Gay characters in children's cartoons

[CrystalShadow]

An example of one such character that I?ve always thought was very well-done was [a href="http://naruto.wikia.com/wiki/Haku"]Haku[/a] from the Naruto series. He?s a pacifist by nature but continues to fight out of some misguided devotion to his insane father figure (Or romantic interest, I could never quite tell) Zabuza,.To me that?s brilliant characterization with Haku?s homosexuality being only one feature of his overall complex personality. He does dress and look female but I think it?s done rather tastefully.

While I agree that Haku is an interesting character, he's also surprisingly ambiguous. And that may just prove one of the biggest hurdles here.
For one thing, is Haku gay? Or is something else going on? Or is he gay and is something else going on as well?

For one thing, Haku's appearance and some of his behaviour somewhat reminds me of myself when I was younger. (Sometimes wearing certain kinds of girls clothes, having long hair, looking quite feminine in general, and being mistaken for a girl on a regular basis. (sometimes pointing out to people that this wasn't the case) amongst other things)
And while I can't particularly make an obvious claim about my sexuality, (I seem to be bisexual, but even now it's still confusing even to me.)
I'm, in fact, a transsexual.


That being the case, Haku remains interesting, but because of the confusion it's difficult to know what his portrayal means. Is he gay? or is his behaviour around Zabuza due to other issues? Is he a transsexual? Is that associated with his (presumed) homosexuality? Does he just happen to like dressing that way? Is it some kind of psychological thing due to the social role Zabuza has him performing? Does he look feminine naturally anyway? Or is it perhaps because he's still too young to stand out physically as one thing or another apart from the most arbitrary of physical traits? (such as long hair)

And that makes what you're discussing quite difficult. - Unless the ambiguity is acceptable, there's several possible ways of explaining what's going on with Haku, and no real way of knowing which was intended short of asking the person that created the character.
Suffice to say, from personal experience, the kind of 'feminine' appearance Haku presents does not cause me to think 'gay' as a first response - There's a bit of a problem when the character design is so obviously female that it has to be explicitly pointed out the character is male. His behaviour and jokes with Zabuza on the other hand... Are more obviously suggestive of homosexual tendencies, and although other answers are possible, they're kind of contrived.

A children's series cannot show certain things explicitly, and quite a few of the things that could be mentioned are ambiguous, seeing as how they don't necessarily make a clear distinction between several different minority groups, or even people that have suffered certain kinds of trauma.

So moving on, with rainbow dash we have no frame of reference. The character design and behaviour is reminiscent of gay symbology and lesbian stereotypes, but it remains highly ambiguous, and most of that could be explained any number of ways. And because the show is aimed at a considerably younger audience than Naruto (and a different culture, with different norms for what is acceptable to show to children), the chances of seeing anything that's less ambiguous are quite slim.

Now, maybe that isn't a problem, and maybe it is. All I know is, it makes the whole question a lot more complicated than it would be if everything fit neatly into some kind of stereotype.

 

[Bags159]

really the only problem with gay chars in kids shows is that it requires you to address sexuality in kids shows which is something that society as a whole doesn't like anyway, in the states we get all paranoid about sexuality at all, really if you want to look at this stuff from a more mature stand point you have to look to japan since they tend to be a bit more grown up about it

MLP:FIM addresses straight sexuality. Well, it addresses it to the extent that the OP wants kid shows to address homosexuality.

 

[Canid117]

Pretty sure he is trolling.

I'm not. Any sex in kids shows, imo, is not okay. Sure, have a flamboyant character, but that just plays on stereotypes. I feel the same about macho men and helpless princeses. Plus, whats the big diffrence between homosexuality and hetrosexuality? The sex. So, when my future kid walks up to me and asks me why spongebob and patrick can't get married but spongebob and sandy can, what do I say? Imo, best to educate them about this seperatley.

Tell your child that in your state marriage is not legally allowed between people of the same gender. Do the characters even need to get married? Can't it just be a grade school crush like every other relationship between a protagonist and a side character in cartoons that has ever existed. By the time they are old enough to actually bother watching the cartoon on a regular basis or care about the characters your kids will already have a sexual orientation. They may not know what it is yet but your kids will either be gay or straight or bi by the time they are five and Rainbow Dash isn't going to change that especially seeing as how the relationship would only be shown as an emotional one.

I dont think you have much experience with kids. THEY ARE FUCKING CURIOUS. Just seeing a man and a man together will spark 15 questions. Besides playing on sterotypes or putting a man with another man, there isnt a easy way to represent this in a kids show.

