Gay characters in children's cartoons

[BrEnNo1023]

With many children's cartoons I don't think they could achieve the depth in character essential enough to accurately portray a homosexual character. In the majority of cases I would think they would just be made fun out of by the target audience (old habits die hard in children).

That said, if the writers did manage to pull off a realistic and not sterotypical homosexual character, I could see no harm in it. The results would be interesting to observe in the least. Hell, if we're going to indoctrinate the younger generation through television, we may as well indoctrinate them into more permissive and tolerant practices.

On another note, I highly doubt that they will make Rainbow Dash actually homosexual, it wouldn't ruin the character for me, but it just seems like a bit of a bold move.

but old habits die even harder in adults. Teaching people when they're young and impressionable is the right move. Adults who have grown up with the idea of not tolerating homosexuality only seem to rebel against the idea, belting out the usual 'rub our faces in it' and 'special treatment' arguments. Teaching kids to accept it would be a long process, but it'd have a higher success rate than trying to tell intolerant adults that it's okay :|

 

[Lucifron]

Being straight is biologically normal? Um, no. Homosexuality exists all throughout nature. Homosexuality is as biologically "normal" as heterosexuality.

I have absolutely nothing against gays, and it is my firm belief that everyone's personal relationships is the business of nobody else, but this is complete nonsense.

Being homosexual means that you are only attracted to individuals of your own species and gender. For obvious reasons, these individuals usually do not reproduce. For still obvious reasons, this means that there are no truly homosexual individuals in the animal world. It would be an utter dead end. Hence, the sexual norm of life on Earth is most definitely heterosexuality. That male monkeys sometimes bend over for each other is not the same thing.

Even so, the "oh yes it's natural!" is an unnecessary retreat when arguing for homosexuality. Who gives a flying fuck if it's natural or not? Every single bloody day we humans do things that go completely against what remains of our base animal instincts, and that some of us are attracted to our own genders is the least concerning such thing.

Edit: OT: I'm not sure why such a thing would be necessary. Sure, if it can be done in a tasteful way it would be OK, but I don't believe that character's in children's cartoons should be particularly sexual at all, ergo, it shouldn't be something that comes to mind in the kids watching a cartoon.

 

[SillyBear]

Society just isn't ready for it yet. It would be lovely to make a point and spread the message that being homosexual is totally O.K, but your television show would be the target of heavy criticism and it would probably be taken off the air. I think that will change soon however.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

With many children's cartoons I don't think they could achieve the depth in character essential enough to accurately portray a homosexual character. In the majority of cases I would think they would just be made fun out of by the target audience (old habits die hard in children).

That said, if the writers did manage to pull off a realistic and not sterotypical homosexual character, I could see no harm in it. The results would be interesting to observe in the least. Hell, if we're going to indoctrinate the younger generation through television, we may as well indoctrinate them into more permissive and tolerant practices.

On another note, I highly doubt that they will make Rainbow Dash actually homosexual, it wouldn't ruin the character for me, but it just seems like a bit of a bold move.

but old habits die even harder in adults. Teaching people when they're young and impressionable is the right move. Adults who have grown up with the idea of not tolerating homosexuality only seem to rebel against the idea, belting out the usual 'rub our faces in it' and 'special treatment' arguments. Teaching kids to accept it would be a long process, but it'd have a higher success rate than trying to tell intolerant adults that it's okay :|

But you do realize that creating this show may prompt parents to talk with their children at an earlier age about this sort of thing, and perhaps get their children to believe what they do, right? Under the right conditions, this could hurt your cause more than help it.

No one who would allow their kid to watch this show would be against gay rights, which leads me to think that it would be pointless.

 

[SillyBear]

Being straight is biologically normal? Um, no. Homosexuality exists all throughout nature. Homosexuality is as biologically "normal" as heterosexuality.

I have absolutely nothing against gays, and it is my firm belief that everyone's personal relationships is the business of nobody else, but this is complete nonsense.

Being homosexual means that you are only attracted to individuals of your own species and gender. For obvious reasons, these individuals usually do not reproduce. For still obvious reasons, this means that there are no truly homosexual individuals in the animal world. It would be an utter dead end. Hence, the sexual norm of life on Earth is most definitely heterosexuality. That male monkeys sometimes bend over for each other is not the same thing.

