Maybe they're overwhelmed by the pattern of her dress.  They probably think it's an acid flashback and assume she isn't real.

So, what are we actually saying in this thread?

I mean, I get that some of these cover images look a bit dodgy from the vantage point of the 21st century, but is there really any psychosexual intent -- either consciously or unconsciously -- behind them?

For instance, when we see a cover image from the 1940s of Batman and Superman astride a Navy destroyer's guns, are we really suggesting that the artist was channeling his own latent homosexuality into the cover artwork (unconsciously or otherwise)? Or are we just laughing up our sleeves at the sexual naivety of such an image, as seen through adult eyes in the 21st Century?

Likewise, with the Strange Adventures cover that Prince Hal posted at the start of this thread, are we seriously suggesting that the artist was intentionally or subconsciously drawing a sci-fi contraption that resembled womens breasts? And what about that image of Superman and Wonder Woman kissing with the Washington Monument in the background that EdoBosnar posted? Are we to believe that Russ Andru really intended the obelisk to represent Supes' mighty phallus?

Myself, I think that if we're just sniggering at the "dodginess" of some of the imagery on these covers, that's fair enough. But I also think that the vast majority of these examples are a case of us trying to see dirty stuff where none actually exists. There are exceptions, of course, but I think 99% of the time, a cigar is just a cigar. I'm not counting Wonder Woman covers here though, because her comics obviously have a long tradition of including BDSM-style psychosexual imagery in them. But the others? Yeah, I'm not convinced that there's really any conscious or subconscious sexual imagery present other than what we want to see.

Well, part of the point is Frederic Wertham read all kinds of things into comic book stories, especially superhero comics.  Batman and Robin, he said, depicted a homosexual relationship or the desire for one.  Bruce adopts an orphaned kid, seeing himself in him and helps channel the kid's grief and anger into something positive; but, that's not what Wertham saw.  There were some panels that could be cherry picked to fit his thesis; but, that is the hallmark of bad research.  That's not to say he didn't have a point with some comics.  Wonder Woman did present some bizarre imagery and fetishes.  Was that appropriate in something aimed at kids?  How much of it even registered on the kids?  Well, according to Sheldon Mayer, based on some of the letters they got, quite a bit.  Some of the crime and horror comics were extremely violent and depicted outright torture.  Those obviously shouldn't be in the hands of kids; but, the audience for those wasn't exactly young kids. So, what got lost in the debate was which comics were actually seen by kids and contributed to harm and which appealed to already damaged kids, coupled with who should be the person who decides what a child sees, the parent or the state?

Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent is filled with nonsensical things that suggested more about his own psyche, or were cherry picked, out of context, to promote his attacks on comics as being sub-literate, which was the real heart of attacking comic books, just as it had been a generation before, for attacking comic strips.  Juvenile delinquency made and easy soapbox, since most read comics, so it was easy to find damaged kids who read inappropriate comics, because of absentee parenting, abuse or other contributing factors.

To me, the "Paging Dr Wertham" meme has always been a satirical jab at double messages that comic images may carry, from certain POVs.

I agree with everyone!

Yes, for the most part, these comic covers are innocent in intent.

Some, however, are intentionally doing this stuff — I am looking at the Supergirl and Lois Lane covers from the early 70's. I'm 100% positive that was intentional.

And if it is, then it is interesting to speculate on some borderline covers whether it's intentional or not. Usually, I think not, and some of these can feel a bit juvenile to point out - just because Wertham was a creepy perv doesn't mean we have to be. But a couple of these do have me wondering!

You are dirty! If the good Dr. Wertham still walked the earth, he would have you locked up! 

I take this whole thread as being mostly tongue-in-cheek, imagining the responses of Werthem and like-minded, 'think-about-the-children!' moral crusaders would have to the covers presented. On the covers themselves, as Crimebuster said, many of them are innocent, others are, I think, quite intentional. So,


Yes, I think we can, and it's not even far-fetched to think it is, given that during his long career Ross Andru (and long-time collaborator Mike Esposito) had worked on a number of humor comics with pretty salty content, including their very own short-lived humor mag from the early 1970s, Up Your Nose (and Out Your Ear) (you can see some samples here and here - you'll even get an explicit content warning when you try to access the first page).

I was almost certain that you were going to object to the thread, much like the sexy covers thread was objected to. But, yes the covers being posted here are mainly images WE interpret to be dirty. The FF cover with the big guns was Simonson's take on the " big Guns" era that seemed to pervade Marvel comics in the 90's.