If you are too afraid to answer your childrens questions then I hope your aren't afraid of them finding those answers elsewhere. Would you rather you be in control of what your children learn or would you rather they stumble onto gay porn at the age of six?

Again, not the issue. The issue is with the media exposing my kids to stuff i dont want to show them yet. Also, how the hell is a kid going to learn the word gay from a kids show. Thats just devious of the show...

Then don't let them watch the show. I knew what Gay was by the time I was six and my parents were a model of excellent parenting. You are responsible for the emotional and intellectual development of your children and you are in control of the cartoons they watch. If you want to instill in them a fear of homosexuals then go for it because they will learn the word gay from their peers and there is plenty of chance they will Google the term and stumble across what the internet has to offer. Either raise your children to be reasonable individuals who understand that gays exist or you shelter them from that and they either grow up to be bigoted against gays or they learn about it in a way that you do not control.

I have trouble believing it's not a choice... Just me... Because if it's not a choice it's a defect...

When did you choose to be straight?

 

[Julianking93]

I have trouble believing it's not a choice... Just me... Because if it's not a choice it's a defect...

Um... sorry but... defect?
How can it be a defect when there's no negative affects? It's a sexuality. Not a defect or a mental disorder.
Saying it's a defect because you don't have a choice is like saying someone with a different hair colour as you has a defect. '

 

[Tsaba]

Absolutely not ready for any kind of understanding of "intimate" relationships, besides playing with their friends, theirs no point to them needing to know or understand such a thing.

But the fact still remains that characters in kids' cartoons still get opposite-sex crushes. Do you consider that going too far? (It appears some people do; even so, just curious.)

You know what I think, why are kids sitting in front of a TV when they could be outside in the Sun? I think TV shows are a distraction and they tackle too much content to fill so much time, I do think it's too far for small children to see intimate relation ships such as crushes.

I also think that as children get older, we can cover material such as crushes and beyond.

 

[EvilPicnic]

Why is including a gay character in a show 'force feeding' a certain view?

If showing that it's ok for a guy to love a girl and a girl to love a guy (as every single kids cartoon does, come Valentine's day) is great, why is it 'wrong' to show that it's ok for a guy to love a guy and a girl to love a girl?.

Sex doesn't need to come into it. This is about love.

We have too much violence in cartoons, we should show our kids more love.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

Call me whatever you want, you have no proof to back up your opinion....

I have to jump in the "gay is normal" bandwagon to not be considered a troll? Gimme a break...

Well, you did jump into the thread insisting that sexuality is a choice and strongly
implying that being gay is doing it wrong.

I couldn't call it wrong... since anyone can do whatever the hell they want to as long as they're not harming others. But I definitely can't call it right, because it wouldnt make any sense doing so.

So...how does saying that it's not "a valid choice" (hell, that it's a choice at all) make any more sense? There's more evidence in favor of sexuality being innate than there is in favor of laterality being innate.

I have trouble believing it's not a choice... Just me... Because if it's not a choice it's a defect...

It has been scientifically agreed that it is caused by a hormonal balance that we have or something. Looking back to when I was younger I can tell I was always gay, even when I told myself I wasn't, so I wouldn't say it's a choice.
As I said in a previous post, I don't feel this is a defect or something wrong with homosexuals, we are still the same in every way as a straight person, just we like the same gender.

LINK???? As far as i know, there is no evidence at all on the subject. Its completley open to opinion.

I'm sorry I have no links to a site for this and it's late here so I'm heading off, all I'm saying is what I heard from TV shows and what others have told me. As I also said, I don't know what makes people gay, but that is the most commonly believed thing from everything I hear and apparently there are experiments to back up the claims.

 

[LCP]

I have trouble believing it's not a choice... Just me... Because if it's not a choice it's a defect...

So what's your justification for thinking that it has to be one or the other, as opposed to merely being more akin to laterality?

Gay relationships can't have kids, simple.

I hate bringing this part up, but I'm stubborn as hell, what is the huge difference in sexual orientations that pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia (and probably more -ilias) can't be considered a valid option/choice/something? I don't see a huge jump from them to gay, if you subtract doing damage. Why shouldn't some things be considered acceptable while others aren't. I choose not to vouch for any of them. Gay just seems to be the borderland of the sexual orientations(probably not using the right word)

I hope it makes sense, i almost never do, partly blame my English..

