Gay characters in children's cartoons

[Radoh]

To learn something, you need to understand it first. When you show two guy on screen to a child, he will think friend. Even if you talk about couple, it would fly over the child. No, to make them understand what a gay is, you need to actually teach them sexuality. This loop with everything i said before and repeating something akin to LULWAT doesn't make it more or less true. If you can't wrap around that, I'm glad because that mean the children are safe. And that's all i want.

I was given "the talk" when I was five years old by my mother and father. They said the reason for telling me early is so they could make sure I learned it right. My understanding of sex has existed since I was five, yet I remain untraumatized. You're entire argument is based off of half truths and suppositions, while the Truth continues to be true. You say children are geniuses, but also that they are easily traumatized. That they can't handle Gay relationships, but are totally fine understanding straight ones.

 

[Demongeneral109]

I am somewhat torn on this matter. While I have no issue with the concept of gay characters, I am inclined to say no, I don't really think there is a place for gay characters in children's cartoons.

I don't think that sexuality should be a factor at all in children's cartoons and if the creator of one is making the conscious choice to make one of the characters gay, then there will inevitably be at least some focus on their sexuality. If on the other hand there is no focus on the sexuality of the gay character, then there is no reason for them to be defined as gay at all; they might as well have no sexuality rather than a character trait that will have no reference in the actual plot. It seems unlikely to me that a gay character would be anything other than a token character, reinforcing stereotypes and possibly confusing children who haven't so much as thought about their own sexuality. I suppose it depends how young the audience is to some degree (I'm basing my thoughts on a fairly young aged audience) as to how well they will understand the situation.

I agree with this, in my mind, if a character in a kids cartoon as shown as gay, then it will inevitably become an important aspect of that character. If it isn't mentioned, then there is no point in making the character gay, its just for the sake of having a gay character. Maybe for young teens this is relevant, but for <10, adding a gay character is like the gay kid in Glee, essentially playing up a stereotype, then subverting it... there is no point in adding a gay character in a show for audiences who don't understand sexuality.

For example, lets say rainbow-dash is gay... people have made this judgement because she's a tomboy who plays sports and is associated with rainbows. That is stereotyping. Besides, there is no way to just mention it, there has to be a focus on it, or the situation is entirely frivolous, just for the sake of doing so. Anything would require a focus episode, which subverts the idea of a subtle gay character. That's just my take on it though.

 

[Akalistos]

YES IT HIS. Just look at the first 3 letter of sexuality. YOU CANNOT ENFORCE those change without having to corrupt young mind by forcing the concept of sex down their throat. It's also illegal to do so, and thank god for that. Teenager need that education and are the heart and root of the problem.

You started this roleplaying on the subject of matrimony and then tried to force sex into it, and explaining marriage (gay or straight) to a child is not illegal where most Escapists live.

No, but for most of North-America it his. Britain too, if i remember... but I can't vouch for the rest of the world.

And yes, your idea is insane and far from being sanitary for children. Gay is OK, but not traumatizing children.

Do NOT bad mouth MY country!

It is NOT illegal in my country for a kids cartoon to define marriage, especially if limited to the wedding vows I have previously listed which are so widely accepted as suitable to say in public. I'm also pretty it isn't illegal in the United States or Canada either.

There is NOTHING unsanitary about the marriage vows.

It is AGAINST gay rights to hide all reference to same-sex marriage from children, surely you must see the harm it does treating the very idea of same-sex relations as "unsanitary" and "traumatising" what it makes children think about homosexuality!?! It makes it alien and unaccepted, open to ostracism.

And what you don't get is to assimilate knowledge, the individual must understand whatever he his taught. Knowing that, If you don't use and flat out explain that gay are two individual that have sex, they they will not retain the info and that make me a happy man. Why? Because the message will be lost to them, and probably will they understood it only when they hit puberty.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

In his misguided totally wrongly explanation, there's some truth to be had. Why do we need to put Sexuality into cartoon. They are, at the base, intended for children. Kid between 4 to 10. At this stage of life, they don't really have sexuality and they don't care. The sexual "revelation" come later when the body start to change. At this point, they would prefer Tween show from both side, and not cartoon. So, Like that, Why should we force kid that still doesn't understand or care to pay attention and choose their orientation. Couldn't we just let them develop like intended by nature? I think J.K. ROWLING did it best with Dumbledore when she reveal he is gay without shoving it into the people's faces. It's good to know that it's not enforced on the child and is only intended as a wink for the older crowd.

