah, i think it’s pretty significant in informing us of elements of the story being told.

Put it this way: what if Nike put out a commercial for a new pair of shoes, and the whole shot was a woman sitting in a cafeteria breast feeding a baby with Nikes on. People would be outraged, and rightly so. Most would argue that something as natural and innocent as those moments between a mother and her baby shouldn’t be used by marketing suits to sell crap and gain word of mouth. People would not outraged at breastfeeding, but outraged at breastfeeding being used as a sales pitch for publicity. Please note the difference between the two, which so far no one has above.

Not that a baby wearing Nikes wouldn’t be cute and all…

“But to use breastfeeding in a new comic promo (or first cover, doesn’t make a difference and doesn’t make any of my argument moot, thank you)”

Yeah, actually, it does, as your initial rant was, quite clearly, based on the idea that the image was inappropriate as the book’s cover. If it’s not the cover (which I doubt that it is) pretty much everything you said goes out the window. A promo image and a cover are two different things (just like a promo still from a movie and a movie poster are two different things). What works for one doesn’t necessarily work for the other. I agree that this image probably wouldn’t work as a cover (though not because it’s offensive). But as a promo image, it does its job just fine.

And this:

“As for the cover that someone linked to: never read (or even heard of) the book, but I bet that cover scene was related to some type of action in the story. Remains to be seen if breastfeeding is an important plot point in this new book, but I’ll roll the dice and side with “hells no” for now. “

. . . aside from being unfounded speculation, is an obvious double standard. For the Dorman cover that was linked to, all that was required to justify it in your mind is that it “related to some type of action in the story..” But for Saga you raise the bar to ” an important plot point .” Yeah, that’s not stacking the deck at all. I’ll roll the dice and say that the fact that the lead character is a mother of a newborn is, in fact, an important plot point and that the image in question was specifically intended to convey that in a striking way. Moreover, I’ll roll dem bones again and say that there most likely is at least one scene in the book where she is shown breastfeeding which, according to your initial standard, is all that’s required to justify the image.

Josh, I’m pretty sure we’re all aware of what role breastfeeding plays. Whether or not it’s important to the story, I guess we won’t find out till we buy our copies.

i was just letting you know that breastfeeding is probably a very important part of a story about a couple raising a child in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. therefore, it is not just an image done for shock value, but rather an image accurately depicting an important part of the story. your point is moot.

Maybe you’re right, Josh. Maybe this character will be breast feeding in every issue, and that act will be a focal point to to the plot each month. Maybe breast feeding will be important for all three characters to survive in this harsh, post-apocalyptic wasteland they find themselves in. Or – purely hypotherical here – or the artist sat down to draw a promo piece for a new comic and thought to herself “let’s see, I need to put the first image of these brand new characters out there, and I need something that really pops; something that will get people talking and remembering the book up until that first issue comes out in March. It’s an Image book, so something shocking and in your face. Bad-ass heroines are old news; even bad-ass heroines with a baby in one hand and a gun in another have been done to death and have to shock value left at all. I know! No one’s ever done “gun in one hand, breast feeding in another” bad-ass heroine before! THAT will get people talking!” Now, if it proves out that breast feeding is not an important part of this new book, and maybe by issue three or four we can look back at this promo piece and safely say “pretty sure she’s just used the whole act of breast feeding solely to help sell a book”, well I think the artist should be held accountable for work that exploitive. And all the breast feeding defenders here today should be the first to take up arms.


Well, I am a mother. I am a breastfeeding mother. Hell, I’m probably part of what Dorman would call the “Breast Milk Mafia.” I’m also a comics fan.

My reaction to this cover? HELL YES. My reaction to a hypothetical Nike ad with a mother nursing a child? Also, HELL YES. Heck, it might even make me rethink my general stance against Nike JUST to support their showing of breastfeeding. One of the MAJOR problems with America’s ABYSMAL breastfeeding rates is that IT IS NOT NORMALIZED. It is NOT depicted, because whenever it is, some dbag wants to make an uproar over it- to the extent that in the show LOST, they went to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to make sure that we never saw Claire *gasp* breastfeeding.

So yeah. As a staunch breastfeeding advocate, I- and EVERY single other breastfeeding advocate I know- sees ANY depiction of nursing as a cause to celebrate, whether it’s to sell an image or not. Because it NEEDS to be seen. It NEEDS to be seen by adults AND by children, because the odds are that someone who has never in their life seen anyone breastfeed, ever, either in real life or in media, will see that image and maybe, when that time comes, consider doing the best thing for their child’s {and their own} health- or become a supportive partner to a breastfeeding woman, something else that is sorely lacking in America.

So- from this breastfeeding mother- KUDOS to Saga {and the Walking Dead!} for their depictions of breastfeeding {and natural birth!!}!

ps- have you ever known anyone who has breastfed? because well, it is badass. and breastmilk is kind of a miracle substance sooooo…. if I’m gonna get stuck in a post-apocalyptic setting I sure as hell hope I or someone I’m with is lactating…

My personal thought is that anyone who thinks that breastfeeding is “edgy” and not, you know, a regular thing a mother does with a baby…well, that says a lot more about the person looking at the image than the image itself. I’ve never associated a nurturing relationship between parent and child with manipulative Bay-esque blockbuster extravaganzas or whatever nonsense parallel jil has been trying to draw over the course of the thread.