 

[Worgen]

really the only problem with gay chars in kids shows is that it requires you to address sexuality in kids shows which is something that society as a whole doesn't like anyway, in the states we get all paranoid about sexuality at all, really if you want to look at this stuff from a more mature stand point you have to look to japan since they tend to be a bit more grown up about it

MLP:FIM addresses straight sexuality. Well, it addresses it to the extent that the OP wants kid shows to address homosexuality.

wait really? how so?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I think a gay character CAN work, I just don't know if it is the proper form.

Take for instance Gann of Dreams. He was going to be bi, but they changed it at the last minute, so he?s bi in everything but stating it (He will flirt with a male PC, though he seems to prefer women). He is one of my all-time favorite characters for an RPG,.

He works because he is a character who is bi, not a bi character. Those two things are not the same

 

[Mrrrgggrlllrrrg]

To quote the famous Ms. Magazine debacle, Kathleen Richter;
"I was immediately concerned that the only pony that looked slightly angry or tomboyish was the rainbow pony. Since there's a false stereotype that all feminists are angry, tomboyish lesbians, it was disconcerting to think that a kid's TV show would uphold this. I watched the video clip and, indeed, the rainbow pony stands out as having a perpetually maniacal expression while the others are cute and cuddly."

HA! ^^;; She clearly hasn't seen Episodes 25 or 26. Pinkie Pie and Fluttershy will soon fix her impression of the rest of the cast as cute and cuddly.

Also because Dash is very cute in that episode.

My point is just as there are flamboyant straight men and girly lesbian women, there is no reason we should ever make prejudgments that cannot be guaranteed based on half information and assumptions.

... why? If it makes me happy that there is a female bisexual character in a show I like (when I'm a bisexual woman myself) then why can't I make that assumption?

It sounds like a good intention for it to be that way but to be honest we dont know the characters sexual orientations definitively. It is akin to saying that a man who happens to act flamboyantly is homosexual if he's straight, it is unfair to the person and it harms them from acting the way they feel comfortable. Instead we shouldn't make assumptions and should take people as they are, if they happen to be gay or straight it shouldnt matter. Good intentions dont always lead to a good place.

I'm going to keep using MLP as a lot of people are familiar with it in this thread.

Rarity crushes on a Prince -> we know she is most likely straight.
Spike crushes on Rarity -> we know he is most likely straight.
If Rainbow Dash crushes on Spitfire -> we know she is most likely not straight.

I really don't see what the problem is here. I'm not saying they need to throw more love into kids cartoons. All I'm saying is if they can do it one way they can show it another way.

"If" thats the key word. We have no true proof of the sexuality of Rainbow Dash though. The problem with using examples that have no proof in canon is it is the same as saying someone that acts out of the social norm and making an assumption that you have no proof or knowledge of them doing.

Example; A woman acts like a tomboy and loves physical activities and sports. Someone assumes they are homosexual, the tomboy woman confronts them that they are infact straight. The person assuming feels like an ass.

Example two without sexuality; A person practicing Islam. Someone they don't know and have never met them asks about their faith, the person makes the assumption because the person practices Islam they are a terrorist. But what they don't know is that person interprets their religion in a way to promote love.

If good intentions pave the road to hell, assumptions lead everyone there.

I'm not against cartoons or shows in general showing heterosexual or homosexual crushing/relationships, what I am against is making assumptions based on information and taking it in a different unintended context. Not all gay people act super flaming and not all straight people act like the proposed societal norm so making assumptions only damages.

 

[Bags159]

really the only problem with gay chars in kids shows is that it requires you to address sexuality in kids shows which is something that society as a whole doesn't like anyway, in the states we get all paranoid about sexuality at all, really if you want to look at this stuff from a more mature stand point you have to look to japan since they tend to be a bit more grown up about it

MLP:FIM addresses straight sexuality. Well, it addresses it to the extent that the OP wants kid shows to address homosexuality.

wait really? how so?

Spike tells multiple characters he has a crush on Rarity and does anything she asks him to (with hearts in his eyes I might add) and Rarity spends the season finale trying to hook up with a Prince.

From what I've gathered from the OP and him in the pony chat land, all he wants is something as subtle as a chick crushing on a chick or a dude crushing on a dude. He doesn't want them to run around announcing to the world that they're gay and it's okay or anything.

The point is, if we can have hetero relations in a kids show, why not homo relations?

