A significant group of fans dislike it for that reason — because it’s undermining their purist conception of the ‘dark’, serious Batman who doesn’t have any silly stuff in his history.

So that’s another illustration of the dynamic whereby if you introduce something in one title, it has repercussions for the whole narrative universe — unless that title is coded as outside official continuity (dream, imaginary story, different imprint, different alternate earth — something explored in DW — elseworlds etc).

However, the upcoming DC relaunch could rewrite all of that in a flash.

So, Neil Gaiman’s Sandman, with its LGBT cast, and Grant Morrison’s Doom Patrol, featuring transvestite real estate Danny-the-Street, could feature Batman, but mostly don’t.

My impression is that while officially, it all takes place in the same universe, the characters in Max tend to be either already-coded as ‘mature’ (Punisher), new and therefore effectively more separate from both Marvel history and mainstream continuity (Alias, relatively marginal and obscure (Luke Cage) or popular but peripheral, with the odd cameo (Daredevil, Marvel Girl).

So, Spider-Man only appears very briefly in Alias (books 1-3, my experience of the title) and doesn’t do anything outside his normal mainstream behaviour, whereas Luke Cage, a less central figure in Marvel’s branding and lacking any kind of family blockbuster audience, is able to have one-night stands and curse, in the same title.

As for the thought experiment — when Martha Jones featured in series two, the BBC were careful to screen edited, pre-watershed versions of TW. The fact that TW is a Who spin-off clearly remains significant in terms of what the BBC will approve. I guess what I’m suggesting here is that John Barrowman’s star persona adds another level of complexity, and that there’s more going on than just the Who issue.

Is it the fact that Harkness is firmly within Who canon for BBC audiences in particular — and as such, is still part of a family-oriented show — that makes the difference?

I wouldn’t deny that Barrowman’s mainstream star persona is a factor, but I don’t know if we would see any regular, recurring character from DW naked in an in-continuity spin-off.

I think the BBC cut is explicit enough to make the point that Jack sleeps with men, and to parallel the straight and gay scenes: there has already been ample heavy-handed dialogue about Jack’s supposed ‘gayness’, from Rex, and some innuendo about how he ‘impaled’ the barman.

That is, there isn’t a lot of difference between the edits in terms of what they convey about character, and for what it’s worth, both edits seem to be encouraging us to compare the two sexual encounters and see them as roughly equivalent, rather than contrasting: both are lustful, of-the-moment pairings, rather than loving long-term intimacy, and the kissing/foreplay and coy aftermath scenes are similar enough even in the edited version to make that point.

That is, to its credit, even the BBC version seems to be encouraging a blurring of any reactionary oppositions between straight and gay sexual encounters, and seeing both shags as, basically, consenting adult bodies having fun, prompted to an extent by crisis and uncertainty.

In the BBC edit, we cut from Rex and Vera directly to a shot of Brad’s bum, which I think we are not meant to recognise immediately as male — as the camera pulls back and circles slightly to reveal the two men embracing.

So the invitation to see straight and gay sex as basically equivalent, rather than romantic/sordid, acceptable/unpalatable, as would be the case in many mainstream representations — I hesitate to suggest that it deconstructs a binary, but maybe it’s along those lines — is still there, I think.

I also felt that the BBC edit still introduced enough of a queer element to question and challenge the other relationship dynamics, such as Gwen and Esther, Gwen and Jack, Rex and Jack.

To pick up on a point I suggested above, it would be interesting to consider how Jack’s omnisexuality is being represented here, and in his other appearances on TW and DW. Rex continually refers to him as gay, and as having a gay effect on other guys (in fact, the programme backs him up, as it’s a running gag that he seems to bring out male characters’ flirtatious sides).

It would be churlish to complain that Jack isn’t straight enough — we have enough straight heroes and it’s an important move that this is a charismatic, charming guy in a mainstream TV show who sleeps with men. However, to what extent is ‘omnisexual’ just being used as synonymous with ‘homosexual’, or ‘not-straight’, here?