Back in the 80's there was this militant gay group that was trying to prove that every RW legendary figure in history was somehow secretly gay, pegging everyone from Robin Hood to Abraham Lincoln as a closet gay.
I don't deny that there have been some instances, but in fiction, only one gay hero comes to mind and that is "The Desert Peach", a series of comic books created by Donna Barr.Pfirsich Rommel, the hero of the series, was Irwin Rommel's very dishy and very gay brother. He was a colonel, commanding a "gravedigger" unit. Essentially they rolled in and tidied up after the area had been taken. His lover was Rosen Kavalier, a hot-shot Stuka pilot and former member of the Hitler Youth.
The series was not massively sexually charged, although there were incidents. I recall the stories focused more on the Peach doing his best to instill and maintain a degree of civility on the front-line. When the nazi hot-shots rolled by to inspect the unit, he put on an act of being hard-core that his men were only barely able to maintain. The character did have an explosive temper coupled with an overriding conscience which made for some great personal conflicts. Add to the mix one German-Jewish soldier and two American POWs who keep forgetting what side they're on, as well as local bedouin tribes and it's a great formula for tricky situations and comedy with some serious looks at the inhumanity of war (but not so many as to be preachy).
The character's homosexuality was the source of a great many conflicts and misunderstandings. In one episode he was dressed in drag (along with his poor Corporal Udo Schmidt) and sent to England as a spy. After fending off advances from more than one member of British upper-crust and nearly getting discovered, the pair returned to General Irwin Rommel who immediately demanded to know if they had discovered "anything important". Naturally, Pfirsich began relating all of the juiciest gossip from the nobility, including who wore what at the various parties, who was secretly seeing whom. Seems Irwin forgot what his brother considers "important"!
Pfirsich Rommel embodied courage, loyalty, and honor, as well as civility and propriety. "The gentleman is a lady", as creator Donna Barr put it. His sexual orientation was not thrown in the reader's face, it was more of a gentle undercurrent that, IMO, made the story work.
Anybody know of any others?
If you want to discount characters for tokenism, however…
Specifically the "The Last Herald Mage" trilogy, which Vanyel Ashkevron as the central character.
Of course, I could name gay heroes from Lackey's books all day...
Though she isn't the most GIFTED writer, her books are generally worth reading if you like the style... which is hard to explain.
from Robin Hood
Oh come on! How could a guy with a bright green feathered cap and a set of green tights who frolics in the forest singing songs with a bunch of merry men be gay?
Rabbi Tuckman: Faglers?
So to answer your questions, yes, yes I can. The sad part is that the really are pretty far and few between, and the way they're generally handled is also disheartening. But they do exist.
One that surprised me somewhat was this picture of Batman and Dick Grayson from the 1950s; they were sleeping in the same bed, apparently. Obviously, this doesn't necessarily mean they were gay or anything, but still...
Then, in the marvel universe, it talks about two dudes named Hector and Northstar, who are a couple. Then there's Midnighter and Apollo,who were apparently wed in 2002.
Then, of course, there's the Yaoi and Yuri from Manga and Anime.
Wasn't one of the Green Lanterns gay?
Yeah, I read about him on Wikipedia; his name is Obsidian, apparently.
It focuses on superheroes, but here's Perry Moore's talk about the treatment of gays in comics: "WHO CARES ABOUT THE DEATH OF A GAY SUPERHERO ANYWAY?: A HISTORY OF GAYS IN COMIC BOOKS"
Interesting, but out of the comics I have read, he strips some things from context. He also goes further than the actual material does.
Take for instance, the three characters from Watchmen.
As far as I can remember, it never actually stated that Hooded Justice/Captain Metropolis were a couple, or even that they were gay. It alluded to it, but never said it. Not only that, it never said anything about who Hooded Justice was (on the whole "he was a bodybuilder" part). It also didn't say that Hooded Justice was killed, though it was implied.
And the Silhouette's murder is completely stripped of its context and meaning. As it was intended to demonize the very people who perpetrated the act.
Not to mention the fact that practically all the "old timers" from Watchmen were killed, and in incredibly... violent ways usually.
My point is, when he takes things out of context in such a way with things I'm familiar with, it makes it hard for me to take the rest of it all that seriously.
Like I said, I had a rant on this, but I'd rather not get into that here. So believe what ye will, I 'ave no power ta change yer mind that ye don't give me first.
... damn. I've been posting too much in the Edition War RP thread. It's getting too easy to start typing in that accent.
/shrug
Like I said, I had a rant on this, but I'd rather not get into that here. So believe what ye will, I 'ave no power ta change yer mind that ye don't give me first.
... damn. I've been posting too much in the Edition War RP thread. It's getting too easy to start typing in that accent.
Oh, I don't doubt that he is right in general... I just think that he is skewing the playing field a bit.
/shrug
Like I said, I had a rant on this, but I'd rather not get into that here. So believe what ye will, I 'ave no power ta change yer mind that ye don't give me first.
... damn. I've been posting too much in the Edition War RP thread. It's getting too easy to start typing in that accent.
Speaking of the Edition War RP, Escher's character is gay and probably the most bad ass.
... dammit, I was trying not to be snarky. This is the OTT... happy thoughts... happy thoughts...
It's funny how persuasive writing does that.
Yes, but it doesn't work well when I look through and try and find examples that I know and they are all either slightly inaccurate to canon, or completely stripped of meaning.
Its not that persuasive that way.
The only reason I'm saying he is probably right is because I don't find it hard to believe, not because of anything he said.
One that surprised me somewhat was this picture of Batman and Dick Grayson from the 1950s; they were sleeping in the same bed, apparently. Obviously, this doesn't necessarily mean they were gay or anything, but still....
http://superdickery.com/ has a whole 'Batman is not gay'-theme based on pictures like that.
And the Silhouette's murder is completely stripped of its context and meaning. As it was intended to demonize the very people who perpetrated the act.
Agreed. From the little I saw in the movie, I never got the idea that the murder was treated as anything but cruel and unfair. Sure, Rorschach thinks it's her own fault, but he's.... well, Rorschach.
Also, in the Runaways, Karolina Dean is explicitly stated to be gay. (Her arranged 'groom' found out and shape-shifted into a woman.)
Also, in Son of a Witch, by Gregory Maguire (sequel to Wicked), the titular Witch's Son happens to fall in love with a guy.
How many books do you read where the -main character- just -happens- to be gay?
How many books do you read where the -main character- just -happens- to be gay?
Comics? Two series did one a main character happen to be gay and not a big deal was made of it (Colossus of Ultimate X-Men, Karonlina Dean of Runaways)
Books? One, and that's Son of a Witch. In the few other books I've read where the main character was gay it was a big deal, either in the story or in the promotion for it.
What are the liberals doing to this country!?
They're making it livable for everyone.
Has anyone ever seen Zorro the Gay Blade? Not much of a movie over all, but very lighthearted and better than most Zorro movies, IMO.
What are the liberals doing to this country!?
The question good sir is, what are the Liberconservaplicanocrats doing to your country? :D
No, but in all seriousness, I do have one hero in mind.
DUMBLEDORE!!!!
No, but in all seriousness, I do have one hero in mind.
DUMBLEDORE!!!!
... yeah... on one hand, I think it was awesome of J.K. Rowling to give the Word of God on that.
On the other... if it was such a non-issue and not a big deal, why did it only come out after the series finished, and only if you follow interviews and blogs and things? It was never mentioned even in passing, even though she had a great opportunity to do so without it appearing forced at all (when the kids were looking into Dumbledore's past in the 7th book).
I know I'm being too picky, but it just comes across as trying to have your cake and eat it too... she doesn't want to antagonize parent groups more by having an explicitly gay character in her book, but she wants to have a gay character in her book. Solution? Tell people after the fact.
Guess it's the same reason why some people aren't terribly impressed by the creators of Team Fortress 2 claiming that the pyro is a woman.
/shrug
*gives hatter the eye of DOOOOOOM!*
*throws an otter at hatter*
VICTORY!!! :D
(I'm just messing with you, you aren't that bad)
Guess it's the same reason why some people aren't terribly impressed by the creators of Team Fortress 2 claiming that the pyro is a woman.
Wait... srsly?
Wait... srsly?
Are you skeptic that the company claims the Pyro is a woman, or that some people aren't impressed at that act of gender diversity in video game characters?
