“Idealized masculinity” = “gay”?
Scarily enough, we’ve had this exact discussion in this forum before.
As for BrainGlutton’s article, I’ll just say this: a thousand monkeys banging on typewriters might not be able to produce the works of Shakespear, but they will churn out at least a half-dozen articles speculating on the sexuality of various people and characters.
As for Batman and Robin, they’re a victim of changing times. Notice how, when the movie Batman and Robin came out a few years ago, Dick Grayson was already in his late teens when he first met Bruce Wayne. There is no way in Hell that any movie made in the last 20 years would have had a young boy moving into Wayne Manor.
That line had me giggling like a schoolgirl as well. How gay is that?
Slight hijack, but I’ve heard that when he was originally created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, part of the idea sprang from their experience as Jews; after all, the same restaurant that would seat you if you were clad in a business suit and slicked your hair back and gave some WASP-y name would turn you away if you introduced yourself as an immigrant named, well, “Jerome Siegel”, or some such, especially if you were wearing a prayer shawl and a yarmulke.
In fact, they’d put so much focus on your outfit and name and curly hair that they really only saw “JEW” the first time around – and you could go back the next day and get seated, having disguised yourself with little more than a pair of glasses, maybe a fedora; you look like an average white male with dark hair. Blacks couldn’t usually pass, but Jews could.
See also: Gays.
I know. Not just because of the sex thing, but because a superhero’s sidekick gets put in physical danger regularly. Once upon a time, that was a not highly unusual part of growing up, for a male. But we don’t have drummer boys in the army any more, or 12-year-old midshipmen in the navy (cf. Master and Commander.)
Why and how did we get so squeamish about putting young boys in harm’s way?
What’s happened to us? 
We got civilised?
On the evidence . . . nah. [cough]Abu Ghraib[cough] It’s gotta be something else.
I was explicitly replying to the “once upon a time it was a normal part of growing up to be exposed to danger (if you were a male)” (not true, incidentally, anymore than it was a normal part of growing up to be dressed in odd and brightly coloured uniforms by older men). I think that a lack of this amongst the child populations of some nations (not others, unfortunately) would be a sign of improving civilisation, therefore making it inappropriate for a superhero to have a child sidekick.
Still, I agree that given the absurdity of the whole idea of superheroes, and the levels of wish-fulfilment already present, it’s not stretching credulity to ridiculous levels to have some of those running around with their underwear on the outside be children. The whole Batman-Robin thing, though, is just… weird. How many Robins has Batman had shot from under him now?
As for the OP- Superman probably ain’t gay, although I’m guessing both he and Lois have some serious sexual hang-ups (for a start, she’s techincally a necrophiliac, and he’s deep into bestiality…this is, of course, assuming they’ve done the dirty. Someone oblige me with a “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex” link?)
The point is not that Superman is gay, the point is that this is a person who lives a double life, carefully guarding each side of their life from the other. This sort of thing has been used as an example of the gay experience for years now. Superman, Batman,Buffy, X-men, etc,etc. As mentioned by a prior poster these parrallels have been drawn to show the jews experience in the early part of this century. It’s quite simply an extension of the double life that many gay people have to live. With the trans community becoming more visible I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of these things being said to be representative of their experience also.
All that aside, the new superman is hot. I wouldn’t mind him being gay at all. 
I just got a disturbing NSFW visual from that.
[Mr. Burns]Ex-cellent.[/Mr. Burns]
Ok, there’s the tights and the big red “S” and the cape. But the colors? No self-respecting gay superhero would wear only primary colors.
Super ? Fabulous.
Sorry.
Um, crap. Not equal sign not working.
Most superheros wear primary colors (if you count green as a primary color). Secondary colors? Aquaman wears orange . . . a generally derided fashion choice. I can’t think of any who wear pastels.
Batman wears dark colours. Do they count as non-primaries?
Joker wears purple. Purple is a pastel, right?
Lavender (or, in this case, Plum) is a pastel. Purple is far too robust a shade to count as a pastel.
Superman is gay, but Clark Kent is definitely straight.
Of course, it should surprise no one that various groups are tangling over whether Superman is one of their own — while no one claims, say, Superman’s arch nemesis, Lex Luthor.
Except, of course, Ms. Millicent Mehabitel Mudd.