Ah, American puritanism at it’s finest.

….It’s not okay for a 7 year old to see a baby eating? I drink coffee in public all the time…I didn’t realize it was offensive.

I have to say that I’m pleasantly surprised that the Robot 6 commentariat has weighed in RESOUNDINGLY against a truly foolish position in this case (one lone voice crying out against breastfeeding in the wilderness excepted, of course).

The breastfeeding strikes me as a bit unneccessary. does her actively breastfeeding the baby provide any feelings or information that her holding the baby would not? (awful grammar I Know)

I also really enjoyed BKV’s all ages runaways and I wish he could once again write something that could be enjoyed by all ages. I remember when this series was first announced he made some comparison to being inspired by star wars (which is so well regarded in part because it was fun epic story everyone could enjoy). I was hoping it wasn’t a mature readers only, but o well.

@akwasi, if you are conscious of it, it provides a lot- immediately, it points to how limited resources are. Since most people ~of means~ opt for formula now {for the life of me, I can’t understand why, but they do}- so formula is the “norm.” Setting a story up with breastfeeding immediately as a normalcy sets the stage of how limited resources are- there is either no formula to be had, so suitable water to make it with, or no suitable heating to prep it with.
Secondarily, it points to a variety of social constructs, timelines, etc. Granted, these all take a bit of thought, but personally, I like it when I have to think about it.

If you’re assuming human existence will continue regardless, simply holding a baby is entirely irrelevant. People will not think about a woman holding a baby as anything but normal. However, do to the formula companies’ extremely successful ad campaigns- the idea of breastfeeding has, on the whole, been driven from the minds of the general public. It is something private, secret, behind closed doors, not to be shown, obscene, and the idea that OMG BOOBS HAVE A PURPOSE, is… incredulous to most. By having her breastfeed the baby? You’re illustrating the extent to which society has come. For it to be as nonchalant as it’s depicted? It’s REALLY pointing out how far it’s come. Honestly, breastfeeding to become ~the norm~ in America, the formula companies would have to be eradicated entirely. water supply would have to be completely contaminated. it would have to be EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES. So by showing breastfeeding as a casual thing? It is saying VOLUMES, to anyone who cares to think for a second.

i couldn’t see any nipple. and, frankly, that’s just fine with me.

Let Dave Dorman sit in the corner with his measly opinions. I remember that he’s some guy who has done some praise worthy comic work, but especially after reading that self-absorbed proselytizing I don’t really care to remember him or his opinions.

When I saw this graphic I thought the artist was trying to take these fantastic characters and add a touch of reality to them. I don’t find it offensive and shouldn’t be offensive to anyone. It made me curious about about the story in terms of it being a character drama. Dorman I don’t get your reaction to this … there no attempt at shock and awe here my friend. Only an interesting composition attempting to add something to the characters. And I feel it works.

SO I just clicked on the like to Dorman’s blog only to discover that the post “protesting” the Saga image is mysteriously missing.

Hmmmm . . .

Kevin, the writer of this article needs to add in the cover of Death Hawk #2 that Dan M made a link to.

With a heading – “Dave Dorman draws porn, but is offended by Breastfeeding!”

End of discussion.

I don’t GET it. What’s Dave Dorman upset about? Actually Vaughan and Staples should be happy over this non issue. More publicity.

“Since most people ~of means~ opt for formula now {for the life of me, I can’t understand why, but they do}- so formula is the “norm.” Setting a story up with breastfeeding immediately as a normalcy sets the stage of how limited resources are- there is either no formula to be had, so suitable water to make it with, or no suitable heating to prep it with.
Secondarily, it points to a variety of social constructs, timelines, etc. Granted, these all take a bit of thought, but personally, I like it when I have to think about it”

Is the story really about people who dont have means in some post apocalyptic environment with scarce resources? or is it about a small famiy unit on the run during a war? in which case the gun in her had, dagger on his hip, and pensive look on their faces suffice. I think people just like to get on an issue sometimes. I have no opinion on breastfeeding, but it does again strike me as an unnecessary way to “gritty up” a cover. Its not fun or really all that informative regarding the characters. its just there.

Honestly? I’ve never heard of “Saga” but after seeing this lovely image depicting feeding a baby so normally, I’m definitely planning to go find and buy it now. As a breastfeeding mom of two, I’m so tired of the idiocy of people who equate feeding a child with something sexual. In a time when mothers are harassed for feeding their babies in public even while fully covered, we NEED these visuals showing breastfeeding is a normal thing to do. Believe me, in an emergency situation there would be no other way for a baby to survive long anyway. Not a lot of sterile water/bottles and formula around after the apocalypse, people ;P

Dorman is obviously immature and only wanting to see breasts that titilate, not function. I’m so glad to see so many men who feel differently posting here. You guys rock and the women in your lives are lucky to have your support!