Guess it's the same reason why some people aren't terribly impressed by the creators of Team Fortress 2 claiming that the pyro is a woman.
/shrug
You know, I always had my suspicions. In fact I always thought it would be hilarious for the Pyro to pull off the gas mask and shake a long full head of blond hair and a pretty woman face saying "What were you expecting?"
Seriously. I was thinking that before I ever heard anything like that.
Of course I doubt the other members would hold their bullets on account of the lady.
You sir, are crazy.
Liberalism is, indeed, a mental disorder.
It's true I'm crazy and I don't think they call it "liberalism".
Aaaaaanyway!
Y'know, Escher, you could write a comic, and illustrate it yourself. You've definitely got the talent. Then when questions like this came up, we could point everyone to your awesome heroes and say, "Here's the perfect example!"
I'm a heterosexual Republican conservative atheist of mixed impoverished background (talk about a minority!!!), and I honestly don't care what someone does in the privacy of their own homes (I gag at hetero public slobberfests, too). I had a friend who was bisexual who wouldn't shut up about it. The rest of us totally didn't care, but we did get sick of her constantly reminding us that she was bi. I figured she'd outgrow the insecurity after a few months, but jeez! A year and a half later and she's still going on about it! We finally got rid of her, but I'll spare you the sordid details. Last I heard she was still in Reno.
Anyway, back OT (Out, liberal! The power of Reagan compels you! The power of Reagan compels you!;) ), it seems that many of the examples are from comic book superheroes, of which I know next to squat. Do they at least portray them in some normal fashion? Because most of the gay fictional characters I've seen are usually depicted with swishy walks, limp little wrists, etc., or are of the "flaming"* variety (think Hollywood Montrose in "Mannequin").
*I hope this isn't a taboo word. It's been a long time since I've heard it used, and I know how language evolves and devolves. If it is offensive, I sincerely apologize.
LOL I have a co-worker who is a liberal Democrat and we have this friendly war going on. When Obama won I locked her out of the office, when I have a pen or something missing from my desk I always accuse her of "spreading the welath her direction", call her a "sneaky demmycrat" and other things. This one was my latest, chanting it over and over while spritzing her with a spray bottle. She gets even though, replacing my computer's opening sound with Obama sound-bites, changing my wallpaper, etc.
I would be careful about this kind of behavior. Not that is wrong or anything like that. But you wouldn't want to lose your job, if a joke were misinterpreted. I have seen a fair number of friendly office battles turn ugly in a heart beat.
What is wrong with the normal, conservative, white, heterosexual hero?
It makes people think that's all that there is and all that there should be.
To everything else you've said:
And I say that because I try to give people the benefit of the doubt that they're not really that ignorant and that they're just kidding.
It makes people think that's all that there is and all that there should be.
Alternate response: There is nothing wrong with a white heterosexual male hero, or even many. It is when that is every hero that some people start to get critical.
Alternate response: There is nothing wrong with a white heterosexual male hero, or even many. It is when that is every hero that some people start to get critical.
True. I find there are plenty of homosexual heroes in literature, but not in comics. Though I don't know if one can complain, since it it just might be something people aren't interested in.
Really?
Yes. :D
Alternate response: There is nothing wrong with a white heterosexual male hero, or even many. It is when that is every hero that some people start to get critical.
Well put.
Yet shouldn't a cultures heroes represent that culture?
Absolutely. And we (by which I mean Americans) happen to live in a rather large country in which many different cultures are represented, seen, and thrive. Yet in many ways our media and commercial entertainment does not represent the the variety of cultures we have here.
So absolutely. America's heroes should represent America's culture. Which is very diverse.
I believe in Connecticut there are some firefighters who happen to be white. They were the only ones who passed promotion exams with scores high enough to get the promotions they earned. The test was dismissed altogether because not enough minorities had passed. I'm sorry? When my house is on fire, I don't care if the guy fighting it is pink with purple polka dots and comes from the Far Realm and worships a bowl of tapioca. Just put my house out!
Then there was forced busing...(shudder)
Diversity is fine, but when it's forced, it tends to go horribly awry.
That said, would it affect anyone if they started reading a book that was really good, had a great plot, engaging characters, memorable dialog, and then you find out halfway through that the hero, whom you've been cheering for, is gay?
In your firefighter example I'd say that's cause to examine the test and see if there were some bias inherit in it, but the fact that not enough minorities passed shouldn't be reason enough unless in examination some bigger problem is revealed.
As for 'just finding out' that the hero was gay... honestly, I'd like that very much. I would like it if it was enough of a non-issue to be treated that way. But I don't expect it to happen in any main-stream entertainment anytime soon.
It does remind me of Runaways though... if more comics/movies/shows handle sexuality like they did then I'd be much happier.
LOL I have a co-worker who is a liberal Democrat and we have this friendly war going on. When Obama won I locked her out of the office, when I have a pen or something missing from my desk I always accuse her of "spreading the welath her direction", call her a "sneaky demmycrat" and other things. This one was my latest, chanting it over and over while spritzing her with a spray bottle. She gets even though, replacing my computer's opening sound with Obama sound-bites, changing my wallpaper, etc.
Off Topic
If your co-worker is the kind of person that likes to chirp "Ooobama" then you should start responding with "Let my people go". You should also do it in a very deep voice and do it slowly. It also sounds best if you extend "people" out a little bit. Trust me, it can be entertaining. :D
@ShiftKitty: You sum up some of the current problems with have pretty nicely.
In your firefighter example I'd say that's cause to examine the test and see if there were some bias inherit in it, but the fact that not enough minorities passed shouldn't be reason enough unless in examination some bigger problem is revealed.
As for 'just finding out' that the hero was gay... honestly, I'd like that very much. I would like it if it was enough of a non-issue to be treated that way. But I don't expect it to happen in any main-stream entertainment anytime soon.
It does remind me of Runaways though... if more comics/movies/shows handle sexuality like they did then I'd be much happier.
The thing is, when writing, I have often considered the insertion of non heterosexual characters. As in, the kind that it makes no difference to the plot really, but its just there. The one reason I've had against doing it... at least in something I was attempting to get out into the public... is the fear of the audience making it TOO important and overshadowing other things.
Its the problem, if you do it, its great because its not important, but then it becomes IMPORTANT for being not important...
Basically, I think it would be very hard to balance the non-importance with the perceived importance...
But that's just me.
(Not that I don't think it would be great, just that... it could prove difficult, and no it shouldn't be this way. Someone being gay, straight, lesbian, pansexual, bisexual, etc really shouldn't matter at all, but it will be CLUNG to)
dirtyfrank Heh-heh, that'll have to be my next stunt! She's pretty cool about it, and we can have serious political discussions without climbing up on any soap boxes, and to answer OHuntingtonIII's post, it's a small business, and the others know that we do respect each other's opinions, even if we disagree and razz each other. It's why I like working for small businesses.
That said, would it affect anyone if they started reading a book that was really good, had a great plot, engaging characters, memorable dialog, and then you find out halfway through that the hero, whom you've been cheering for, is gay?
I'm guessing that if it's that good then no it wouldn't bother me, but that depends upon the delivery. My guess is that if they author does a good job tossing everything else into the story then they'll do a good job tossing in the fact of the character being gay.
So calling me names does what? (other than **** me off?)
I didn't call you names.
Yet shouldn't a cultures heroes represent that culture?
Are you saying that gay people aren't a part of our culture? Because that would be objectively false.
You know why some of us would like to see gay superheroes or other minority superheroes? Because people like reading about people that they can identify with. If you can't connect at all with a character, then you don't care about him. Not everybody is a part of the majority, and so not everybody wants to read about yet another character that they cannot identify with. Heck, I would wager that nobody is a part of the majority in every single aspect, not even any superheroes.
It always puzzled me that people can be part of a minority that's discriminated against and then not be able to identify with another minority that's discriminated against the exact same way...
Anyways, you don't have to read about any gay superheroes if you don't want to, but that by no means suggests there shouldn't be any. :P
I couldn't care less about someones sexuality... I just hate it thrown in my face all the time and made to feel that they are "special".
Couldn't agree more, and if things were at a point where a gay character could be gay without it being more then that, I would be elated.
Too bad things are a bit more complicated then that, eh?
So I'll tell you what. Next time a prime-time television show has a character that is GLBT without it being a big deal for either the producers or the viewers, we can have a little cheer.
Couldn't agree more, and if things were at a point where a gay character could be gay without it being more then that, I would be elated.
