Gay characters in children's cartoons

[cobra_ky]

I'm not documented on the issue, but I'm pretty sure that questioning your sexuality has become a trend ever since liberalism has become progressive in the US and elsewhere and sexuality suddenly uprooted "discrimination" issues.

Questioning one's own sexuality has certainly become more prevalent as the risks of doing so have decreased.

maybe you're one of the lucky few who never questioned your sexuality, but i'm certainly not, and i'd wager most nonheterosexuals aren't either.

I'm not documented on the issue, but I'm pretty sure that questioning your sexuality has become a trend ever since liberalism has become progressive in the US and elsewhere and sexuality suddenly uprooted "discrimination" issues. I seriously have a hard time believing the utter bullshit that most heterosexuals question their sexuality at all. It's true of a small segment of the population, but where are you getting the "most" from?

I said most nonheterosexuals, and i said "i'd wager" because that was my own intuitive guess, not a claim i'd personally researched.

As it turns out, according to <a href=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=10&ved=0CFkQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emmorgan.com%2FMorgan%2520Steiner%2520Thompson%25202010.full.pdf&rct=j&q=%22questioned%20their%20sexuality%22%20survey&ei=acHVTYHhNOnw0gGgs4WdBw&usg=AFQjCNEiPVCcLh5hgirAib47NveL1Aqbdg&sig2=w7ZW8ysXOhuRsB4QiIFKSA&cad=rja>this study [PDF], 53% of heterosexual male college students said they had questioned their sexualities, along with 100% of homosexuals and other sexual minorities.

Of course you're just going to attribute all of that to the liberal indoctrination pervading our system of higher education.

it used to be normal to treat black people as inferior to white people, too. what's so wonderful and sacred about normality?

Why do you people always take the issue into the historical discrimination camp?

Because it's the most obvious example of why <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority>appeals to the majority and <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition>appeals to tradition make for such flimsy justifications.

And I hope you're joking about "what's sacred about normality." If you don't like normality, go live in anarchist Somalia.

Oh! Now I see what your problem is. You're assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is taking the most extremist position possible in opposition to you. Since you believe in things, anyone who doesn't share your beliefs must be a nihilist, right? And because I don't support a social norm that you believe should be upheld, I must be an anarchist, right?

Sorry, but politics don't work that way in the real world. I love democracy and the rule of law, because they allow us to do nice things like protecting the rights of citizens. I'm all for social norms as long as they're improving the quality of life for people. i just don't see the point in supporting that excludes and marginalizes minority populations with no discernible benefit.

Yeah, well, I hope human society still has the decency to pull a plug on the porn industry. Kids need different values to guide them, not some politician's deranged dream to make all things equal and liberal because he doesn't bear any responsibility anyway, he's only in office to get a fat paycheck and buy a mansion on the beach.

Good thing i'm not a politician, then. But personally i think equality is a wonderful value for kids to be guided by, at least when it comes to orientation.

now you've just completely lost me. PC nihilists having anal sex? what? (incidentally, many heterosexuals engage in anal sex, and many homosexuals don't.)

Please provide evidence for the parenthesis part.

...Seriously? Women have butts too, you know, and some men like sticking things in them. Ok, <a href=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201012/heterosexual-anal-play-increasingly-popular>here's evidence for heterosexual anal intercourse, and <a href=http://gaylife.about.com/b/2008/04/12/myth-all-gay-men-enjoy-anal-sex.htm>here's a whole bunch of homosexuals who don't like anal sex.

 

[cobra_ky]

Hi, i'm a heterosexual male and what the hell are you talking about?

genetics simply don't control our behavior to anywhere near that extent. our standards of physical attraction are influenced first and foremost by society; in particular, changes in what we consider to be the 'ideal' weight have been well-documented throughout history. and Darwin never said anything about our genes making us hate those we consider 'inferior', not to mention that not procreating can <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection>still be a very viable evolutionary strategy.

Hi, I don´t care about your gender or sexual preference, but nice to know anyway.

Given your emphasis on males and your use of the word 'we', ith ought you were attempting to speak on behalf of heterosexual men in general. sorry if i misunderstood your point, i just wanted to make it clear that not all heterosexual men sense a conflict between the concept of homosexuality and our genetic tendencies in the way you described.