To quote the famous Ms. Magazine debacle, Kathleen Richter;
"I was immediately concerned that the only pony that looked slightly angry or tomboyish was the rainbow pony. Since there's a false stereotype that all feminists are angry, tomboyish lesbians, it was disconcerting to think that a kid's TV show would uphold this. I watched the video clip and, indeed, the rainbow pony stands out as having a perpetually maniacal expression while the others are cute and cuddly."

HA! ^^;; She clearly hasn't seen Episodes 25 or 26. Pinkie Pie and Fluttershy will soon fix her impression of the rest of the cast as cute and cuddly.

Also because Dash is very cute in that episode.

My point is just as there are flamboyant straight men and girly lesbian women, there is no reason we should ever make prejudgments that cannot be guaranteed based on half information and assumptions.

... why? If it makes me happy that there is a female bisexual character in a show I like (when I'm a bisexual woman myself) then why can't I make that assumption?

It sounds like a good intention for it to be that way but to be honest we dont know the characters sexual orientations definitively. It is akin to saying that a man who happens to act flamboyantly is homosexual if he's straight, it is unfair to the person and it harms them from acting the way they feel comfortable. Instead we shouldn't make assumptions and should take people as they are, if they happen to be gay or straight it shouldnt matter. Good intentions dont always lead to a good place.

I'm going to keep using MLP as a lot of people are familiar with it in this thread.

Rarity crushes on a Prince -> we know she is most likely straight.
Spike crushes on Rarity -> we know he is most likely straight.
If Rainbow Dash crushes on Spitfire -> we know she is most likely not straight.

I really don't see what the problem is here. I'm not saying they need to throw more love into kids cartoons. All I'm saying is if they can do it one way they can show it another way.

"If" thats the key word. We have no true proof of the sexuality of Rainbow Dash though. The problem with using examples that have no proof in canon is it is the same as saying someone that acts out of the social norm and making an assumption that you have no proof or knowledge of them doing.

Example; A woman acts like a tomboy and loves physical activities and sports. Someone assumes they are homosexual, the tomboy woman confronts them that they are infact straight. The person assuming feels like an ass.

Example two without sexuality; A person practicing Islam. Someone they don't know and have never met them asks about their faith, the person makes the assumption because the person practices Islam they are a terrorist. But what they don't know is that person interprets their religion in a way to promote love.

If good intentions pave the road to hell, assumptions lead everyone there.

I'm not against cartoons or shows in general showing heterosexual or homosexual crushing/relationships, what I am against is making assumptions based on information and taking it in a different unintended context. Not all gay people act super flaming and not all straight people act like the proposed societal norm so making assumptions only damages.

I never said we'd make assumptions. If RD crushes on a chick it's as obvious that she's homo as it is that Rarity is hetero for crushing on the Prince.

Her personality doesn't enter into the equation.

 

[Teh Ty]

I'm not completely sure, but wasn;t there a lesbian couple and a gay couple in sailor moon, but got changed in the american release? Or that may have been Card Captor Sakura.

 

[LCP]

Why is including a gay character in a show 'force feeding' a certain view?

If showing that it's ok for a man to love a woman and a woman to love a guy (as every single kids cartoon does, come Valentine's day) is great, why is it 'wrong' to show that it's ok for a guy to love a guy and a girl to love a girl?.

Sex doesn't need to come into it. This is about love.

We have too much violence in cartoons, we should show our kids more love.

I have trouble believing it's not a choice... Just me... Because if it's not a choice it's a defect...

It has to do with how a person's raised, and along the lines of their genetics, both things that the person cannot control. Do you call being short "not a valid choice"? Do you accuse short people of being defective? How about blacks? It makes no more sense to do so with someone who's gay.

Midgets are considered a handicap, and albino people are known to have propensity to skin problems. I hate being offensive, but I'd call that a defect.

Blacks are just a race, completely unrelated

I have trouble believing it's not a choice... Just me... Because if it's not a choice it's a defect...

Um... sorry but... defect?
How can it be a defect when there's no negative affects? It's a sexuality. Not a defect or a mental disorder.
Saying it's a defect because you don't have a choice is like saying someone with a different hair colour as you has a defect. '

You can't have kids... that's a pretty big one. But with the overpopulation issue people seem to forget.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

So...how does saying that it's not "a valid choice" (hell, that it's a choice at all) make any more sense? There's more evidence in favor of sexuality being innate than there is in favor of laterality being innate.

I have trouble believing it's not a choice... Just me... Because if it's not a choice it's a defect...

So anything out of the norm is a defect? So if everyone but a couple people have brown hair in a community, having blonde hair is a defect?