Too bad things are a bit more complicated then that, eh?
So I'll tell you what. Next time a prime-time television show has a character that is GLBT without it being a big deal for either the producers or the viewers, we can have a little cheer.
This is what I want. I'm tired of it being turned into a massive deal all the time. Even if its not related to anything plotwise, the fanbase will turn it into a massive pile of OMGAWESOME<3<3<3...(or OMGTERRIBLE)
I just wish people could be viewed as people, rather than people being viewed as their sexuality.
Gay people are found in every culture. They are a part of every culture (even in the Middle East where they are killed for the hell of it)...
That's exactly my point, dear. They are a constant. You suggest that superheroes should reflect our culture, and so why shouldn't there be gay superheroes if gay people are a part of our culture?
I couldn't care less about someones sexuality... I just hate it thrown in my face all the time and made to feel that they are "special".
Nobody's suggesting the character's sexuality be thrown in anybody's face, just like nobody's suggesting the character's race be thrown in anybody's face, or that their gender, religion, age or anything else be thrown in anybody's face. If the only thing that makes a character interesting is the demographics that it fits under, then you have a very shallow character, and that is the exact opposite of what is desired.
What's being suggested is exactly that it'd be nice to have character to just happen to be gay but whose sexuality is only a small part of who they are, as is true for any real gay person. It's GREAT when a character is more than just its sexuality or its race or its gender or its religion or whatever else it just happens to be.
In short, you're throwing a fit over nothing, because we mostly agree with what you say. Chill out. :P
As such, I think as an author it is a bit unnecessary to point out a character's sexual orientation unless it affects the plot.
Just tossing out "Dumbledore is gay" in the middle of the book would have been a bit gimicky in my opinion. But I think that Rowling did it correctly when she said "when I was writing I got the feeling he was gay." For some writers, if not all, writing is just as much a discovery of the characters for you as it is the readers. So, since it didn't directly affect the plot it didn't come up, but after the fact aside from the plot it turns out he's gay and thats fine. If she'd wanted to it could have been a plot point, but it would have taken considerable effort to make it believable, not gimicky and still plot driven.
Other character's mentioned above where it directly affects the character and story are good examples, like Karolina Dean.
I'm not sure how well a gay hero or villian would work in D&D unless it is a very RP heavy and mature campaign. Otherwise I'd think it would just be insulting or downright silly.
Yet shouldn't a cultures heroes represent that culture?
Americans who like manga disagree.
I mean, would you go to India and demand a Jewish hero be put on market?
Believe it or not, there are Jews in India. Some of their experiences have been in the news lately. If that's not a culture who could use a hero, I don't know what is.
So should we give every victim group with so-called grievances (imagined or real) a special hero?
I mean, should we have "Oppressed Black Man Hero" or "Super Female- Feminine Rights Heroine" or "Vincent Vegan -the no meat eating hero"?
More or less how we got Luke Cage, Wonder Woman, and Liberality For All.
As far as literary concepts go I'm a big fan of Chekov's Gun.
As such, I think as an author it is a bit unnecessary to point out a character's sexual orientation unless it affects the plot.
For the most part, I would agree with you, but applying Checkov's Gun and rules of unnessary detail to someone's orientation seems a bit... silly. Should authors strip out references to a character's height or hair color, if it's never relevant? Heck, there's all sorts of character details that, though they make a story more enjoyable in providing imagery and help create more real and vivid characters, are never important at all.
That, and by saying that the orientation must affect the plot to be mentioned at all pushes it into a "there's something special about this" category, which is something I think most people have been saying they don't want.
For the most part, I would agree with you, but applying Checkov's Gun and rules of unnessary detail to someone's orientation seems a bit... silly. Should authors strip out references to a character's height or hair color, if it's never relevant? Heck, there's all sorts of character details that, though they make a story more enjoyable in providing imagery and help create more real and vivid characters, are never important at all.
I think it makes total sense. I am a writer, and I only include details vital to the story. If I mention a man is married to a woman, its important to the story. If I mention a man is married to a man, its important to the story. just throwing in details (even minor ones like hair color) for no reason except fluff, is a turn of for me as a writer and reader.
For the most part, I would agree with you, but applying Checkov's Gun and rules of unnessary detail to someone's orientation seems a bit... silly. Should authors strip out references to a character's height or hair color, if it's never relevant? Heck, there's all sorts of character details that, though they make a story more enjoyable in providing imagery and help create more real and vivid characters, are never important at all.
That, and by saying that the orientation must affect the plot to be mentioned at all pushes it into a "there's something special about this" category, which is something I think most people have been saying they don't want.
If it matters, sure. Even if it is something really minor, it may matter.
For example, one of my least favorite things about Tolkien is his propensity for rattling on about things like the flowers on the hillside or the bark of trees. Even so, this serves a moderately useful purpose of describing the world he created. Its his created world and he, as an author, wants his audience to see it the way he does. So, even though it doesn't directly affect the plot, it does affect the story in that it sets the tone.
If a character's orientation matters it matters, but I think sexual orientation is one of the least important elements of a person, let alone a character.
I personally don't like descriptive information about a character if they don't matter. If a character's nickname is "Firehair", then their red-hair is important, otherwise I'll come up with my own images.
But then it also depends on the medium, if it is a story driven almost solely by the character, especially their development, then it is surely more important than if it is a story about something unrelated (such as Voldemort's return, or the destruction of the ring of power) which just happens to incorporate various characters. If Dumbledore's sexuality had anything to do with Harry's development/description or the backstory, then it definitely should come up, otherwise it's not necessary. Substory's are a good enough reason to include it as well.
I like Weis & Hickman's footnote/appendix approach to things of this nature (not orientation specifically). It doesn't directly affect story, but if you want to know more about it, there are footnotes and an index where you might learn that Arianus' dragons range in size from 4 feet to 100 feet or the score for a specific song or the nature of magic.
They're not heroes, really (though one might count as one, he's just not a protagonist), I have to mention Renly Baratheon and the Knight of Flowers from A Song of Ice and Fire, who have been confirmed as gay by the author. The funny thing about them is that I never suspected anything. All the signs were there and it's obvious in hindsight, but maybe I'm just too used to the metrosexuality of our time.
Wow really? I can see it now that you mentioned it, but that one went over my head.
Wonderwoman must have been gay. I mean the island with no men, how do they entertain themselves?
This way
AWESOME!
AWESOME!
Oh, the delicious irony! :P
Haha, Watchmen!
Anyway, no real gay heroes, as the title of the thread is calling them, comes to mind really? Would that be heroes that were gay to begin with or heroes that became gay via rewrites and updates to make the hero more contemporary? Because Callousus from x-men now falls into that party. So there's one that I can think of.
Wow really? I can see it now that you mentioned it, but that one went over my head.
Not only were they a pair of flamboyant poofters, they were a pair, as in a couple.
Not only were they a pair of flamboyant poofters, they were a pair, as in a couple.
I should've known when Renly created the Rainbow Knights.
I always wondered what irony tasted like...?
And why is that ironic? Maybe if you explained it, I could explain my position...
I think it's ironic because of:
I couldn't care less about someones sexuality... I just hate it thrown in my face all the time and made to feel that they are "special".
Are you skeptic that the company claims the Pyro is a woman, or that some people aren't impressed at that act of gender diversity in video game characters?
I'm skeptical that the Pyro is a woman. Granted, I've never played the game and am solely basing this off the popular portrayal of said character in fan videos, so I can understand if I'm completely wrong.
If it matters, sure. Even if it is something really minor, it may matter.
For example, one of my least favorite things about Tolkien is his propensity for rattling on about things like the flowers on the hillside or the bark of trees. Even so, this serves a moderately useful purpose of describing the world he created. Its his created world and he, as an author, wants his audience to see it the way he does. So, even though it doesn't directly affect the plot, it does affect the story in that it sets the tone.
If a character's orientation matters it matters, but I think sexual orientation is one of the least important elements of a person, let alone a character.
Hur.
Detail is a funny thing. You know, back in the day, audiences loved detail. It was the sort of thing that got them all giddy about stories. Read "ancient" literature and the amount of detail is staggering in comparison to what we have now. Gawain and the Green Knight is a prime example.
I'm sure the real shift in this would be the development of the television and the explosion of visual media in our current times. Now everything has to be flashy, fast moving and attention grabbing in order to practically register with the constant bombardment on our senses.
