This person is sorta over reacting to the initial opening to the first issue of Catwoman. Consider that we've all read plenty of comic books which open up with some faceless superhero donning their iconic costume. For example: we start with a shot of well built male putting on a spiky glove and then throwing on a cape over his grey Kevlar suit. We don’t get to see this character’s face until it is finally revealed in a dramatic full page splash of the character in question. Surprise, it’s Batman! The main character of the comic you reading, whom you surely recognized as individual aspects of his iconic were showcased. Unfortunately it just so happens that the iconic aspects of Catwoman's costume are skin hugging latex and cat claws/ears. So if you want to hate on the latex costume, that's fair enough. But I don't buy the overemphasis on the fact that her face is not shown.
Secondly the writer says that there is no reason Batman and Catwoman shouldn’t have consensual sex, but she objects to the unnecessarily graphic depiction. But when you are looking to over sensationalize a story, it’s very easy to see exactly what you want to see. Which in this case is apparently “a full-page splash of Batman actually penetrating Catwoman”. But anyone who actually read the comic and did so with an objective eye can see that’s not the case. If she thinks that a couple can comfortably move from making out to full insertion and penetration in a single instant, then clearly there is something abnormal going on with her genitals and/or sex life. So if that last page wasn't really a page of gratuitous hentai, then what was it exactly? I guess it was just a full-page splash of Catwoman straddling Batman, which implies that she seduces him and they later have the sex. Well I certainly don’t see what’s wrong with that and surely it’s something we’ve seen Catwoman attempt countless times over the years.
I have nothing to say about the whole Starfire matter, cause in this case the writer is completely accurate in her assessment.
And as for the depiction of a male and female lantern, well that on the other is not entirely accurate. Carol Ferris was chosen as a member of the Star Sapphires, so don't get the wrong idea about the Green Lanterns themselves. And if you want an actually accurate depiction of a pair of heroic male and female Green Lantern members, observe Kyle Rayner and Soranik Natu: http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/3777/raynerxnatu.jpg
She’s a assertive doctor and he’s a sensitive artist~
While the Green Lanterns are a corps representing will and harnessing its force, the Star Sapphires represent love and harness it for their power. Due to will being in the center of the emotional spectrum, (which is why they are represented by green) its users have a much more stable disposition and personality. Love on the other hand is considered to be one extreme edge of the emotional spectrum (which is why they are represented by violet) and thus results in a more volatile disposition in its corpsmen. In that way the Star Sapphires are more comparable to the corps which represents the other extreme side of the emotional spectrum, the Red Lantern corps who harness the power of rage.http://images.wikia.com/marvel_dc/images/e/ef/Red_Lantern_Corps_004.jpg
Hmm… hideous monsters harnessing the power the powers of hatred and beautiful women harnessing the powers of love. That almost sounds like a solid justification for this design? Well in the end, not really. Cause Carol Ferris has been wearing that skimpy costume while she plagues Hal Jordan with her hysterical sex and violence for at least 40 years before the Green Lantern mythos was revamped with all this talk of an emotional spectrum. So being offended by Star Sapphire’s entire existence is not all that unreasonable.