I say go for it.... but then I've been reading underground comix since I was 14.
I'll admit I was a little disturbed by S. Clay Wilson's graphic depictions of the human condition at first but stuff like Corben's Den, for example, seemed natural to me.
Thinking about it realistically Super heroes, acting the way they do with impervious skin and perfect physiques, would, in the 'real' end up naked more often than not and they most likely would not care.
Also if you did decide to go 'balls-out', even just for one experimental issue, a bunch of butt-hurt fan-boy prudes whining online about sex and violence would hardly hurt sales I imagine.
I don't know why I bother asking. I pretty much just do whatever I want. If everybody was against it I'd probably still just do what I want and let everybody squirm.
There are, of course, numerous approaches to the subject. S. Clay Wilson's approach was very "warts and all" with no effort made to make things look at all beautiful or appealing. Sex was a dirty act when S. Clay Wilson was drawing it. Richard Corben''s Den was the polar opposite. Sex was not clearly depicted but nudity was there throughout and characters were smooth, hairless and clean. Some artists can make nudity and sex a glorious, beautiful thing--others make it look grotesque.
So, in a way, it's not a fair question because you're left to your own imaginations to decide what I could possibly be talking about. But I would think I'd fall more on the Richard Corden extreme than the S. Clay Wilson extreme.
Savage Dragon perpetratorwww.savagedragon.comwww.imagecomics.com