Was Barbara Gordon Sexually Assaulted in The Killing Joke?

Moore said it didnt happened.

I really wish this whole Tumblrifarian / Feminazi movement would just go away already. I really wanted that cover -_-.

@sinntek1: No way to stop them, the minorities are the new majority.

Yea, well at least I have a brain :D.

But it's ok, I hope that cover pisses them off to no end. I have a giant poster of it in my house now.

@sinntek1: I'm guessing blaming everything on the feminazis has become the next trend? Honestly, I do kinda see the concern. It's a cool cover, but it really is a huge contrast to the kid friendly book.

I don't think it happened, I meant the rape. It would be unnecessary for the plan that the joker had. I mean how would the commissioner know if the Joker had raped her or not? Jim may have thought of that but It might be just a sick joke of the Joker to make him think of that.

Sexual assault was heavily implied.

@sinntek1: They're an embarrassment to real feminists.

I said Feminazis, not feminists. 2 completely different people.

Who cares about the concern? Children should not be reading Batman in the first place, and if people let their kids read it when Joker has his face cut off and turned into a mask, maybe they should be better parents.

Also, this cover was in honor of one of the greatest stories of DC / Comic Book history in general so people should really just back off. There is NOTHING bad about this image other than her crying.

@jonez120 - Care to tell me where? He has a gun and she's crying. It has also been confirmed by the WRITER OF THE STORY that she was not sexually assaulted in the original story, let alone in this cover.

I think it is heavily implied that she was. Joker was trying to drive Gordon insane. Given the kind of character Joker is, do people really think Joker has lines that he won't cross?

The writer... The actual writer of the Killing Joke has 100% specified that that did not happen and people who think otherwise are morons. He said it himself and he wrote the story. The mere fact he has killed pedophiles previously has nothing to do with it?

The act of peeling someone else's clothes off without their expressed permission is normally counted as a sexual assault. However, what didn't happen was rape, it's never mentioned by anyone in the books that it happened and from the Joker's standpoint, it didn't need to.

Joker already knows the in's and out's of the sane human mind, he knows how to work it into it's worst corner (he's done it a dozen times across several medias), so he knew all he had to do was bombard Jim with pictures of his daughter in that state and Jim would automatically start fearing what he was not seeing, what happened when the creeps weren't taking photoes? And on top of this, the Joker might even have 'defended' Barbara if any of his men went out of line, because that would ruin his 'joke'. (That said, even in Gotham, they wouldn't have had much time to do with since people would react to the gunshot).

The reason Jim was stripped naked was another of Joker's tricks, to put him in an unconfortable state (but there is bound to be more psychology behind it, as there often is with Moore). It didn't define him, because he wasn't physically or metally crippled by the experience.

In a sense, in the world of comics, torture and physical assaults are the part and parcel of the genre. Vigilanties commit physical assault on just about every felon they get their hands on, quite a few of them commit acts of torture physically and mentally of various kinds to get what they want. And the villains do the same and everyone has sort of agreed that all of this is the nature of the game of supercops and superbackrobbers.

Sexual assault is a big no-no however, mostly I imagine it's because comics were aimed at kids. You can show Superman and Batman punching a crook to a kid, but you can't show a man grope on a female. But even within comic-universes, sexual assaults and whats worse is abhorred, even by hardened supervillains. Like the infamous Dr. Light could be sitting down with genocidal lunatics and psychotic mass murderers, and because he was/is a serial rapist, it's him thats considered the monster by this group. (This actually happened once, you had Luthor, Joker and Cheetah run the Injustice League, and when things went to pot, Cheetah nearly managed to kill Light because of what he was... instead of the Joker with hundreds of deaths on his hands)

As far as I know, stripping someone naked and photographing them without their consent counts as sexual assault.

The actual writer has said many things, up to and including that Joker was 'given a new hole to play with'. Besides, his denial of the implied rape only came after heavy controversy.

Furthermore, I think it is a bit silly to make the claim that the Joker is above a certain act for the simple fact that he has killed those that perform said act. You are taking the position that the Joker has some kind of moral compass, which I find both odd and even a little disturbing. Do you identify with Joker in some way? Is that why you are so uncomfortable with the idea that the Joker could have raped someone, that you immediately start a discussion with an insult to those you are trying to engage?

How about this? Who cares? It's a comic book cover. Joker has his face cut off in the new story arc. Then proceeds to have it put back on. You're meaning to tell me that rape is the worst thing that has come out of Batman? His parents were killed in front of him....

Quoted for truth. Out of context, but quotes for truth.

Well since it offends people so much, I'll be glad to display my poster of this cover proudly until the day it is just another internet crisis that occurred randomly because some tumblrfarian got butthurt.

I'm sorry but when did I ever say anything about a comic book cover?