I never said anything about HATE...but this nagging feeling of uncomforableness most people feel in the back of their head. THIS is what I am talking about.
Blind hate is fueled by society, but read on to understand.


Genetics, Instincs, call them whatever. Fact is, we STILL have traces of our ancestors behaviour patterns, we STILL choose sexual partners by various degrees of subconcious decisions...

The reason why our instincts don´t drive us is because we evolved a self-concious mind. We can supress urges as need be.

Yes, the "ideal women" has changed alot...I give you a hint why.
Back in the day, when food was scarce and people where poorer, a higher body weight indicated wealth, or atleast an abundance of resources, so your offspring would have had a better chance at surviving. Nowadays, when food is just a 5 minute drive away, a higher body weight indicates that the person takes less care off themselfs and therefore might not be a very good parent. Afterall, someone who cannot care for themselfs cannot possibly be best suited to care for children.

Society isn´t something that is seperate from nature, society changes as a form of evolution. Minor scale evolution. Think of it as animals changing their behaviour patterns to best suit their environment. This is what society is. Society "dictates" basically what is deemed best for the survival of the race. Wether or not that rule is bullshit someone made up at one point (fashion for example serves NO purpose at all), is still up to debate.
But when it comes to what is "attractive", nature will always have a say. I´m not saying it is okay to hate gay people, colored people, deformed people etc, I am saying that these feelings don´t stem from society, but are reenforced by it. Still, we all should have the ability to supress these primal thoughts.

Fair enough, but before i got the impression that you were discounting the role of society in its entirety. If you're suggesting that heterosexuals are genetically predisposed to be uncomfortable with the thought of homosexual acts, i can agree with that, but i don't believe there's anything in our genes that makes us oppose homosexual relationships in principle.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

No, I blame the media for that.

So you cue from what the media sais and tells us to be good, is what the society thinks is good?

How did you make that conclusion?

The world of the media is basically a very different one full of lies and false imagery. How much of it you buy is down to individual level. Some very normal build females are very happy with their figure, and they do get partners.

So, fuck the media, they are out of the discussion here.
Capisce?

From what I've seen, the media has more social impact (at least in Western culture) than any sort of "natural instinct" does. (For example, I suspect that the reason kids will pick crappy sugary cereal over a bowl of oatmeal with strawberries and cream has little to nothing to do with taste, consistency, or what-have-you.)

I agree, however, that it's full of lies and false imagery.

 

[Treblaine]

You don't happen to work on a farm, do you? Because you just made a massive strawman argument, oh, we're all just homophobes! That's the answer! You can't have differing opinions to King Treblaine!

Sarcasm aside, the idea of displaying same-sex couples along with hetro couples, to me, is perfectly ok, I didn't consider that particular method, then again, I didn't expect some dickpiston to react to 1/3 parts of my post.

I'm sorry but I've been hearing so much hypocrisy on these forums particularly that:

-one shouldn't reveal sexual things to children.
-same-sex couples are inherently more "dirty" and sexual than hetero-couples.
-phew, that means we can ban homosexuality from the public because "kids could be watching"

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but for a moment it looked like you were siding with that blatantly prejudiced anti-logic.

 

[Yukichin]

First of all, you do know that sexuality is well, not just mindless sex?

I think you have me confused with the person I quoted.

-Does the idea of including more or any gay characters in a show targeted at younger audiences bother you? Reasons for why or why not?

Not any more than having overtly sexual characters in a show targeted at younger audiences. If they want to have crushes and infatuations and similar that is age-appropriate, sure. If they want to have adult characters (many "kids" shows contain adult characters) who are gay in the same way that adult characters in those same shows are shown to be "straight" e.g. "here is my life partner" instead of "here is my wife". They don't need to be discussing the details any more than they generally discuss the details of the adults paying their taxes or going to town council meetings.

This. Though, the very thought that just because the character's gay means that it'll be inappropriately sexual is a bit offensive.

I don't recall stating at any point that a gay character would *necessarily* be inappropriately sexual. Having a young definitively gay character in a kids show (I'm talking around the age of six, here) would be inappropriately sexual, I think, because being gay is about *sexual preference*. Having a nominally "straight" six year old talking directly about their sexual preference would be inappropriate as well, not to mention unrealistic. I'm well aware that many gays were conscious of being "different" at that age, but it doesn't manifest as actual sexuality until they're older.