And our novels suffer.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of detail. And, personally, I hate writing it. That being said, I know how important it is and to skimp on it is, in my opinion, an indicator of poor writing. I suppose for a visual example, it would be like drawing a comic book, without ever putting backgrounds in the panels.
As for sexual orientation, it may not be important for the plot, but it may be important for the character. I feel that some of the arguments are dancing rather close to the "I don't want to ever hear about it, I want it out of sight and out of mind!" line. So, it's fine for a heterosexual character to off-handedly mention their girlfriend (which may not even register in a reader's mind) but should a homosexual character mention it, suddenly it's being "thrown in their face". "Why do they have to mention they're dating?!?! Can't they just keep that quiet, it's unimportant!"
Note: I'm not accussing anyone (yet :P) of this. Just that the arguments can include this.
I should've known when Renly created the Rainbow Knights.
I know, right?
Oh come on! How could a guy with a bright green feathered cap and a set of green tights who frolics in the forest singing songs with a bunch of merry men be gay?
Link.
Link.
Link doesn't frolic with merry men, he frolics with faeries.
Geez.
I'm missing something here...
Please explain.
How is that ironic?
I don't know either. I think he may be suggesting it's hypocritical?
I'm missing something here...
Please explain.
How is that ironic?
It's ironic when somebody says, "I don't care about peoples' sexuality, I just wish they would keep it to themselves so I don't have to know about it," and then follows that immediately by, "AWESOME! Lesbians!"
You would expect the reaction to be, "I really don't think that Wonder Woman's sexuality is relevant to the plot or character, and I would have preferred that it be left out of stories about her. I personally may find the idea of lesbians titillating, but I am on record that sexuality is best not discussed, so I won't comment on my own reactions to the concept of hot, oily, sapphic superhero bondage."
To state that you think sexuality is a private matter that should not be included in stories, and then to express eagerness at the possibility of gay sex in a story would seem unexpected and contradictory, and therefore ironic.
It's ironic when somebody says, "I don't care about peoples' sexuality, I just wish they would keep it to themselves so I don't have to know about it," and then follows that immediately by, "AWESOME! Lesbians!"
You would expect the reaction to be, "I really don't think that Wonder Woman's sexuality is relevant to the plot or character, and I would have preferred that it be left out of stories about her. I personally may find the idea of lesbians titillating, but I am on record that sexuality is best not discussed, so I won't comment on my own reactions to the concept of hot, oily, sapphic superhero bondage."
To state that you think sexuality is a private matter that should not be included in stories, and then to express eagerness at the possibility of gay sex in a story would seem unexpected and contradictory, and therefore ironic.
Ah, yes. The word you're looking for then is hypocritical.
Ah, yes. The word you're looking for then is hypocritical.
Well, you'd have to ask Crimson_Concerto exactly what he meant. I'm just inferring his meaning here.
Irony and hypocrisy are not mutually exclusive. It is both ironic and hypocritical for a man who rails against homosexuality and drug use, e.g. Ted Haggard, to secretly receive blowjobs and crystal meth from male prostitutes, for example.
... yes, I know that's unfair. But it was too funny to not say.
But yes, I do find it odd when I hear people say "I don't want to see that gay stuff shoved in my face. What they do is their own business and I don't want to- OMG, are those lesbians making out? HAWT!"
Call it what you will, but it sure sounds odd over here.
I still don't see it.
Just because I don't think someones sexuality should be cause for minority rights (or any special rights for that matter), or bandied about on TV, shoving it in my face and telling me it's fine, doesn't mean I don't like lesbians!
I still don't get it...
It does mean that you would be expected to react with disapproval to a portrayal of lesbianism by a superhero in a comic book.
Further, if you can construe the mere existence of a homosexual hero as "shoving [your] face in" a character's sexuality because it doesn't represent American culture as you see it, then I would think you would also refrain yourself from "shoving" our faces in your sexuality by proclaiming a fondness for lesbianism.
If your policy is that sexuality should not be written about in order to avoid shoving people's faces in it, it is ironic when you react with approval to a portrayal of sexuality, and further shove people's faces in your own sexuality by expressing said approval.
Well, you'd have to ask Crimson_Concerto exactly what he meant. I'm just inferring his meaning here.
Irony and hypocrisy are not mutually exclusive. It is both ironic and hypocritical for a man who rails against homosexuality and drug use, e.g. Ted Haggard, to secretly receive blowjobs and crystal meth from male prostitutes, for example.
Well, technically, irony is an incongruence between what is said and what is meant. I suppose something can be both hypocritical and ironic... I just can't think of anything off the top of my head.
(and Ted Haggard is still hypocritical :P)
I suppose an example of irony would be: singing a song about irony that doesn't actually have any ironic examples in it ("it's like RAIIIIIIIIIIIN on a wedding day!")
Also: HATER hasn't actually said he disapproves of gay men, he just doesn't want it forced on him. He could still like looking at them. Presumably, he hates hot lesbians making out being forced on him as well.
When I say "shoving it in my face", I am mainly speaking about the preferential treatment, minority rights, and any other special things the gay community thinks they deserve. I never said the very existence of a gay superhero is "shoving my face" in it; homosexuality doesn't represent American culture... it's just part of it. Why should it represent American culture!?
But how can you say something is really representing American culture if it doesn't attempt to represent all of it? Obviously that's more then one character can do on their own, but in a large ensemble is it too much to expect a little bit of the diversity that's seen in reality?
And I haven't said that you find homosexuality distasteful, I just find the idea of someone being critical of gays in entertainment getting all hot and bothered by lesbians. Which, even if it hasn't happened here, is common enough.
Well, technically, irony is an incongruence between what is said and what is meant. I suppose something can be both hypocritical and ironic... I just can't think of anything off the top of my head.
Irony has a lot of different meanings depending on the context. Dramatic irony, for example, could be defined as a statement whose significance is known to the audience but not to the characters.
Here's a definition from my handy dictionary that I think applies: "A state of affairs or event that seems contrary to what one expects, and is often amusing as a result."
Incidentally, the definition of irony as basically bad luck (as it is portrayed in the "Rain on a Wedding Day" song) is acceptable by some dictionaries. I have a Websters in which that definition appears in the "new words" section at the front, so admittedly you can't always trust dictionaries.
Where are you guys getting this stuff?
Are you guys intentionally misunderstanding me?
My very first post stated that I didn't care what ones sexuality is... nobody should get special treatment for it is all I'm trying to say.
This happens when someone is perceived as taking the discriminating stance. You haven't, but you started sounding like someone who does.
To be fair, noone's over-reacted yet. You're just getting a lot of knee-jerk responses.
As an aside... what do you mean by 'minority rights' and 'preferential treatment'? You might want to be a little more careful before you start slinging those loaded words around.
Incidentally, the definition of irony as basically bad luck (as it is portrayed in the "Rain on a Wedding Day" song) is acceptable by some dictionaries. I have a Websters in which that definition appears in the "new words" section at the front, so admittedly you can't always trust dictionaries.
Say it isn't so! Lofgren, you're about to ruin my day
.Diversity is fine, but not to the point where every little "group" of people are all demanding special rights.... and I agree it would be next to impossible to portray ALL American culture
How am I critical of them in entertainment?
And besides... lesbians are hot!:D
How is expressing a wish for more gay heroes identical to demanding special rights? Considering how many heroes are, or have been, in romantic relationships, it's remarkable that there barely seems to be a single homosexual one among them.
I mean exactly what I typed, and I like how you call them "loaded" words.
You are a liberal aren't you?
Even better, I'm Canadian! :D
I am not saying that!!!!
Now, if someone came along and made it law that x% of heroes have to be gay, then I would have a problem.
OK then, sorry. It just seemed a little.... strange to start telling about how you don't want anyone's sexuality to shoved in your face in a thread about gay heroes. I mean, there are a lot more natural ways of showing someone to be gay than having them declare 'I'm gay!' all the time, and I'm pretty sure the gay community prefer those ways.
I knew it!
Uncanny how I can sense liberals, isn't it....
It'll come in handy for identifying your new overlord masters when we take over the world.
Guys.
I think I may be being misunderstood.
When I say "shoving it in my face", I am mainly speaking about the preferential treatment, minority rights, and any other special things the gay community thinks they deserve. I never said the very existence of a gay superhero is "shoving my face" in it; homosexuality doesn't represent American culture... it's just part of it. Why should it represent American culture!?
