>>88598279>You see what you want to see and handwave a character's importance to their mythos because it weakens your argument.You've been doing the same by elevating Catwoman's importance as Batman endgame as if he had an endgame.
>"Oh anyone could do this, oh Talia could do this if she wanted to" but you ignore what writers have actually been doing for decades.The things i mentioned were things that have been done with the character. Grant Morrison dedicated half of his run on Talia al Ghul and later Tomasi/Gleason kept building on it. She isn't the same character she was ages ago. She has evolved more than Catwoman did in the last years.
>You call Batman asexual (how many times does he have to be shown having sex?)Because he is. When Batman is in costume he becomes inhuman and immutable. Catwoman isn't his only vilainess that pose a threat to him sexually.
>You talk about marriage fundamentally ruining Catwoman as a charcterBecause it would and that's not just my single uneducated opinion. Every time Batman and Catwoman are close to become an actual couple DC creates a new story-line where they go back to square one.
The reason for this is because her biggest appeal for the last decades other than be Batman's forbidden fruit has been of an anti-hero with self-confidence issues that struggle to accept she is and can do good. That struggle is what sells the reader on her stories. You can certainly have her married to Batman and come up with something else, but DC doesn't want it. They fear it will ruin her appeal.
>Trying to argue that she hasn't been THE love interest for the past decade is mind-bogglingWhat about all the other love interests, hmm?
>Brubaker, Dini, and ValentineOf course any story dealing with Catwoman will focus on her romance with Batman, because she's defined by her relationship with Batman. But Batman, on the other hand, isn't.
Also, interviews doesn't count for shit. If they did Johns runs would be a lot different.
