The 'True End' Of 'Catwoman' #1 By Phil Noto [Art]

I think the American standard for "graphic "on-camera" sex" must be pretty broad. That sentence certainly gave me a chuckle.

Agreed!

I too own the issue in question....and while I admit it did take me aback for a second (not because of the sex, mind you, but rather how unexpected and sudden the situation came to that conclusion in the first issue) I hardly see how those few panels qualified as "graphic on-camera sex."
For starters, the usage of the term "on-camera" seems quite inappropriate as the issue in question took place within the pages of a comic book and not behind the lens of a camera as implied by the term.
Second, the term "graphic" hardly qualifies as the proper discriptive word for this situation as well....particularly since nothing "graphic" was actually shown (I don't get how a couple of panels depicting some passionate kissing scenes and some heavy petting qualify as "graphic." I sware, the overreaction to this is starting to equate to the whole Wonder Woman costume redesign argument...where the hissy fitty few feel the need to give her some pants because the iconic spandex boyshorts arn't PC enough for the 21st century. Come on people, when did it become a crime to show some leg or to demonstrate some genuine human passion?)
The way I see it, if we arn't seeing the cat goods or the batbits then I don't see how it qualifies as "graphic on-camera sex."

I was thinking the same thing.