I have an analogy: comic books and Slurpees used to be almost inseparable in my mind, with the character cups 7-11 used to sell (and which I coveted greatly, but I preferred spending all my money on only comics.) A comic book reader in the 1970s/1980s would buy comics and a Slurpee. A "tie-in" promotion, and mainly for teens with a little more money than little kids.

It occurs to me that, for a kid now, buying a comic is like buying a Slurpee with a penis-shaped drinking straw. The sexualizing of something for kids. 

The problem with adultifying superheroes, as I've said forever now, is that any time you start talking about adult motives and adult endeavors in relation to superheroes, you have the disturbing fact that they are adults in costumes. Which is seriously creepy. No longer are they extensions of childhood imagination and empowerment. They are adults having sex in costumes. EYES WIDE SHUT. The Invisible Man's a**hole hurts. 

The reason why superheroes as adults are so disturbing: they are one step removed from the Gimp in PULP FICTION. And anyone who craves knowing what superheroes do behind closed doors is inviting the Gimp into their sophomoric, f*cked up little brains. And once there, it never goes away, this preoccupation. 

I guess I'm not much of a superhero fan, anymore, primarily because everyone involved with superheroes sees them as Adam West in full Batman costume getting fluffed by a groupie behind a set facade. In their small minds, this is fascinating. In a way, it's as frustrating as 1950s Superman comics always having Superman returning from a "mission in space" in order to deal with yet another Lois Lane scheme to reveal his secret identity. NOBODY wanted to read those idiot Lois Lane stories, but EVERYONE wanted to read about the mission in space. I can imagine some older teen comic book reader wishing to god every Superman story wasn't so repetitious and pedantic, until finally realizing those stories would never change. SOMEBODY loved those vapid Lois Lane stories, and that was that.

Well, it's the same today, except SOMEBODY loves Catwoman/Batman nipple tweak sex scenes and prodigious gore and juvenile "tough" or "sexy" dialogue and puerile PC lip service to gay people, and black people, and Hispanic people, and Asian people. And who are the first characters to die, when characters have to die? The gay character, the black and Hispanic and Asian. We're T-minus two years from the day when Alan Scott meets a grim, pointless, violent death in some DC Event twaddle.

I don't really want to know the kind of people who read superhero comics. I think something's wrong with them. I think, if I saw them at home, in their secret place, they'd be decked out in full-body leather and leather zip mask. And their comic book collection would be sealed away in a cool, dry place, neat and orderly. Who are they? I don't care to know.

The sexualization in comics is pretty crappy. I'm a teacher, was instructing a curriculum-based lesson on heroes (super and mythological), was telling the kids about how much I loved reading comics on my iPad, and had to carefully avoid opening an issue of Catwoman.

On one hand, I understand that kids are going to see as-bad or much-worse, possibly even on cable TV, but as someone who's trying to encourage them to read (while also fretting over lessons of morality and being a good person), it is really sad that I have to basically sit down and filter through mainstream comics to make sure that they are appropriate.

I'm not angry about it... just sad.

As for the gay hero thing... picking any one established hero and saying 'yep, he's gay' is a bit silly. I would almost have preferred they played the numbers -- if 10% of the population is gay, then 10% of the heroes should be gay. Go through, take a close look at all the established heroes, and see which ones haven't had a detailed personal backstory elaborated upon. If the hero has a wife/kids, it's not the best choice imo. But, when we're talking about kids again, I've read that 1 in 3 gay teens attempt suicide in the US -- supporting them in all venues, through all media, and teaching them with any and all means possible that there is, undeniably, nothing wrong with them ... well, that seems more important to me than following the canon of a comic book character.

It just seems that picking one, and this one in particular, reeks of 'event' and comes off as half-assed. 

How many cheesy comics have we read where every ethnic super hero had his or her speech all jazzed up to very, very strongly emphasize - in a somewhat offensive way - his or her ethnicity?

If a character is 'brought out' as gay, and this actually changes how he behaves, speaks, etc., then they are screwing up. If they are going to do this, the best thing they can do is treat Alan as a regular guy, who does and says regular things, without the cliched visual or verbal euphemisms for gay. 

This is certainly a valid point. But, to the point of Alan, this one is not established. Aside from the name, and the intent that he will become Green Lantern, he isn't the same character. Even if he was straight, he isn't the same character. That went out the door with the modern setting of Earth 2. This guy hasn't had, and can't have, any of the experiences of Alan Scott.

(This has been especially evident in the Batman titles, as Bruce left for a year, was replaced as Batman by Dick, had Jason Todd as a Robin, who died and was resurrected, not to mention Tim Drake and now Bruce's son...)

As for Batman we've no idea how much of the pre52 continuity is still in play. We do know that Dick, Jason, Tim and Damien have all used the code name Robin but not that Batman died or that Dick took his place. Once they mention a particular event then we will know it happened. The upcoming 0 issues might shed some light on Batman's New52 history. 

At this point, the characters are more than who they tell us they are every month - they are, for all intents and purposes, figures of greater legend. they have a history, one which people know.

Like I said - I actually don't mind if a NUMBER of heroes 'come out.' I think that it would send a great message to kids, if done right. Picking one guy reeks of 'event,' and choosing one who is known for having fathered other super heroes sends a mixed message. "Well, it's not that guy anymore," you might argue. If that's the case, then it's doubly meaningless, because he's not an established super hero at that point.