when i first saw the mark chamberlein image above (and others), i thought it wasnt v. erotic (the winner for that would b the two joel schumacher movies from the mid 90s--which didnt even attempt to be closeted ie ) and i thot they were rather cliched (i have seen porn images from batman up to the early 50s, and wartham talked about them in the early 50s saying:

Sometimes they are shown on a couch, Bruce reclining and Dick sitting next to him, jacket off, collar open, and his hand on his friend's arm. Like girls in other stories, Robin is sometimes held captive by the villains ... Robin is a handsome aphetic boy, usually showing his uniform with bare legs. He is buoyant with energy and devoted to nothing on earth or interplanetary space as much as to Bruce Wayne. He often stands with legs spread, the genital region discreetly evident. Other times Batman ends up in bed injured, and young Robin is by his side. At home they lead an idyllic life. They are Bruce Wayne and "Dick" Grayson. Bruce is described as a "socialite" and the official relationship is that Dick is Bruce's ward. They live in sumptuous quarters, with beautiful flowers in large vases, and they own a butler, Alfred. Batman is sometimes shown in a dressing gown.

and it might be parody, but its too serious, and too well done--its not nearly as funny as the indie boys in rented costumes found in richardson photos (speaking of richardson--why did he make it first?) (the interesting thing is that according to boing boing they were inspired by richardson) (the notice of media is interesting)

(the richardson)

then this is a copy of a copy, and it may be parodic, but it is also erotic, and its use of drawing means that the drawings are much closer to dc material, but then the orginal slash drawings beginning at the history of batman basically/

if it was about being famous then it would be richardson--and dc is just a cease adn desist, but tis weird that these silly images clichesds, sort of dull would get the first.

(they were on artnet for a while, but artnet is basically just a gallery directory, sponsred by directors who view it as a decent resource, they are caught b/w indie cred and time warners coffers