Dan A.'s thought about a test struck me, because it's kind of what I was
talking about earlier. Dan suggested that a teacher might give comics to
his/her students to test their enjoyment of different eras of comics.

While I understand what Dan was getting at, I had to wonder what
teachers would have made of that suggestion in the 50s, 60s or even the
70s — during that "more innocent" era. Anyone old enough to remember
would probably agree that teachers of that era were resolutely in the
"comic book rounding up" business, not the comic book handing out one.
Comics of that era were contraband in schools. They were "junk" at best,
and "dangerous" at worst — and they certainly weren't for the classroom.
At least, not to hear most teachers tell it.

Today, someone mentions handing out some of those very same comics
in school, and you get responses from very reasonable adults — good,
solid citizens — who say they've happily done so, and no one blinks. Not
even in a forum populated by more than a few people who wish we could
return to that more innocent era. The only problem people seem to have
is that they can't hand out comics created "these days" because they're all
inappropriate. But when were they not?

Am I totally wrong about this? Because either our parents and teachers
were totally wrong, or comics have always had an element of the
inappropriate. Famously so! Yes, what's inappropriate now isn't what it
was then — and that's true of everything. Some of us act as if we're talking
about Mr. Rogers or Pat The Bunny here, but we're not. In the light of
nostalgia, we look back and say "oh, for the days when you could hand
out comics in schools." But that day never existed.

You could certainly make the case that back in the day, you could hand a
kid a Superman comic without reading it first because you knew it would
be free of sex, blood, and bad language. But that hasn't been true for
decades — and there has virtually never been a time when you could hand
out comic books in schools without being accused of endorsing
inappropriate material.

Imagine handing out Action Comics #593 today — an issue written and
drawn 25 years ago by an artist you know to be a respectful, all-ages
creator — one of the great superhero guys of all time. An issue you can
honestly argue features material that, if objectionable at all, is so only in
the mind of the beholder. You'd be fired. Guaranteed.

Want to hand out the Mad Magazine that parodies Star Wars in 1978?
Better read it first, because the mention of C3PO as a "fag robot" is going
to cause a stir.

How about Thor in the 60s? Hand a few of those issues to kids in the
Bible Belt and see how their parents feel about a superhero named after
(and embracing the mythology of) a pagan god.

I mentioned Phoenix on that X-Men cover as something that might be
objectionable... how about Wonder Woman in bondage on not just some,
but MOST covers back in the day? Would any teacher here hand out horror
comics of the 50s without reading them first?

The point is often made that we have to put things in historical context. In
historical context, all of this material was considered to be inappropriate.
That element has always been there, and it's there today. I am, most
certainly, cherry picking examples to make a point. So is anyone else who
is making the point that comics today are immoral and disrespectful.
Some are. So were some of the ones you grew up with.

 The only problem people seem to have is that they can't hand out comics created "these days" because they're all inappropriate. But when were they not?

I see what you're saying...but I think the difference is that teachers in the 50s and 60s wouldn't have said the current stuff is objectionable and the old stuff is appropriate (which is pretty much the argument many have made above in re: the current state). They would have had a problem with both the current AND the old stuff. And not so much as it being inappropriate...but just stupid (ie. akin to handing out candy for lunch).

Sure...but I guess my wording isn't that clear. I'm saying they wouldn't have liked the old stuff any better than the current stuff at the time. So it's a different scenario than the current situations discussed above where the argument is being made that the previous era (60s, 70s, 80s) is more appropriate vs the current era now. .

••

This question is a bit of a cheat. In the Fifties, comics were demonized, and that gave rise to the Comics Code Authority. But it was only SOME comics, a small portion of the whole, that were really a 'problem'. And that 'problem' was, in many respects, one more of perception than practice. Comics were already being ghettoized as "for kids", so any that handled rougher, or more risque material, were seen to be selling this inappropriate material to children.    

The truth was, tho, that the greater percentage of comicbook titles were perfectly fine for kids. As this picture testifies:

Now, that's from the Forties, but when I discovered American comics books in their natural habitat, when I was not too much older than the kid in that picture, the array looked much the same. Superheroes? Sure. But also Westerns, Sci-Fi, Funny Animals, Teen, Joke and all sorts of other stuff (including Harvey Comics, which had pretty much invented their own genre!).

Today the balance seems very much to have tipped. Fewer titles, and a smaller percentage of those that are appropriate to the broadest audience.