Never said sexuality shouldn't be written about either...
Let me see if I can piece together how we could arrive at such confusion.
When asked if you know of any gay heroes, you reply:
What is wrong with the normal, conservative, white, heterosexual hero?
This thread is dangerously close to offending me...
Why does gayness have to put on mainstream and forced down my throat at every turn? Why does someones sexual preference entitle them to minority rights?
Implying that the mere existence of a gay hero would constitute forcing that character's sexuality down your throat, and that discussing the existence of such a character would be offensive to you.
Then somebody suggests that the problem isn't one "normal, conservative, white, heterosexual hero," but rather the monolith of all heroes being "normal, conservative, white, heterosexual," to which you respond:
Yet shouldn't a cultures heroes represent that culture?
Implying that a "normal, conservative, white, heterosexual hero" accurately represents our (presumably American) culture, but gay heroes do not.
Pressed for clarification, you explain:
Gay people are found in every culture. They are a part of every culture (even in the Middle East where they are killed for the hell of it)...
But they are not a culture all their own! A specific type of lifestyle, yes... a distinct, separate culture...no.
Which translates to me as "A normal, conservative, white, heterosexual hero represents my culture. Gay people may be part of that culture, but are not representative of it, so they should not be heroes."
I couldn't care less about someones sexuality... I just hate it thrown in my face all the time and made to feel that they are "special".
Which, combined with the statement that heroes should represent their culture, translates to me as "Heroes should only be normal, conservative, white, and heterosexual. Heroes who do not fulfill these qualifications are not representative of my culture, and therefore are throwing their sexuality in my face."
Based on this, one might expect your reaction to a portrayal of a homosexual hero to be along the lines of, "That character does not represent normal, conservative, white, heterosexual culture, therefore she is rubbing my face in her sexuality – and therefore contributing to the mainstreaming of homosexuality, which I abhor."
Instead, your reaction was:
AWESOME!
From this we can conclude that, despite your previous statement that the existence of a homosexual hero would be offensive to you because it does not represent your culture, you actually yearn to have a homosexual superhero "forced down your throat."
And as far as I can tell, nobody in this thread has advocated for any special rights for homosexuals.
You guys wouldn't know what to do with it even if you could...
Can't do any worse than the conserv... then those already in power! Amirite?
Well, I'd imagine if Canadians took over the world, there would be a helluva lot more donuts and ice rinks.
But still.... lesbians are hot!:D
Agreed. ;)
Can't do any worse than the conserv... then those already in power! Amirite?
Well, I'd imagine if Canadians took over the world, there would be a helluva lot more donuts and ice rinks.
The dems are now in power. And they have controlled the senate and congress for over a year. Don't worry. Liberals will make just a big as a mess as the conservatives. And the reason is both political parties in the US are blinded by
ideology.
Even better, I'm Canadian! :D
That explains a lot with what is going on in Astrids.
I am a liberal. but even canadian academics are too much for me.
But still.... lesbians are hot!:D
I disagree. I think to myself, "what a waste
"Ok- maybe I was a little confused and confusing.
Homosexuals don't offend me... giving them special rights or making a big deal out of them does.
Having said that, having a gay superhero is not making a big deal out of gayness, nor is it a special right. Therefore, I don't care.
In that case, maybe you could explain what you meant when you said that heroes should represent their culture as an objection to the existence of gay heroes, or that discussing gay heroes is "dangerously close" to offending you.
The culture argument... homosexuality doesn't represent me. Nor has it been part of my experiences, lifestyle, or .... culture. So no, homosexuality does not represent my culture. But my culture is but one little microcosm in Americas culture. And homosexuals are part of American culture.
I think what you mean is that homosexuality has not been a part of your lifestyle. Since you went out of your way to explain that homosexuals do not have their own culture, I don't think it's fair for you to claim to have your own personal culture, which homosexuals cannot be a part of.
And maybe while you're at it, you could explain how you reconcile the statements that homosexuality has not been part of your experiences or lifestyle with the following statement:
But still.... lesbians are hot!:D
Because presumably you have had some experience with lesbianism to make such a statement.
Then why did you write this...
"And I haven't said that you find homosexuality distasteful, I just find the idea of someone being critical of gays in entertainment getting all hot and bothered by lesbians. Which, even if it hasn't happened here, is common enough."
Quoted from your post above...
... I'm not sure whether to be snarky or serious. Let's make it a choose your own adventure!
If you want the snarky response, click here!
Because I thought you had reading comprehension skills high enough to see when I changed subject. Is tarted off by referring to "you" and then swapped to "someone". Combine this with my later statement (after you asked for clarification) that I did not abscribe that viewpoint to you, and it should be clear that after I denied presuming your inclinations, I wasn't talking about you anymore.
I don't hate either,
Then your name is false advertising!
The dems are now in power. And they have controlled the senate and congress for over a year. Don't worry. Liberals will make just a big as a mess as the conservatives. And the reason is both political parties in the US are blinded by
ideology.
Eh, your Dems are more like our Conservatives.
That explains a lot with what is going on in Astrids.
I am a liberal. but even canadian academics are too much for me.
We do what we can :D.
Homosexuality is a sub-culture and lifestyle. I am just tired of gay people having to have "gay" this and "gay" that... well, there isn't a gay one of these so lets stir up the pot so we can have one. What I thought might be offensive is I am tired of every little group of people wanting their own special rights because they are different from the mainstream... I am just tired of it and this thread just happened to deal with gay's protesting because there are no gay heroes. Well, have a gay artist make a comic about it. Gays are mad because people who aren't gay write comics that, wait for it.... are not gay!
Wait. I don't understand your objection. There are plenty of openly gay comic book creators and authors who I can only assume would be willing to write and work on gay characters. Most of the comic book writers and artists from the dawn of comics were Jewish, and Asians are ascendant both as creators and readers. Yet most modern superheroes are not Asian, and Superman, Batman, and the Flash didn't end up as Jews. I don't think the problem here is an overabundance of opportunity.
To review:
You have no problem with homosexuals.
You have no problem with homosexual heroes.
You do have a problem with homosexuals expressing a desire to read about homosexual characters, discussing homosexual characters or the possibility thereof in public, or posting requests on message boards for others to share their experiences reading about homosexual characters.
That doesn't even make any sense.
That's kinda like me going to Iraq and complaining there are no Christian heroes (please note there is a Christian population in Iraq).
Iraqi Christians shouldn't have heroes? What kind of stupid argument is that? "You don't tow the line of the cultural hegemony, so you don't get any good comic book characters?" That's like something out of the Hayes Code. I can't even fit the egregiousness of that kind of appeal to the majority in my skull.
And I never said homosexuals can't be part of my personal culture, I just said they are not part of it. So now I am a bad guy because I am not gay?
Homosexuals are a part of your culture. I guarantee you have watched movies, read books, listened to music, or appreciated art created by a homosexual. Chances are extremely good that you know one or several homosexuals, whether you know it or not. If you are the slightest bit sensitive, reading about characters who have experiences akin to those of the gay people you know will help you understand those people a little bit better.
Yeah, I've been with more than 1 woman at the same time and it was wonderful! That has been part of my experience, but having sex with another man has not. Wheres the problem?
Nobody called you a bad guy.
The problem is that you object to a discussion of the role of homosexual characters in books as "offensive," but find objectifying lesbians "awesome."
Now don't get me wrong. I also find objectifying lesbians to be particularly awesome. I'm not going to turn around and complain about the mainstreaming of homosexuality, or argue that it's unreasonable for gay people to want to read about other gay people, or claim that I have a problem with gay people shoving their gayness down my throat, though.
There is an obvious disconnect there, and if you can't see it I can't help you.
Oh... and lesbians are still hot!
Eh, the majority of lesbians I have met weren't. There was the one though, that was quite attractive. Not that it matters, since none of us will be getting with them anyways.
(unless one of us is a girl)
Eh, your Dems are more like our Conservatives.
America is more right of center than Canada and you have a parliamentary system. In our system parties must also be able to appeal to the general population. We can't get away with having niche parties. If we did, the US would look very different.
America is more right of center than Canada and you have a parliamentary system. In our system parties must also be able to appeal to the general population. We can't get away with having niche parties. If we did, the US would look very different.
Yeah, I've never really understood your system. I'm part and partial to the way we do things here, but on the other hand, I vote for a niche so I'm a little biased.