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make with Joker's face either. If anything, you are making a point which serves to support that the Joker may have actually raped Barbara. I think you might be confused on which position you want to take in this discussion.

He didn't rape Barbara Gordon. The writer specified it did not happen. Assaulted? Sure. But raped? No. He did not. It has been confirmed several times on several different occasions. He did not rape her.

I am making a point which serves to support that people are retarded. That is it. You may want to go read what I said again. The poster was removed for this exact reason, people think she was sexually assaulted / raped and people are taking it to far.

@sinntek1: yeah, yeah, I know about the killing joke and know how great it is. But this is not a Batman book, it's a Batgirl book, which is aimed at a younger audience

@outside_85: @xwraith: Honestly, I never saw it as sexual assault. I saw it as an act of humiliation and psychological torture. Law typically defines sexual assault as none-consensual touching of the body. You never see The Joker make physical contact with Barbara's person. Only her clothing.

@deathpoolthet1000: @sinntek1: This isn't a discussion about a variant cover. This is a discussion about whether or not what the Joker did was technically sexual assault.

@longbowhunter: Well... you try and undress someone without touching them.

@longbowhunter: And again Moore said that didnt happened.

Once again, you seem to be confused about which position you want to take up. You may not be aware of this, but saying that Joker is capable of things that you consider far more disturbing and heinous actions than rape, but then say that the Joker would not rape Baraba is sending a bit of a confused and jumbled message.

Once again, Moore said many things during the time of the original publication, one of which was implying that she was raped. The denial of rape only came after the negative response to the story.

If you are trying to make a point that people are retarded, you are failing to make a strong case or provide supporting evidence, other than perhaps anecdotal. There are people with below-average intelligence but what does that have to do with this thread, The Killing Joke, or the recent cover controversy? I am fairly certain that those that would classify as having unacceptably low intellect are not those that are concerning themselves with any of those three subjects.

I think you might be bringing a previous issue you have experienced into this thread. In other words friend, you are projecting. I have not shown an interest or an opinion on any of the things you have been referencing while foaming at the mouth. Would you care to have a discussion with anything that I am saying or would you prefer to tag those that have previously angered you?

You can easily take it that way. I know Moore writes detailed scripts but he should really have thought that through...

Batgirl is for a younger audience? lol. Ok. I'm leaving that one alone.

Understandably so but this thread has come from the cover being removed. Otherwise, I don't see this question being asked.

Furthermore pissing me off that the cover was removed. But I will leave now as I assumed this is where the thread would be going. Cover rage.

That's all well and good but I am not angry. I am fed up with the fact that all someone has to do is point their finger and say something triggered them and the entire world stops just for them. This whole "anti-bullying" agenda has made a society of softies and I'm in general fedup.

I apologize to you and OP however, the cover controversy is BS and I voiced my opinion here as I assumed this is where the thread was going. My apologies.

@parachomp I'm sorry D: If it makes you feel any better I cried. ;_;

Apology accepted. I think you would be surprised to find out how much I do actually agree with you on the subjects you were talking about though. I just wanted to put that out there.

We'll never know because it wasn't explictly stated one way or another if he did in the story. Whatever Alan Moore says now doesn't really matter because the story is out of his hands and has been since it was originally published. I'm of the opinion that stories should stand on their own and anything the writer states happened (but they didn't include) is simply speculation on their part. Unless DC specifically published a sequel or flashback where Barbara states she was or wasn't raped, the issue is and forever will be unknown.

And to those that think Joker is somehow 'above' rape; that is absolute nonsense. Joker is a sociopathic sadist. He gets pleasure from other people's pain. He likes to see things be destroyed whether that be social order, hero warship, or a person's sense of well-being. He would absolutely relish the fact that he committed an act that would irreversably damage a person's (or peoples') lives.

I think many people seem to reject this idea is because the Joker is generally seen as a 'cool' villian. In today's, frankly, messed up society it is possible for a character to be cool while being a torturing, mass-murdering sadist. However, add sex into the mix and that somehow crosses the line. Yes, rape is a terrible crime, but so is murder and torture. I think it all goes back to our society's uneasy relationship with sex. Violence is acceptable and even cool while sex is still taboo.

@sinntek1: It better make up for it OR ELSE. My grammar was awful when i originally posted that comment (I fixed it now).

There are a few reasons she wasn't sexuallt assaulted. One, Alan Moore said so. That alone is enough. But also, Joker didn't mention sexually assaulting her. Anyone who read the book knows that Joker stripped her naked and took pictures in an attempt to drive Jim crazy. If he raped her, there's no reason he wouldn't mention that too. Also, joker has never been known for sexual crimes, and Jim was stripped naked too and he was not raped or sexually assaulted. It seems to be something joker does to just make the victim feel worse and more powerless. Barbara was definitely not sexuallt assaulted.