If, on the other hand, the show wanted to do it in an appropriate way, the way children actually do express such matters (such as girls having "a crush" on a boy, and perhaps one of the youngsters happens to have "a crush" on a member of their own gender), I would not have a problem with this. But sexualizing children well in advance of the development of the children's own sexuality in order to make some kind of political statement? No.

Except right here you're strongly implying that ANYTHING gay is sexual. Being gay is about what sex (male/female) you like, which sex you have feelings for. Nobody's saying "WE'RE GONNA SAY "SOME GUYS LIKE DOING OTHER GUYS IN THE BUTT!!!!"" or anything like that. If a gay character were to be in a children's show, it would be exactly what you said: a boy character forming a crush on another boy character. But the way you're phrasing it and seem concerned about it makes it sound like you think it will be all about sex.

 

[EuZic]

"You view only the beating. I view the beating and the results thereof"

While beating may be "manning you up", it may also traumatize you. You're having a very limited view on the outcomes of such actions. We are not living in trees anymore. Nowadays we have the possibility of nurturing people who aren't physically or emotionally stable, because we believe that they hold other talents. Violence against each other, while excusable between animals and the "survival of the fittest" concept, is very blamable. It keeps us from moving forward.

And manning up through violence is a very old fashioned concept, as being violent and/or beaten up hardly makes anyone a "man". There are other traits these type of "men" should look at. Responsability is the first.

 

[FarleShadow]

*snip*
Violence against each other, while excusable between animals and the "survival of the fittest" concept, is very blamable. It keeps us from moving forward.

Caught this bit and made me laugh, you do know that the last world war gave us computers (Breaking the Engima code), space travel(V2 rockets)and a host of other technologies?

 

[FarleShadow]

*snip*
-phew, that means we can ban homosexuality from the public because "kids could be watching"

Actually, I don't like two guys making out in public.
Same as I don't like a guy and a girl making out in public.
SAVE IT FOR SOMEWHERE PRIVATE YOU HORNY FUCKBITS!

 

[subtlefuge]

-snip-

I agree with the point you're trying to make, but nobody is going to let their kids watch anime. Do you seriously think that either of those shows are appropriate for a 6 year old?

Children's television does not need to learn from anime.

 

[AngloDoom]

You're right there are a lot more than 2.5 billion people on the planet. At least 3.5 billion more. (Yes, that means there are over 6 billion people on the planet...). Ironically at least 80% are at least in some small way bisexual. Unfortunately most tend to pretend to be hetero.

...Wait, what?

I've posted my thoughts on this discussion, but how does someone even go about researching that? I mean, feel free to change my view, but that sounds like you made it up.

It sounds made up but I did say to some degree. Despite what most people think sexuality isn't a black and white subject, it's more of a scale. Most people who call themselves heterosexual or homosexual are to some degree a mix of both but maybe not to an extent that they would be willing to get into a relationship with a member of the same/opposite gender.
Sorry if I confused you.
But the 6 billion people thing is true. Nearly 7 billion now I think...

See, I've had similar opinions on sexuality: that's it's almost a sliding bar with heterosexuality on one side and homosexuality on the other and people can fit anywhere on the scale. My opinion is that, as humans, we like to put everything in nice little boxes such as "gay" and "straight" to make it easier.

That said, it's very hard to prove this point considering about 90 per cent of people will claim to be part of certain boxes. It may just be that people like you and I, who may have more 'bisexual' tendencies, are just looking at the rest of the world and trying to fit it into our own familiar way of seeing things.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip*
-phew, that means we can ban homosexuality from the public because "kids could be watching"

Actually, I don't like two guys making out in public.
Same as I don't like a guy and a girl making out in public.
SAVE IT FOR SOMEWHERE PRIVATE YOU HORNY FUCKBITS!

You don't like it? Well tough titty. I don't like it when babies cry but it's a part of life, it's natural for it to express distress that way. It's callous to stop babies crying by force.

It's natural for lovers to kiss, even if you don't find it attractive.

I do not believe you nor anybody seriously wants ALL kissing banned in public. You think a straight couple should be arrested for smooching in public? Bullshit, you only have a problem with gays kissing and think you can make it sound less bigoted if you claim it is for prudishness.