But... yeah. Back to gay heroes. Ummm... Colossus, I hear he's pretty gay.
But... yeah. Back to gay heroes. Ummm... Colossus, I hear he's pretty gay.
Only in the Ultimate Marvel universe.
Yeah, I've never really understood your system. I'm part and partial to the way we do things here, but on the other hand, I vote for a niche so I'm a little biased.
I think, given the mix of extremes in the US, our system has a moderating affect. In a way, it isn't a bad thing that groups like MOM have to filter their voice through the republican party. By the same token, I am happy that the far left must filter its message through the democrats.
I think, given the mix of extremes in the US, our system has a moderating affect. In a way, it isn't a bad thing that groups like MOM have to filter their voice through the republican party. By the same token, I am happy that the far left must filter its message through the democrats.
Yeah, we (usually) have niche parties for the extremes. Unfortunately, the extreme right merged with the moderate right and the majority of Canada is left waiting for them to split again (I'm predicting sooner than later).
But, alas, politics are discouraged here. Pity, otherwise you could explain how your system works.
Well, I've been with a number of bi girls... and they were pretty hot!
Oh, so the faux lesbian... I'll never understand girls. Course, I had a hilarious conversation with a bi friend once where she ranted against all the faux lesbians.
Hm, now that I think about it, as rare as gay heroes are, how many lesbian heroes are there?
Kidding aside, from mainstream superhero comics, I can think of Karonlina Dean (from Runaways). Her SO doesn't really count... s/he is a shapechanger and took a female form to be with her, but swaps pretty regularly between forms, so I'm not sure how the heck to count that.
That depends, does Wonder Woman count?
Kidding aside, from mainstream superhero comics, I can think of Karonlina Dean (from Runaways). Her SO doesn't really count... s/he is a shapechanger and took a female form to be with her, but swaps pretty regularly between forms, so I'm not sure how the heck to count that.
You know, you've mentioned Runaways before. Is it any good? What is it?
Oh, so the faux lesbian... I'll never understand girls. Course, I had a hilarious conversation with a bi friend once where she ranted against all the faux lesbians.
Hm, now that I think about it, as rare as gay heroes are, how many lesbian heroes are there?
I wouldn't describe a bisexual as a faux lesbian. Of course, I wouldn't describe a bisexual as any type of lesbian. Lesbian generally implies homosexual, not bisexual. The problem I have with using the term Faux Lesbian is that it gives the idea that they are somehow being disingenuous. Now, ACTUAL faux lesbians that do it for the attention... They annoy me.
Anyway, on the actual subject. Has anyone read Marvel 1602 by Neil Gaiman. There is a pretty amusing moment in it that reveals that Angel is gay in it.
Marvel 1602 Spoiler
Jean Grey is dressed as a man and pretends to be "John" so the general public will accept her going to Xavier's school. At any rate, the actual people there no the truth, but kind of keep it up as a running joke.
So after they rescue Angel, he starts to take a liking to Jean, which of course, Cyclops starts getting annoyed about, and kind of snubs him and neither seems to realise whats going on. Basically, after Jean dies, Cyclops goes to apologize to Angel because he realised that Angel didn't know she was a woman. To which Angel replies saying that he thought she was a he, but at the same time, Cyclops wasn't wrong about his feelings. Cyclops got a kind of huh face.
So after they rescue Angel, he starts to take a liking to Jean, which of course, Cyclops starts getting annoyed about, and kind of snubs him and neither seems to realise whats going on. Basically, after Jean dies, Cyclops goes to apologize to Angel because he realised that Angel didn't know she was a woman. To which Angel replies saying that he thought she was a he, but at the same time, Cyclops wasn't wrong about his feelings. Cyclops got a kind of huh face.
Personally, I really enjoy the series. I wait for trade publications so I'm not up to date on the current issue, but as far as I've collected I've really enjoyed it. I've mentioned it several times because of the comic series I collect it's one of the few that has a main character who is gay, and didn't take until issue 65 to out the character (like Ultimate X-Men did with Colossus).
/shrug
It might not be your cup of tea. I enjoyed it. Take that as ye will.
I wouldn't describe a bisexual as a faux lesbian. Of course, I wouldn't describe a bisexual as any type of lesbian. Lesbian generally implies homosexual, not bisexual. The problem I have with using the term Faux Lesbian is that it gives the idea that they are somehow being disingenuous. Now, ACTUAL faux lesbians that do it for the attention... They annoy me.
Not my term, her's. And, yeah, it's not suppose to be applied to bisexual women, just women who pretend to be bisexual/lesbian in order to appear more attractive to men.
Now don't get me wrong. I also find objectifying lesbians to be particularly awesome. I'm not going to turn around and complain about the mainstreaming of homosexuality, or argue that it's unreasonable for gay people to want to read about other gay people, or claim that I have a problem with gay people shoving their gayness down my throat, though.
"Methinks the lady doth protest too much..."
I find the irony of "lesbians are hot" after the diatribe of having homosexuality being "shoved in his face" amusing. And the blatant Don Juanism in defense of his sexuality, even though it wasn't questioned makes me both wonder and giggle.
And for the love of all that is holy, could you have chosen another way to word it than "shoving their gayness down my throat"? I laughed so hard that I had to take a few minutes to catch my breath after that.
I'm not going to turn around and ... claim that I have a problem with gay people shoving their gayness down my throat, though.
?
Probably not the best way to phrase that really....
And for the love of all that is holy, could you have chosen another way to word it than "shoving their gayness down my throat"? I laughed so hard that I had to take a few minutes to catch my breath after that.
Heh,, glad I'm not the only one who had that reaction. Good to know I'm not the only immautre person in the tavern.
I wouldn't describe a bisexual as a faux lesbian. Of course, I wouldn't describe a bisexual as any type of lesbian. Lesbian generally implies homosexual, not bisexual. The problem I have with using the term Faux Lesbian is that it gives the idea that they are somehow being disingenuous. Now, ACTUAL faux lesbians that do it for the attention... They annoy me.
Anyway, on the actual subject. Has anyone read Marvel 1602 by Neil Gaiman. There is a pretty amusing moment in it that reveals that Angel is gay in it.Marvel 1602 SpoilerJean Grey is dressed as a man and pretends to be "John" so the general public will accept her going to Xavier's school. At any rate, the actual people there no the truth, but kind of keep it up as a running joke.
So after they rescue Angel, he starts to take a liking to Jean, which of course, Cyclops starts getting annoyed about, and kind of snubs him and neither seems to realise whats going on. Basically, after Jean dies, Cyclops goes to apologize to Angel because he realised that Angel didn't know she was a woman. To which Angel replies saying that he thought she was a he, but at the same time, Cyclops wasn't wrong about his feelings. Cyclops got a kind of huh face.
Every "bisexual" I have ever met in my entire life, ended up being gay in the end. Not saying they don't exist. But I think bisexuality is more a seasonal, than a long term thing.
Ah, the "armchair expert of sexuality" response.
Every "bisexual" I have ever met in my entire life, ended up being gay in the end. Not saying they don't exist. But I think bisexuality is more a seasonal, than a long term thing.
It's certainly less common then homosexuality, but bisexuality certainly does exist. But they're often even less visible then homosexuals in that people will mistake them for one category or another unless they observe their behavior for a long time, and even then people are likely to mis-attribute what they've seen.
Ah, the "armchair expert of sexuality" response.
I've never met a bisexual who turned out to be gay, but on the other hand, my experiences are limited. I did meet a bisexual guy once, who used to be homosexual, but found out he got turned on by women. But I've never experienced it being the other way around, unless sexual experiments count, in which case a good deal of the people I used to hang out with have gone from straight to bi to straight again.
Anyway, about gay heroes, who here thinks 'X-Men: The Last Stand' would have been greatly improved if the plot included Cyclops and Wolverine finding out they weren't as interested in Jean as in each other, and then spending the rest of the movie with their shirts off? I mean, no matter how contrived it might be, it couldn't be much worse than the original plot, and it would at least be a great victory for diversity and hotness :P
Ah, the "armchair expert of sexuality" response.
That knife cuts both ways, mate. Not that being one way or another makes you an expert in that either.
This thread was about the portrayal of homosexuals as heroes, wasn't it? So far most of what I've seen is alot of swaggering and homophobia. Homosexuals are part of this world and every culture. The lack of homosexual characters in heroic roles is somewhat disheartening, but no more so than heroes of various ethnic minorities.
