@abfgmsw
My statement was a follow on to yours. That “honorable people” would seek penance for having committed a violent act, even in self-defense. I in turn, freely admitted I have, in self defense committed violent acts and I do not, have not, nor ever will find any need to seek penance. We both hold different “values”. Which is great. (IMO, the world would be a boring place if everybody had the exact same values.)
Which gets to the prime issue.
If you want to discuss “values” in comics, let us turn to Batman and many other superheroes. Are they not operating in a grey area, because they are assaulting criminals, even if in the end they tie them up to await the police. Often this is not self-defense, as they are specifically injecting themselves into that action. Not being confronted with it.
Should they be? They are sometimes strictly, specifically and with knowledge of forethought, breaking the law by breaking and entering someone else’s home to look for or gather evidence. They are guilty of literally breaking the law and do so willingly. Do the means justify the ends? That is a debatable shade of grey and it has been for over 100 years (certainly dating back to at least Sherlock Holmes).
Neither Sherlock or Batman seek “penance” for these actions. Are they not “honorable” people?
Also, up until the industrial revolution most people never went further a field than 30 miles. Most born, lived & died in the same village, town or city. People were more connected but in a far more limited and potentially less diverse community. So I would disagree that, historically speaking, this more connected to the community and the community knew more about you caused more people to pretend that they fit in. They were, to use a euphemism, in the closet about things that perhaps community morals looked down upon. That could be religious/philosophical views, views of certain other people, especially those of high status, and it includes and is no way limited to sexuality as well. People were in the closet about what they read for example. Books that had been labeled unsound, heretical, obscene and so forth.
One of the positives -and negatives) of “the net” is that more information is available. Not unlike the after the invention of the offset printing press. There was again a massive explosion of information. Some not all communities were thrilled about as it brought information and ideas they were not ok with. Also the nature of information changed. It was once viewed that if something was in a book it “must” be true. As the world learned, this was very much not the case.
There were communities internally at odds with each other over heretical texts being brought into their town, even though they were private property. Even in the 20th century there were still book burnings, some for political distaste other of moral distaste. Look at “Catcher in the rye” being banned in certain public libraries because it had “cussing” in it.
Children discussing things they have seen adults talk about and act upon is hardly something new. Children may need to learn what they believe, but how they figure out what the believe goes far from just their parents, churches and schools. Music, TV, film, their peers and the community at large all go into that equation. A fact some parents are not always thrilled about, but a fact nonetheless. Opposite “values” always were out there, if the child had the determination to find out about them.
Today, any kid can go in and buy a copy of the collected works of the Marquis de Sade. (Their biggest issue may be find a bookstore that has it or find g a bookstore at all. A negative aspect of the net.)
Why can they? Because it is just words on a page. Some of them may not understand that it is commentary on sociopolitics, using elements of “pornography” to make the case. However, that is also lost on many adults. Some can’t or won’t see past the form. The same can be said about comics, some people can or choose to see them only as “kids books” with no intellectual, social or political relevance. Bill Maher pops to mind.
Comics are modern mythology, and like classical mythology (when people got their hands on post offset printing press invention) they were chided as not holding up particular values by many communities because in part they dealt with things like sexuality, non-black and white ethics and moralities. In some, non-marital sex and non-hetosexuality were revered. It was the Victorians that took these pieces of classical literature out of public schools. Why? For the same reason they passed laws on pornographic books. They were afraid of the “moral decay” they would cause. That was, of course, poppycock. And the truth is the Victorians banning pornographic books created an even bigger market for them. And some of the most explicit pornography in the history of English came out of the Victorian era.
Inclusion of sex, sexuality and sexual identity is healthier if it is out in the open, including in comics. It allows for fair and frank discussions between children and their parents, as well as their own peer groups, because it can be talked about openly and honestly. Only when one can have discourse openly, can one come to “values” on one’s own. If not, the effect may instill a particular “value” into a child, but it is tantamount to and using the same techniques as brainwashing.