It's a stupid and French thing to do. Like France banning the Islamic veil but then making a song and dance claiming it is banning ALL face concealment. Utter nonsense, no French cop would ever arrest a welder for wearing a welding mask.

 

[FarleShadow]

You don't like it? Well tough titty. I don't like it when babies cry but it's a part of life, it's natural for it to express distress that way. It's callous to stop babies crying by force.

It's natural for lovers to kiss, even if you don't find it attractive.

I do not believe you nor anybody seriously wants ALL kissing banned in public. You think a straight couple should be arrested for smooching in public? Bullshit, you only have a problem with gays kissing and think you can make it sound less bigoted if you claim it is for prudishness.

It's a stupid and French thing to do. Like France banning the Islamic veil but then making a song and dance claiming it is banning ALL face concealment. Utter nonsense, no French cop would ever arrest a welder for wearing a welding mask.

Wow, seriously? Take some Valium. Infact, take a fistful and chill out, for christ sake.
I don't like two people tongue-deep into each other. This means I don't like two people tonguing each other. Not: "BAN KISSING! BAN GAYS! BAN GAYS KISSING! BAN GAYS KISSING WEARING BURKAS! BAN GAYS KISSING WHILE WEARING ISLAMIC WELDING MASKS!"

Incase you don't notice, which is likely, the last post wasn't serious or was it?

 

[Cheesepower5]

Kids wouldn't even understand it unless they were educated on the subject matter, or if it was blatant enough about it to let them know. Then the moral guardians would flip out. But sprinkle it into the media everywhere else and watch the main chunk of homophobia flounder out in a few generations.

These things take time(maybe not legally, gay marriage could be legalized anywhere, any time,) but the hate will eventually become weak enough to ignore, with some surprisingly minor measures on our parts. Unfortunately skin-heads and the KKK(or other hate groups in places where racism/homophobia isn't pretty much cultural) are a reminder that we still have a ways to go.

 

[Small Waves]

gay characters in children cartoon's you say

AP was TVMA and John K. flip-flopped around the issue, alternating between "they're gay" and "they're not gay".

 

[RDubayoo]

This has been talked at length in the thread. Please read through it before replying or posting again because others have provided examples of showing homosexuality without sexualizing the show itself.

Oh, no problem. I'll just read through over 22 pages of blather, most of which I won't even remember by the time I'm done reading, before I form an opinion. Or... maybe I won't do that, and give my opinion anyway. That's how I roll, yo.

By the way, I still haven't read all the other posts in the thread.

I would also like to add that it doesn't matter what some parents think about homosexuality. If parents have a problem with what a cartoon is showing, then they can just forbid their child from watching, so that part of your non-argument doesn't hold up too well. It is "an unintended message" for some is a non-issue for others.

I'm not sure you even know what my "non-argument" is. And yeah, why right does a parent have to keep his kid from watching two gay guys go at it in the street? Children have to lurn, dammit!

And for the record, if a child has problems with seeing people kissing, then it isn't homosexuality you should be worrying about.

Yep, you don't understand what I was trying to say at all, and that's why it's pointless to back through all those pages--I doubt anyone else understood such points either.

This is the part progressives (that is, re-branded liberals) don't understand and likely never will. Some children are quite simply too young to understand concepts like homosexuality. Yes, they intuitively understand boys and girls may kiss sometimes, but that may be more due to watching their parents kiss and an instinctive understanding of basic male/female relationships. Throw in a bunch of people of the same gender kissing each other and things get confusing. Hence, that sort of content should be withheld from younger eyes until they are old enough to understand what is going on. For instance, someone mentioned a gay character being in Naruto. Fine. That's a show for "older" kids so they'll probably get it.

I don't expect you to accept my argument, though. After all, in our modern "enlightened" times I am not surprised to see someone put TOLERANCE! ahead of more pragmatic concepts like a child's mental stability.

 

[Nimcha]

Yes, they intuitively understand boys and girls may kiss sometimes, but that may be more due to watching their parents kiss and an instinctive understanding of basic male/female relationships. Throw in a bunch of people of the same gender kissing each other and things get confusing.

That's simply nonsense. Look at children who have been raised by same-sex parents, they are confronted with people of the same sex kissing pretty much from the moment they are born. Yet suffer no mental problems from that, or 'confusion'.