 

[Canid117]

I have trouble believing it's not a choice... Just me... Because if it's not a choice it's a defect...

So what's your justification for thinking that it has to be one or the other, as opposed to merely being more akin to laterality?

Gay relationships can't have kids, simple.

I hate bringing this part up, but I'm stubborn as hell, what is the huge difference in sexual orientations that pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia (and probably more -ilias) can't be considered a valid option/choice/something? I don't see a huge jump from them to gay, if you subtract doing damage. Why shouldn't some things be considered acceptable while others aren't. I choose not to vouch for any of them. Gay just seems to be the borderland of the sexual orientations(probably not using the right word)

I hope it makes sense, i almost never do, partly blame my English..

Pedophilia has a negative psychological impact on the younger party. Bestiality isn't illegal but it is looked down upon by society due to a lack of any possibility of an emotional relationship and necrophilia is seen as violating the wishes of the deceased.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

damn ninjas just about to say that, yeah i think he is i mean i remember reading about the Catholic Church trying to get him banned because of the episode about him and patrick raising a clam

Actually, "Word of God" says that he's borderline asexual with slight hetero tendencies. He and Patrick are just "heterosexual life partners" (that is, two straight characters who nonetheless practically act like a couple). Ditto Bert and Ernie; I don't recall there ever being anything regarding them being brothers.

Not that that ever stops the 'shippers, or anything...

You know what I think, why are kids sitting in front of a TV when they could be outside in the Sun? I think TV shows are a distraction and they tackle too much content to fill so much time, I do think it's too far for small children to see intimate relation ships such as crushes.

I also think that as children get older, we can cover material such as crushes and beyond.

You're probably right, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Gay relationships can't have kids, simple.

I should have known this argument was going to come up. By that logic, anyone who's attracted to someone whom they know to be sterile is "defective." Do humans really only have relationships for the purpose of fucking and procreating?

I hate bringing this part up, but I'm stubborn as hell, what is the huge difference in sexual orientations that pedophilia, bestiality, or necrophilia (and probably more -ilias) can't be considered a valid option/choice/something? I don't see a huge jump from them to gay, if you subtract doing damage.

Because none of those involve consentual relationships between unrelated, sapient adults.

 

[Worgen]

really the only problem with gay chars in kids shows is that it requires you to address sexuality in kids shows which is something that society as a whole doesn't like anyway, in the states we get all paranoid about sexuality at all, really if you want to look at this stuff from a more mature stand point you have to look to japan since they tend to be a bit more grown up about it

MLP:FIM addresses straight sexuality. Well, it addresses it to the extent that the OP wants kid shows to address homosexuality.

wait really? how so?

Spike tells multiple characters he has a crush on Rarity and does anything she asks him to (with hearts in his eyes I might add) and Rarity spends the season finale trying to hook up with a Prince.

From what I've gathered from the OP and him in the pony chat land, all he wants is something as subtle as a chick crushing on a chick or a dude crushing on a dude. He doesn't want them to run around announcing to the world that they're gay and it's okay or anything.

The point is, if we can have hetero relations in a kids show, why not homo relations?

ahh, so I see, got me, personally I find the girl on girl crushes in anime adorable and if they were ponies that would just be like 10 times as adorable and probably then the universe would explode

 

[thelastgentleman]

Achem...if I may interject speaking from a medical background, the primary difference AS OF NOW I can not emphasize that enough is that yes...A gay man's INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL brain is different from a straight man's, but I must also say that ANY man's brain is very different from a WOMAN'S. Medically speaking there is a difference I am indifferent to homosexuality so it does not personally concern me I will raise my child how I chose I wont tell anyone else how to raise theirs so I wish the same for me. As for the question at hand no there is nothing inherently wrong with making a homosexual children's character...will my child watch it? Most likely no just because there is nothing to be had from seeing the show. No lesson is learn no moral value can be brought up that a heterosexual one can do so its useless. Yes the arguement of "exposing my child to the Homosexual community" can be brought up, but like sex I would rather handle that myself. Yes it might be a crush or a kiss that is nonthreatening, but still questions and feelings arise from these senarios...Really guys do you not remember watching shows like wonder days or even Hey Arnold and rooting for a kiss or a date scene...things like these play on psychological emotions, and as a father i would rather interject and teach my child rather than the media...and yes if i dont like it then my child wont watch it its as simple as that.

tl:dr

Nothing wrong, No my child wont watch