Captain Librarian

January 10, 2012 at 9:17 am

What a weird thing to get so worked up over.

ok have to shoot down some snark with my own snark. please read slowly:

Jeff B said: “The act of making a baby is a purely natural act as well. Doesn’t mean we need to see it in an all ages comics.”

My Response: so you equate breastfeeding with the carrying out of the sexual act of procreation? amazing. breasts are not always sexual body parts, used during foreplay or any other kind of sexual play. For women who have had babies, soon after, for a short time, their breasts will contain nourishment for their newly born. also, is this an all-ages book? Vaughn( I like alot of his work, though not all of it) stated the book will be: “Yep, sci-fi/fantasy for adults. We’re gonna earn that “M” rating.”

Steve Carell said: “Ah, American puritanism at it’s finest.”

My Response: its not puritanism thats causing this guy to negatively comment on the breastfeeding. the guy himself is far from being a puritan. not all ignorant comments relating to breast, butts, and genitalia are due to america’s puritanical past. sometimes its due to folks being too influenced by seeing too much riske/sexual imagery that is for nothing more than sexual stimulation or shock value, as opposed to telling a story, possibly telling a sensitive story for an adult mature audience.

now how many power girl et al covers had NOTHING to do with what was going on inside??? nuff said.



also, f*k it. i gave up comic buying but will look for this in trade. obviously alot of readers are not mature enough to pick this up. its a comic for grown ups, not immature boys or girls influenced by hugh hefner’s bullsh*t legacy processed-cheese silicone enhanced immaturity.

I just want to express my solidarity with Mr. Vaughn and Ms. Staples with a drawing of my own single-mom barbarian character breast-feeding.

Oh…MY…GAH!! There is a disgusting artwork of a woman–alien or fairy, it is not clear–breastfeeding her child! What has this world come to?!? What kind of sick, perverted people would allow this to happen?!? We don’t want to know that women’s breasts are functional!…
(We’re totally ok when you put women–sans babies–on the cover, with abnormally large and unrealistic tits, though. Give us a dose of realism, and we’ll wet ourselves in anger!!)

If you’re like commenter Jloder24, it’s nobody’s fault you’re too afraid to have to explain the natural process of a breastfeeding to your own mongrel children. Get a life, people!

Nineteeenth Century artwork depicts how normal and ordinary it was for women, whose dresses discreetly covered their ankles, to breastfeed in front of men and complete strangers anywhere and everywhere. With titles like In the Crofter’s Home (1868), The Emigrants': a family seated at a roadside ( 1840) After the Battle of Prestonpans ( 1745), A Game of Billiards (1807), ‘The Presbyterian Catechism’ (19th C.), Paying the Harvesters (1882), The Game of Draughts (19th C.), Old Covent Garden Market (1825), The Dead Soldier (The Soldier’s Wife) (1832) ), even a double page illustration in Harper’s Weekly September 30th 1871 depicting the passing of the Sacrament in the old tabernacle in Salt Lake City, we see women nursing their infants as casually as women bottle feed their infants today, in settings where the act is both normal and unnoticed.
It’s educational to me that we have drifted so far from that normality that someone whose job is to shock with graphic and sexual images can find such an innocuous image both sexual and shocking.

And I should add, these 19th Century paintings show the babies feeding in front of children too.
As far as Dorman’s 7 year old son goes, Staple’s illustration would neither shock the child nor make him ask his father what’s going on. Children who have never seen a baby feed except via bottle have no clue, (especially in a static picture with no actual movements/sounds happening) and only see a mother holding her baby. Only the child or adult familiar with breastfeeding even recognizes it. Indeed, I have seen firsthand and heard countless tales of people who THINK they would be offended by breastfeeding in public who were actually oblivious to babies feeding in their mother’s arms right in front of them.

“Rather than a family-friendly heroic saga, this promo art is telegraphing to the world that it’s a series I cannot share with my 7-year-old son.”

… I’m truly at a loss here. What exactly does this image show that would be inappropriate for a 7yo? Oh, I know! The gun! The knife! No?

Man, I’m so glad that my children are being raised in an environment that recognises breastfeeding as what it is – normal!

concerned citizen

January 11, 2012 at 6:52 pm

oh-la-la controversy!!

I’m so jaded I assumed Dave knew them and was helping generate hype for another title I’d normally never buy.
needs more dreadlocks an patchouli.

Well…I can`t say I agree with Dorman. I think that this is a nice, cover `cause it`s beautifully drawn, and has something different about it. I mean, I haven`t seen a comic cover yeat, which would have a woman breastfeeding her baby. So, a nice cover.

On a side note…

Excuse now, everybody who wrote comments like:

“Wow. What a jerk”

That`s stupid. Absolutely stupid. Even if you get angry about something that someone said, you don`t have to write something like that as a response. It`s completely needless and idiotic.

Also, everyone who wrote something far less slandering, gets my gratitude.

Wow. What a jerk.

Leave a Comment


Browse the Robot 6 Archives