Even so, the "oh yes it's natural!" is an unnecessary retreat when arguing for homosexuality. Who gives a flying fuck if it's natural or not? Every single bloody day we humans do things that go completely against what remains of our base animal instincts, and that some of us are attracted to our own genders is the least concerning such thing.

I agree completely with this. There are also plenty "normal" and "natural" things that are completely horrible. For instance, being uncomfortable and hostile towards difference is normal, for most animals.

Normal and natural mean nothing and shouldn't be used as arguments for anything.

 

[Haydyn]

I think you guys are over shooting this. Being straight is biologically normal. Should we not present that as a norm? Yes, homosexuality is a part of life, but we dont need to stuff it into entertainment for the hell of it. Especially a kid's show. If a kid is going to be gay, let them find that out for themselves instead of doing it because this character from this show is gay.

Edit: Plus, i dont want to have to explain ANYTHING about sex to my children. Keep it simple.

You don't need to explain anything about sex - explain about love.

Also...

Being straight is biologically normal? Um, no. Homosexuality exists all throughout nature. Homosexuality is as biologically "normal" as heterosexuality.

Please don't make such ignorant and offensive statements.

I beg to differ. First off I have no problem with homosexuality, but I do agree that biologically we are wired to be heterosexual. That's how we reproduce. Admitting something is normal isn't prejudice. Most Americans live in houses. Is is wrong to think living in a house is normal? I live in an apartment, and I consider it normal to live in a house. What's the big deal?

OT: We do need homosexual role models and characters. The problem is it does spark controversy because so many people are so anti homosexuality. Look at Dumbledore from Harry Potter. He's just a regular elderly wizard, but because he's gay a lot of people are going to be offended. That's why a lot of social mediums don't have homosexual characters. That, and they try to focus more on hetero story archs because it reaches a broader audience. It's not right, but that's why we are in the boat we are in now.

What I would like to help jump start a change is a totally badass character, but is openly homosexual and has no shame about it. Not flamboyant, mind you. It's the overly flamboyant hands in the and air sassy voice type stuff that gets homosexuality laughed out of the room. Just a regualr ass kicker who happens to be gay.

Side note: I was at DQ with a group of friends. A guy walks up to us with his hands waving in the air talking in an overly gay sounding voice. All my friends were trying so hard not to bust up laughing. I was okay with it though. That's the exact opposite way homosexuals should be represented. I have told a few people about this incodent to get a laugh. I would do the same if some guy walked up and started acting overly straight. It's all about representation.

 

[Bobbity]

I don't have a problem with gay characters in a children's cartoon, so long as their sexuality is not really "in your face trying to make a point", but then again, I'd have that same problem with a straight character, so there's no difference, really.

 

[deckai]

What does that have to do with anything? Again: that simply means that same-sex couples only have children when they actually want to. (Medical and third-party involvement is irrelevant.)

That was the whole point of my original post, where I said, that is biological impossible for a strict homosexual couple (sexual speaking, not it's social definition) to have offspring. I don't really want to repeat myself, since this is a topic that can easily offend somebody in a way I didn't intend to...

 

[Treblaine]

I think it's important to have proportional representation but homosexuals only make up 1-2% of the population. It's entirely possible that you could have a main-cast of 10 characters with reasonably only a 1-in-10 chance that any of them are gay. And I mean gay as in exclusive interest in same gender, insignificant interest in opposite gender.

So I think you'd have to go pretty far to have a "lack" of gay characters.

If you stretch the definition of homosexuality to include anyone with ANY even transient same-sex attraction it goes up from 2% to around 30% even though most of those individuals have mostly heterosexual relations. Though strictly such individuals would be described as bisexuals and many more would fit into another category of heterosexual.

I personally think it is far more important to represent bisexual relationships, there are about 10x as many of them as people with exclusively heterosexual.

I also think this is valuable as it creates a bridge between gay and straight people. Gays in cartoons, films, whatever, should not be treated like klingons or some alien and highly separate species. It needs to be represented that there is a wide and continuous variety of human sexual variation.

I'd like to see a story where the straight-as-straight hero, adventuring with his girlfriend he is deeply in love with meets his old boyfriend. I'd like to see them deal with that, how betrayed the boyfriend may (wrongly) feel and so to for his girlfriend.