That knife cuts both ways, mate. Not that being one way or another makes you an expert in that either.
Hm, not sure if this should really be directed at me. I don't think I've implied denial of anyone's sexual orientation. I'll just post the quote I was commenting on again, maybe you can clarify?
Every "bisexual" I have ever met in my entire life, ended up being gay in the end. Not saying they don't exist. But I think bisexuality is more a seasonal, than a long term thing.
This thread was about the portrayal of homosexuals as heroes, wasn't it? So far most of what I've seen is alot of swaggering and homophobia. Homosexuals are part of this world and every culture. The lack of homosexual characters in heroic roles is somewhat disheartening, but no more so than heroes of various ethnic minorities.
There hasn't really been alot of swaggering, and admittedly, one of those individuals is gone now. HATER is, I think, more misunderstood than bigoted.
But, going back to the thread, why is it that of the handful of mentioned homosexual heroes, only one of them is a lesbian (aside from Wonder Woman :P)? Is it because comics are more directed at male readers?
Anyway, about gay heroes, who here thinks 'X-Men: The Last Stand' would have been greatly improved if the plot included Cyclops and Wolverine finding out they weren't as interested in Jean as in each other, and then spending the rest of the movie with their shirts off? I mean, no matter how contrived it might be, it couldn't be much worse than the original plot, and it would at least be a great victory for diversity and hotness :P
... I'd watch it.
Anyway, about gay heroes, who here thinks 'X-Men: The Last Stand' would have been greatly improved if the plot included Cyclops and Wolverine finding out they weren't as interested in Jean as in each other, and then spending the rest of the movie with their shirts off? I mean, no matter how contrived it might be, it couldn't be much worse than the original plot, and it would at least be a great victory for diversity and hotness :P
While certainly not my cup o' tea, I do agree it would have been a vast improvement over what was actually shot. ;)
Anyway, about gay heroes, who here thinks 'X-Men: The Last Stand' would have been greatly improved if the plot included Cyclops and Wolverine finding out they weren't as interested in Jean as in each other, and then spending the rest of the movie with their shirts off? I mean, no matter how contrived it might be, it couldn't be much worse than the original plot, and it would at least be a great victory for diversity and hotness :P
I'd say it would be less contrived than having Wolverine still chasing after Jean... for...no...reason...
Shame what happened to Cyclops
.But, going back to the thread, why is it that of the handful of mentioned homosexual heroes, only one of them is a lesbian (aside from Wonder Woman :P)? Is it because comics are more directed at male readers?
'cause I write from what I know, and though I know of other lesbian heroes, I haven't read their comics. Perry Moore's breakdown (I linked it on page 1) lists others, including the new (current? I think. Not sure if she's been killed off since then) Batwoman, Destiny and Mystique (can't believe I forgot about them the first time around. I blame the fact that Destiny has been dead so long and that Mystique hasn't gotten busy with another woman since), and others that I don't recognize.
As for why... well, part of it is numbers, I'm sure. Female heroes are underrepresented in general (especially well done female heroes that are more then a super-powered stick with boobs) as are gay heroes, so what happens when you look for one that's both? Something that's pretty darn rare.
As for why... well, part of it is numbers, I'm sure. Female heroes are underrepresented in general (especially well done female heroes that are more then a super-powered stick with boobs) as are gay heroes, so what happens when you look for one that's both? Something that's pretty darn rare.
I'm guessing transgendered is right out then :P.
I'm guessing transgendered is right out then :P.
Neil Gaimen had a few in his run of Sandman, but he's cool like that. Overall... yeah, pretty much.
Show
I don't think you're a bigot or a homophobe. What I think is that you've bought into some rhetoric without really
considering its full implication. There may have been a handful of gay rights groups that have advocated for special privileges – I know of one or two myself who've crossed that line in their zeal for the cause – but most are just striving for equal rights and equal treatment, and the exceptions are rarely the most powerful voices in the community. If gay advocacy groups put a lot of emphasis on public image and self-esteem, it's only because they are struggling against millennia of some of the strongest taboos in human culture just to make people having the same experiences they are feel OK about themselves.
One of the biggest problems that the gay community faces is that the vast majority of their opposition aren't bigots. They don't care if you're gay, they just want you to shut up about it. They're just like you, Hater: as far as they know, they don't know any gay people, and they don't need a reminder that gay people are out there somewhere. This kind of "tolerance" carries an implicit threat that if gay people get too uppity, too vocal, "stir the pot," "shove your face in it," etc., then the silent behemoth just might start to care. In the meantime, it allows the myths and rumors about homosexuals to fester ("Gay people want SPECIAL RIGHTS!" "Gay people want to HAVE SEX WITH YOUR CHILDREN!" "Gay people want to MARRY SOMEBODY THEY LOVE, GET A DECENT JOB, and HAVE FAMILIES in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!"), and enables people like yourself to feel principled by interjecting into any conversation about gay topics, regardless of content, that gay people should get no special rights, aren't all that special, and it's offensive to you to even discuss it.
In addition, this is America, and we don't generally accept "I don't care what you do as long as you don't talk about it" as an equal status (try watching a night of TV without having heteronormity shoved down your throat). If a quality of a person's identity is taboo speech, then that person is bound to feel as if they are the taboo.
So I don't think you are a bigot or a bad person. I just think that you have been effectively trained to have a pavlovian threat reaction to the topic of homosexuality. You have an irrational assumption that gay people are determined to claim special rights and force you to think about gay sex all the time or something, that, upon examination, you realize cannot be supported by reality. In this case, you started out instinctively offended by the discussion of gay heroes, but you eventually realized that having a discussion about gay heroes is neither a "special right" nor "shoving it down your throat," and that you yourself are intrigued by the possibilities, at least concerning the females.
I don't think you're a bigot or a homophobe. What I think is that you've bought into some rhetoric without really
considering its full implication. There may have been a handful of gay rights groups that have advocated for special privileges – I know of one or two myself who've crossed that line in their zeal for the cause – but most are just striving for equal rights and equal treatment, and the exceptions are rarely the most powerful voices in the community. If gay advocacy groups put a lot of emphasis on public image and self-esteem, it's only because they are struggling against millennia of some of the strongest taboos in human culture just to make people having the same experiences they are feel OK about themselves.
One of the biggest problems that the gay community faces is that the vast majority of their opposition aren't bigots. They don't care if you're gay, they just want you to shut up about it. They're just like you, Hater: as far as they know, they don't know any gay people, and they don't need a reminder that gay people are out there somewhere. This kind of "tolerance" carries an implicit threat that if gay people get too uppity, too vocal, "stir the pot," "shove your face in it," etc., then the silent behemoth just might start to care. In the meantime, it allows the myths and rumors about homosexuals to fester ("Gay people want SPECIAL RIGHTS!" "Gay people want to HAVE SEX WITH YOUR CHILDREN!" "Gay people want to MARRY SOMEBODY THEY LOVE, GET A DECENT JOB, and HAVE FAMILIES in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!"), and enables people like yourself to feel principled by interjecting into any conversation about gay topics, regardless of content, that gay people should get no special rights, aren't all that special, and it's offensive to you to even discuss it.
In addition, this is America, and we don't generally accept "I don't care what you do as long as you don't talk about it" as an equal status (try watching a night of TV without having heteronormity shoved down your throat). If a quality of a person's identity is taboo speech, then that person is bound to feel as if they are the taboo.
So I don't think you are a bigot or a bad person. I just think that you have been effectively trained to have a pavlovian threat reaction to the topic of homosexuality. You have an irrational assumption that gay people are determined to claim special rights and force you to think about gay sex all the time or something, that, upon examination, you realize cannot be supported by reality. In this case, you started out instinctively offended by the discussion of gay heroes, but you eventually realized that having a discussion about gay heroes is neither a "special right" nor "shoving it down your throat," and that you yourself are intrigued by the possibilities, at least concerning the females.
Neil Gaimen had a few in his run of Sandman, but he's cool like that.
QFT.
I'm a huge Gaiman fan, which was why, I have actually read Marvel 1602(that I mentioned above)
Marvel 1602 was pretty good... did they ever make a sequel?
They continued it, but it wasn't done by Gaiman... my wife read the continuation, but I never did. Not really sure what it was like after the initial Gaiman issues. Wife said it wasn't as good though.
Enigma.
