My biggest problem with this is that it's all titillation after the fact. We don't see or hear anything from the Huntress or Lady Blackhawk. They're not presented as characters so much as props supporting Hal Jordan's studliness.

On the other hand, if Black Canary is the gossip she's implied to be, it might've been interesting to hear her describe what happened between the three of them, given her reference to Wonder Woman's "rumpus mcgoo" elsewhere this week. What other cute names does she have for private parts?

"Rumpus McGoo?" Really? That's ... well ... that's ... I am speechless.

"So for him to be impressed took some doing"?

This from a guy supposedly known for naturalistic dialog?

Man, it's taken nearly 20 years, but the rest of you have finally figured out who James Robinson really is.

Enjoy.

I don't know if I'd agree that one incredibly ill-advised page of dialogue tells us who James Robinson is. It's certainly nothing I'd want in my career highlights if I were him, but this is also the man who gave us Leave It to Chance and the Golden Age, both of which I consider to be highlights of their era, and Starman, which is highly lauded by many.

Jason: I think deeming this a "mature readers only" scene is overreacting a tad. Compared to, say, any of the dozens that referred to threesomes in Three's Company (which we watched weekly when I was a kid), this scene is fairly tame, implying much but stating little. I also don't think this is out of character for a test pilot or a combat pilot, though I agree it's out of bounds when it comes to the characterization of the Huntress.

Jeff: This is the first I'm hearing Robinson referred to as writing naturalistic dialogue. To me, he's the guy who makes everyone an esoteric pop culture expert.

As for my own opinion, I haven't seen the scene in context, but to me it represents the annoying trend (trend? Maybe it should be called tradition by now) to decompress comic book stories with scenes that don't (a) don't further the plot, (b) don't further subplots, and (c) don't establish important characterization aspects.

I will confess it's been years since I've seen Three's Company, but I don't remember anything quite this explicit. Moreover, there are different expectations for a 70s jiggle sitcom vs. a superhero comic in terms of sexual wordplay.

And while a threesome wouldn't be out of character for a hot-shot pilot, Hal Jordan has always been portrayed as a straight arrow.

Ah, but there's nothing explicit here. Look at the actual text. It says that Hal, Zinda, and Helena shared a bottle of brandy (though I'm sure any kid would have to look that up to know what it is) and that Rex, who was a ladies' man (and again, I'm sure any kid would have to look that one up too), was impressed. Did that mean they boinked each others' brains out? Quite probably, but it doesn't *have* to be interpreted that way. Any and all sexual connotations are completely from your dirty little mind (and mine, and most adults').

As for Three's Company, I'll sum it up with a quote grabbed from IMDB: "This is a respectable building. NO ROMAN ORGIES!"

As for Hal, apparently some people have thought Hal is an incredible manwhore.

As mentioned in the linked-to thread, I don't think Hal was ever a manwhore, unless he's been written as one in the post-Johns resurrection era, which I know virtually nothing about. I'm also not sure it makes sense to hold the Justice League and Three's Company to the same standards. However, I totally agree with you, Jerry, that the greatest sin of this panel is that it's a pointless waste of time and space, having nothing to do with anything relevant to the characters or the story (and yeah, I've read the issue).

Anyway, I basically agree with everything Jason wrote. I don't think it's sexism -- let's call it "Unwittingly Active Obliviousness." I think it works like this (and I am speaking from personal experience): A geekfella grows up with other geekfellas, socially awkward to various degrees, and spends a lot of time reading or watching stories written by guys who also grew up as geekfellas to some degree. They are largely unaware of just how insular their view of social reality is, particularly when it comes to the female of the species.

They have little in-depth, soul-to-soul experience with women. Although they may have sisters or close female friends, if they were able to step outside themselves and closely and objectively analyze their thoughts and feelings, most would see that they consider and treat these women in many respects as fellow geekfellas. The point is that it just doesn't occur to them to consider, as a matter of course, a non-geekfella worldview, particularly a female one. (I think this same phenomenon happens with regard to race as well.) (Also, this is true of most people in general.)

I ran into this when I first started seriously dating in college. I could get dates. I could get girlfriends. I just couldn't keep a girlfriend -- my average for days-from-first-date-to-relationship-to-break-up was pretty terrible, and I couldn't figure out why. Over time, some of my exes would chat with me later, and I'd learn how things looked from their point of view (almost none of whom were into geek culture themselves, I should mention), and it was extremely eye-opening. I had no idea how many little things I did or said through the normal course of the day that made me seem crass, ignorant, or immature from a female point of view (yeah, yeah, the more things change, ha ha, I know), and here I thought I was Mister Sensitive, Mister Open-Minded. I eventually grew up enough to surmount most, but not all, of this problem and married a wonderful woman and life is great.

But my point is that there are a million low-level ways to not be necessarily sexist or misogynistic, but to just creep women out or make them uncomfortable or feel like, "Okay, this is a culture of oblivious geekfellas that I don't want to get too close to. There is too much guy cluelessness going on here." I believe that this is one of those instances. Not because there's anything wrong with threesomes, but because of the cheap way it's being dropped to say, "Yeaaaaah, my fellow geek peeps, what up! How hot is that, huh?" [insert creepy smile here]

In addition, as mentioned above, I think it's a waste of time and space, poor storycraft, out of character for everyone involved, and cheap titillation that doesn't even rise (no pun intended) to the level of Skinemax. Hey, if you wanna tell stories about superheroes having threesomes, go for it -- man up like Willingham did and do some "Justice League Sex Specials" if you want to. I have no problem with that (although your licensing department probably will). But tossing this in because one is either still an Unwittingly Actively Oblivious geekfella, or just to be cheaply titillating and more like Bendis (whose never-ending campaign to fan service the geekfellas is both embarrassing and creepy) is poor. In my opinion. And yet another reason why mainstream Marvel and DC superhero comics will never sell to non-geekfellas again.

BTW, I do want to mention specifically with regards to kids, that kids today are exposed to a LOT MORE sexuality than those of us who were tykes in the 70's or early 80's, and I'm speaking as a parent here. They may not know what's going on, but their radar is about a thousand times sharper when it comes to detecting that something is, as my daughter would put it, "a sex thing." I'm a Lefty and very much not socially conservative at all, but this kind of thing irritates me to no end because it's one of the many reasons why I can't share current mainstream Marvel or DC superhero comics with my daughter or nephews. In this case, I don't want their "sex thing" radar getting blipped (and the awkward questions that result) by something in a fershlugner *JUSTICE LEAGUE* comic book, for crying out loud! (In this instance, I think it would go over my daughter's head; I know it wouldn't go over my oldest nephew's, who would absolutely look up "grappa" and "lothario" and piece it together.) As always, YMMV.