Let's hope not. That's one giggle box that, that clown doesn't doesn't need to punch

I agree 100%.

It's also worth mentioning that concluding that the rape took place is not out of line with the writer's history; most of Moore's works contain portrayals of rape. In fact, Alan Moore has expressed his opinion that the sexual/non-sexual violence double standard is absurd. Not that he sees sex purely as a violent act; Watchmen in particular showed many different instances of sex under many different circumstances, because he reasonably believes that comics should reflect that essential aspect of the human condition, as should any medium. That "uneasy relationship" and censorship form a self-perpetuating circle that stunts the growth of the medium.

I'm off on a bot of a tangent here, but speaking of stunting, one of the major things that causes stagnation is the status quo enforced by the big two. DC and Marvel have become synonymous with editorial interference and the complacency that results from the companies audaciously claiming ownership of concepts themselves (intellectual property). Both companies should die, or at least relinquish all their characters to the public domain. It's pretty obvious that they're not equal to the task of being the sole producer of stories concerning their respective "properties." Nobody truly is.

I don't know...

I don't think the Joker is above rape. But his asexuality leads me to think that's not his M.O.

The intent wasn't sexual.

If you are talking about Joker's actual actions and his thought process while doing it, that doesn't really matter at all. Many actual rapes have very little to do with sex. Take prison for example, cases are studied where rape is revealed to have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power. I personally don't think Joker is a sexual creature at all, but I do think he is very much about doing the most damage possible, given the opportunity.

@makhai: Actually most if not all prison rapes have to do with sex. I hardly think that if sex was not a part of there thought process that they would actually rape someone, a different act such as beating or killing would be a more viable option if sex had nothing to do with it.

Power definitely plays a part but to say it has "nothing" to do with sex is a bit stupid IMO....

Where are you getting this information? I would genuinely like to see your evidence since you are taking such a confident position. I assume you have looked into the matter yourself?

I don't think he raped Barbara, but I wouldn't put it past him. I don't think it was his intent here though. Joker leaves enough of a gap for more heinous acts in the future, to constantly grind down on someone's psychology. Considering Moore said the rape didn't happen and Barbara or no one else has mentioned such an act in any other issue I'm inclined to think it didn't happen.

Sexual assault? Well he stripped a woman against her will, so yes he did sexual assault her.

I don't think any crime is above or beneath Joker. He'll do whatever he thinks he has to in order to illicit the desired effect from those he's looking to morally and emotionally destroy.

I actually have and the fact of the matter is that it does have to do with sex, even if certain cases have more to do with power it also has a to do with sex.

Yes I have looked into the matter, most of the time sex is in the mix of reasons, power plays a bigger part most of the time(especially in a group rape) but sex still has a part in rape.

Where are you getting the information that sex has "nothing" to do with rape? Anyway even if the motivation is purely power, technically sex is still a part of rape, because rape by definition requires sex.

Oh you have? Wonderful, let's compare notes.

I have read a few articles on it before posting here and it seems as though your opinion isn't very strongly supported. While all the articles that I am about to list do admit to sexual gratification being a factor in some prison rapes, it is not a factor in most. For most, it most certainly is power, usually where race is concerned (blacks rape whites) and gratification through witnessing the psychological damage done to the victim.

• Confronting America's Most Ignored Crime Problem: The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. jaapl September 1, 2003 vol. 31 no. 3 354-360
• Male Prison Rape: A Search for Causation and Prevention, The Howard Journal Vol 38 No 3. Aug 99ISSN 0265–5527, pp. 267–282
• Prison Rape In Context, by Ian O'Donnell, Br J Criminol (2004) 44 (2): 241-255.doi: 10.1093/bjc/44.2.241

So while I do appreciate the charged and inflammatory language you initially used, I would need to see some of your supporting evidence before I could agree with your claim that people that think differently than you are stupid.

@makhai: Rape by definition requires "sex"

Please explain to me how sex has "nothing" to with rape.....

You ask for supporting evidence?

rape1

• Word Origin

1.

@thenaughtytitan: The act was never in question. I think you might have a critical misunderstanding here. You challenged me where I said that prison rape generally was not about sex but about power. This might be because of my lazy language but really, to assume that I don't know the definition of rape, given my followup post is quite silly on your part.

This would have required very little effort on your part to deduce my meaning, yet you failed in this.

He sexually assaulted her but did not rape her. I wouldn't put it past him though to do it.

@makhai: "Take prison for example, cases are studied where rape is revealed to have nothing to do with sex and everything to do with power."

This is the quote I was referring to ;)

@makhai: I never said one motivation out weighed the other, all I have said the entire time is that sex plays a part.

It is you who misunderstands.