Counter-Argument
Then again. Ninja warriors are not very representative of the population yet they are included in many cartoons because they are INTERESTING. Maybe gay characters should be represented more than their proportion in population simply because they are more interesting for the drama of storytelling. Well I can agree with that but ONLY IF ACTUALLY INTERESTING!

Putting in gay characters just for the hell of it, that's lazy and comes across as pandering for a wider audience.

 

[Big Bruce]

I don't think children take a cartoon into as much depth as we do (late teens or adults). So I don't see a reason for having or "hinting" a homosexual character, unless to appease an adult/mature audience, which it was not made for. Also, I doubt any cartoon label would want to touch that subject with a 10 foot pole.

 

[TheFinalFantasyWolf]

I know this is gonna sound kind of uptight....I'm actually not too fond of sexuality brought into children's cartoons. I don't think kids should be developing boyfriend/girlfriend relationships at young ages like that. Regardless of sexual prefreences.

Take this video for example, "High five for first kiss (original)" I'm sure most of you have seen it by now. If you haven't here's a link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEN-kHe5o_Y

I know, what your thinking, they're just little kids, its innocent, and I understand that.
Regardless, is it so wrong for me to think that children should be out making friends and having fun rather than trying to get a boyfriend/girlfriend?
Is it wrong for me to think that close relationships like that, should only begin in a persons older years in highschool or something, when teens discover their true attraction to Boys/Girls?

Let me tell you this. Why do people resent these new aray of teen popstars? EG: Justin Bieber, Devon fox etc. Well one reason I can think of is that they are ridiculous. You know why? Because they sing about issues with love, taking their so called "girlfriends/boyfriends" around the world, wanting to kiss them, doing nothing but fantasising about them....And when people here these kids say these things they want to scream out....YOUR 12 YEARS OLD! WHAT IN GODS NAME WOULD YOU KNOW ABOUT "LOVE" and "RELATIONSHIPS"?......

Personally I reckon its the same sort of situation and besides, I really don't think kids are ACTUALLY having crushes...I think its more from what they hear from the media, what they see from adults and stuff. Children want to be grown up don't they? Disney says that a princess needs a prince so thats what little girls will do!

Do you understand my point?

Oh lol and about the issue, I really don't care if homosexuality was brought into cartoons, but I would rather it be that there was no sexuality (homo or hetro), or any "I love him or her" involved in something like cartoons.

Anyway thats just my opinion, there's no need to flame me for it or say that you think otherwise. LOL I know not everyone is going to agree for goodness sake

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Lol, I didn't directly compare homosexuality to a worm fetish, don't worry.

It sounded suspiciously that way. My apologies if you weren't trying to.

More on topic: it's not that sexuality isn't an issue -- gay bashings and a mountain of legal shit say that very clearly -- it's more that I feel both sides look into things too much.

I'll elaborate: the anti-homosexual side of things claims (among other things) that homosexual images like two men holding hands or kissing corrupt a child's mind. Yeah, I don't get it either. The 'pro-gay' side (sorry) claims (among other things) that the absence of obvious homosexual characters [to them] in children's cartoons is a bad thing and damages a child's perception of what is okay to feel.

To me, in my subjective, human eyes, it's all blown so out of whack. Both sides get so overzealous it turns into a debate that shouldn't exist, and then both sides feel the need to win that debate that shouldn't exist and it all goes to the dogs.

You not being able to recognize a homosexual character that may or may not exist in a kid's show, I simply don't see as a problem. As I said, I've yet to see a non-sexual, genderless parent. Or what about someone with two genders? What about hermaphrodites? I don't think creating gay characters for the sake of having gay characters is a good idea. If they are there, they are there. If not, fine. Kids shouldn't be learning all there is to learn about relationships and sexuality from a TV show - and parents shouldn't be relying on it to.

I read an editorial, somewhere, that stated roughly that "the privileged have the privilege of being unaware of their own privilege." And while it may not be at all major in the grand scheme of things? Obvious if G-rated heterosexuality (and only heterosexuality) is seen as fit fare for kids' shows. That indicates that this isn't about protecting kids from any implication of sex, and there is some degree of privilege at work.

There's no black characters in the Tele-tubbies (I have no idea how to spell that, lol). Is that an issue? Not at all.

Ironic that you'd pick the Teletubbies. They've all got different skin tones on their faces.

I think it's important to have proportional representation but homosexuals only make up 1-2% of the population.