I can't reveal too much about the characters' sexuality, because it would be spoiling plot twists. I haven't read his one in almost a decade, but I remember it being good.
It's still not even widely accepted that homosexuals can kiss their lover good-bye, or walk down the street holding hands... let alone save the world.
There's still a great many uninformed people who see homosexuals in the same light as pedophiles.
All I can say is give it some time - it's getting better, but change takes time. Were it up to me, there would be no stigma attached to anyone's life choices, so long as they don't impact others negatively. But, that's just not the world we live in.
And yes, they went to the mall alot.
He said the next words out of his mouth were "You're lesbian? Cool! That means we can go to the mall and watch girls together and nobody would suspect a thing!" They became great friends after that.
And yes, they went to the mall alot.
Anyway, about gay heroes, who here thinks 'X-Men: The Last Stand' would have been greatly improved if the plot included Cyclops and Wolverine finding out they weren't as interested in Jean as in each other, and then spending the rest of the movie with their shirts off? I mean, no matter how contrived it might be, it couldn't be much worse than the original plot, and it would at least be a great victory for diversity and hotness :P
While certainly not my cup o' tea, I do agree it would have been a vast improvement over what was actually shot. ;)
Anyway, about gay heroes, who here thinks 'X-Men: The Last Stand' would have been greatly improved if the plot included Cyclops and Wolverine finding out they weren't as interested in Jean as in each other, and then spending the rest of the movie with their shirts off? I mean, no matter how contrived it might be, it couldn't be much worse than the original plot, and it would at least be a great victory for diversity and hotness :P
I'd say it would be less contrived than having Wolverine still chasing after Jean... for...no...reason...
Shame what happened to Cyclops
.But, going back to the thread, why is it that of the handful of mentioned homosexual heroes, only one of them is a lesbian (aside from Wonder Woman :P)? Is it because comics are more directed at male readers?
'cause I write from what I know, and though I know of other lesbian heroes, I haven't read their comics. Perry Moore's breakdown (I linked it on page 1) lists others, including the new (current? I think. Not sure if she's been killed off since then) Batwoman, Destiny and Mystique (can't believe I forgot about them the first time around. I blame the fact that Destiny has been dead so long and that Mystique hasn't gotten busy with another woman since), and others that I don't recognize.
As for why... well, part of it is numbers, I'm sure. Female heroes are underrepresented in general (especially well done female heroes that are more then a super-powered stick with boobs) as are gay heroes, so what happens when you look for one that's both? Something that's pretty darn rare.
As for why... well, part of it is numbers, I'm sure. Female heroes are underrepresented in general (especially well done female heroes that are more then a super-powered stick with boobs) as are gay heroes, so what happens when you look for one that's both? Something that's pretty darn rare.
I'm guessing transgendered is right out then :P.
I'm guessing transgendered is right out then :P.
Neil Gaimen had a few in his run of Sandman, but he's cool like that. Overall... yeah, pretty much.
Show
I don't think you're a bigot or a homophobe. What I think is that you've bought into some rhetoric without really
considering its full implication. There may have been a handful of gay rights groups that have advocated for special privileges – I know of one or two myself who've crossed that line in their zeal for the cause – but most are just striving for equal rights and equal treatment, and the exceptions are rarely the most powerful voices in the community. If gay advocacy groups put a lot of emphasis on public image and self-esteem, it's only because they are struggling against millennia of some of the strongest taboos in human culture just to make people having the same experiences they are feel OK about themselves.
One of the biggest problems that the gay community faces is that the vast majority of their opposition aren't bigots. They don't care if you're gay, they just want you to shut up about it. They're just like you, Hater: as far as they know, they don't know any gay people, and they don't need a reminder that gay people are out there somewhere. This kind of "tolerance" carries an implicit threat that if gay people get too uppity, too vocal, "stir the pot," "shove your face in it," etc., then the silent behemoth just might start to care. In the meantime, it allows the myths and rumors about homosexuals to fester ("Gay people want SPECIAL RIGHTS!" "Gay people want to HAVE SEX WITH YOUR CHILDREN!" "Gay people want to MARRY SOMEBODY THEY LOVE, GET A DECENT JOB, and HAVE FAMILIES in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!"), and enables people like yourself to feel principled by interjecting into any conversation about gay topics, regardless of content, that gay people should get no special rights, aren't all that special, and it's offensive to you to even discuss it.
In addition, this is America, and we don't generally accept "I don't care what you do as long as you don't talk about it" as an equal status (try watching a night of TV without having heteronormity shoved down your throat). If a quality of a person's identity is taboo speech, then that person is bound to feel as if they are the taboo.
So I don't think you are a bigot or a bad person. I just think that you have been effectively trained to have a pavlovian threat reaction to the topic of homosexuality. You have an irrational assumption that gay people are determined to claim special rights and force you to think about gay sex all the time or something, that, upon examination, you realize cannot be supported by reality. In this case, you started out instinctively offended by the discussion of gay heroes, but you eventually realized that having a discussion about gay heroes is neither a "special right" nor "shoving it down your throat," and that you yourself are intrigued by the possibilities, at least concerning the females.
I don't think you're a bigot or a homophobe. What I think is that you've bought into some rhetoric without really
considering its full implication. There may have been a handful of gay rights groups that have advocated for special privileges – I know of one or two myself who've crossed that line in their zeal for the cause – but most are just striving for equal rights and equal treatment, and the exceptions are rarely the most powerful voices in the community. If gay advocacy groups put a lot of emphasis on public image and self-esteem, it's only because they are struggling against millennia of some of the strongest taboos in human culture just to make people having the same experiences they are feel OK about themselves.
One of the biggest problems that the gay community faces is that the vast majority of their opposition aren't bigots. They don't care if you're gay, they just want you to shut up about it. They're just like you, Hater: as far as they know, they don't know any gay people, and they don't need a reminder that gay people are out there somewhere. This kind of "tolerance" carries an implicit threat that if gay people get too uppity, too vocal, "stir the pot," "shove your face in it," etc., then the silent behemoth just might start to care. In the meantime, it allows the myths and rumors about homosexuals to fester ("Gay people want SPECIAL RIGHTS!" "Gay people want to HAVE SEX WITH YOUR CHILDREN!" "Gay people want to MARRY SOMEBODY THEY LOVE, GET A DECENT JOB, and HAVE FAMILIES in YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD!"), and enables people like yourself to feel principled by interjecting into any conversation about gay topics, regardless of content, that gay people should get no special rights, aren't all that special, and it's offensive to you to even discuss it.
In addition, this is America, and we don't generally accept "I don't care what you do as long as you don't talk about it" as an equal status (try watching a night of TV without having heteronormity shoved down your throat). If a quality of a person's identity is taboo speech, then that person is bound to feel as if they are the taboo.
So I don't think you are a bigot or a bad person. I just think that you have been effectively trained to have a pavlovian threat reaction to the topic of homosexuality. You have an irrational assumption that gay people are determined to claim special rights and force you to think about gay sex all the time or something, that, upon examination, you realize cannot be supported by reality. In this case, you started out instinctively offended by the discussion of gay heroes, but you eventually realized that having a discussion about gay heroes is neither a "special right" nor "shoving it down your throat," and that you yourself are intrigued by the possibilities, at least concerning the females.
Neil Gaimen had a few in his run of Sandman, but he's cool like that.
QFT.
I'm a huge Gaiman fan, which was why, I have actually read Marvel 1602(that I mentioned above)
Marvel 1602 was pretty good... did they ever make a sequel?
They continued it, but it wasn't done by Gaiman... my wife read the continuation, but I never did. Not really sure what it was like after the initial Gaiman issues. Wife said it wasn't as good though.
Enigma.
I can't reveal too much about the characters' sexuality, because it would be spoiling plot twists. I haven't read his one in almost a decade, but I remember it being good.
It's still not even widely accepted that homosexuals can kiss their lover good-bye, or walk down the street holding hands... let alone save the world.
There's still a great many uninformed people who see homosexuals in the same light as pedophiles.
All I can say is give it some time - it's getting better, but change takes time. Were it up to me, there would be no stigma attached to anyone's life choices, so long as they don't impact others negatively. But, that's just not the world we live in.
And yes, they went to the mall alot.
He said the next words out of his mouth were "You're lesbian? Cool! That means we can go to the mall and watch girls together and nobody would suspect a thing!" They became great friends after that.
And yes, they went to the mall alot.