Closer to 10%, IIRC.

I know this is gonna sound kind of uptight....I'm actually not too fond of sexuality brought into children's cartoons. I don't think kids should be developing boyfriend/girlfriend relationships at young ages like that. Regardless of sexual prefreences.

I know what you're getting at. But the fact remains that animation studios do work romantic subplots into shows. (Shows aimed at the ten-and-up crowd, anyway.)

It's always very G-rated. But even so.

 

[jackpipsam]

I think that characters in kids shows should be neutral and have no sexuality towards anybody.

however that been said, if there are straights in cartoons then there should be gays as well.

 

[Treblaine]

Um, no. Homosexuality exists all throughout nature. Homosexuality is as biologically "normal" as heterosexuality.

Please don't make such ignorant and offensive statements.

I beg to differ. First off I have no problem with homosexuality, but I do agree that biologically we are wired to be heterosexual. That's how we reproduce. Admitting something is normal isn't prejudice. Most Americans live in houses. Is is wrong to think living in a house is normal? I live in an apartment, and I consider it normal to live in a house. What's the big deal?

More like we're biologically wired to have sex... reproduction is an incidental effect and often the LAST think either really in terms of their emotions, to get pregnant. It just happens and has worked for the best part of a few million years.

OK, to give you an example; one would reasonably assume a fox has an instinct to eat chickens, right? Not just kill chickens for the hell of it, dead chickens rotting don't help it stay alive, it must eat to survive.

Yet what happens when a fox gets into a chicken coop? More often than not it kills ALL the chickens and eats only one of them? Why? Surely that goes against their hunting instinct to take what they NEED! No. They have a KILLER INSTINCT, they see little furry and feather animals and their instinct is to rip it apart, only later does the instinct to eat come and that in moderation to hunger.

Humans will want to have sex more than they actually want to make babies. That is because we have an instinct for sex, not for reproduction. If that was true then the idea of contraceptives would be an incredible turn-off, when it is not.

What I would like to help jump start a change is a totally badass character, but is openly homosexual and has no shame about it. Not flamboyant, mind you. It's the overly flamboyant hands in the and air sassy voice type stuff that gets homosexuality laughed out of the room. Just a regualr ass kicker who happens to be gay.

Side note: I was at DQ with a group of friends. A guy walks up to us with his hands waving in the air talking in an overly gay sounding voice. All my friends were trying so hard not to bust up laughing. I was okay with it though. That's the exact opposite way homosexuals should be represented. I have told a few people about this incodent to get a laugh. I would do the same if some guy walked up and started acting overly straight. It's all about representation.

Omar Little - The Wire.

Damn good TV show. Omar is gay, 100% but happens to be a stick-up gangster who makes a living robbing drug dealers at gunpoint he depends on intimidation and fear to survive and thrive. He does have a "flamboyant" side though it is normally not seen in public but more "in the club", he is still the ultimate masculine character.

By the way. many gay men ARE flamboyant, camp, effeminate and so on. It is not mis-representative to depict a gay character that way and the LAST THING you want to do is imply to a real-life gay person who is acting effeminate and camp that they are "putting it on" or they are just "acting that way" many really are like that. Just not ALL of them.

 

[Treblaine]

I think it's important to have proportional representation but homosexuals only make up 1-2% of the population.

Closer to 10%, IIRC.

Yeah, that's quite a discredited study.

The only way you'd get "10% of population are gay" is if you include 8-9% who who have equal heterosexual AND homosexual interests/relations. I'm sorry but if you have sex with both men and women you are not gay, you are bisexual.

Now the problem is two very vocal parties have reason to dispute this common sense logic:

(1) the far right, who are so hateful and disgusted by homosexuality they void any considerations of heterosexuality from anyone who has any homosexual relations. They think in black and white, there can be no middle ground of bisexuality.
(2) gay activists like to use the inflated 10% figure with the misrepresentation "1 in 10 guys have interest only in males, none in females" when really it is "1 in 10 guys have a strong sexual interest in males though most of that 10% also like females".

It's true in so far as you should give consideration that 1-in-10 males would have strong same-sex attractions.

But it misrepresents that 1-in-10 males are gay and would have no interest in women.

Bisexuals are terribly under-represented in fiction, to spite them being far more common than exclusively homosexual individuals.