Cartoon isn't the place to showcase sexuality in any ways. It should be handle by material intended to the teen demographic.

What about romances though? You see them all the time in cartoons and movies, why can't there be more than heterosexual relationships? I agree with the fact that sexuality isn't really supposed to be in children's shows or movies, but since you essentially see heterosexuality all the time when people are "in love" or have crushes on a person of the opposite gender, why can't you show a bit of homosexuality?

 

[Radoh]

snipped

Let's see now, wrong on the attraction, as pretty much everyone had crushes on people all the way back to five or six years of age. Again you ignore the concept of separation between attractions and sexual attractions.

You claim its well known that mutations were meant as homosexuality while at the same time you present one person's opinion on it. That is not well-known, that's two people who agree that it might be true. And again, you avoid that arguing this to be true blows your argument all to hell. You even avoided quoting the whole thing so you didn't have to address that part. Congrats on picking the inconsequential battles and quitting the field where you need to be fighting. I'm sorry you can't see this.

It doesn't make sense because your argument has no construction, no rhyme or reason, and most importantly, no substance. You dance idly from one detached argument to the next and draw detached conclusions that have no actual merit in the debate taking place right now.

 

[Duskflamer]

And what you don't get is to assimilate knowledge, the individual must understand whatever he his taught. Knowing that, If you don't use and flat out explain that gay are two individual that have sex, they they will not retain the info and that make me a happy man. Why? Because the message will be lost to them, and probably will they understood it only when they hit puberty.

You can explain to them "Some guys like guys the way most guys like girls" without talking about Sex you know.

 

[Akalistos]

To learn something, you need to understand it first. When you show two guy on screen to a child, he will think friend. Even if you talk about couple, it would fly over the child. No, to make them understand what a gay is, you need to actually teach them sexuality. This loop with everything i said before and repeating something akin to LULWAT doesn't make it more or less true. If you can't wrap around that, I'm glad because that mean the children are safe. And that's all i want.

I was given "the talk" when I was five years old by my mother and father. They said the reason for telling me early is so they could make sure I learned it right. My understanding of sex has existed since I was five, yet I remain untraumatized. You're entire argument is based off of half truths and suppositions, while the Truth continues to be true. You say children are geniuses, but also that they are easily traumatized. That they can't handle Gay relationships, but are totally fine understanding straight ones.

The timing was too early but at least was taught correctly. Not all have that chance and, like i said, this is bad. And surely making tolken gay character in shows for kid isn't the way to deal with this.

THIS IS BASED on an actual friend of my family who happen to be a child psychiatrist whit a real doctorate. I only retain the big line but it's enough to know that it's bad. Which is more then I can say for you, unless you have one. If you have, then, please show it and I will retract everything.

 

[Jacob.A.]

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.

Being homosexual is not biologically normal because one homosexual cannot procreate with another homosexual, heterosexuals can (biological). On a counter statement though it is still normal for someone to be homosexual.

 

[Radoh]

To learn something, you need to understand it first. When you show two guy on screen to a child, he will think friend. Even if you talk about couple, it would fly over the child. No, to make them understand what a gay is, you need to actually teach them sexuality. This loop with everything i said before and repeating something akin to LULWAT doesn't make it more or less true. If you can't wrap around that, I'm glad because that mean the children are safe. And that's all i want.

I was given "the talk" when I was five years old by my mother and father. They said the reason for telling me early is so they could make sure I learned it right. My understanding of sex has existed since I was five, yet I remain untraumatized. You're entire argument is based off of half truths and suppositions, while the Truth continues to be true. You say children are geniuses, but also that they are easily traumatized. That they can't handle Gay relationships, but are totally fine understanding straight ones.

The timing was too early but at least was taught correctly. Not all have that chance and, like i said, this is bad. And surely making tolken gay character in shows for kid isn't the way to deal with this.

THIS IS BASED on an actual friend of my family who happen to be a child psychiatrist whit a real doctorate. I only retain the big line but it's enough to know that it's bad. Which is more then I can say for you, unless you have one. If you have, then, please show it and I will retract everything.

NO NO NO. You once again miss the entire point of what I'm saying.

You say, talk of sex will traumatize ALL children, I say otherwise and present evidence.
You say, talking about attractions requires talk of sex, I say otherwise and explain why.
You say, you are defending the minds of children from something that wouldn't occur, and even if it did they'd get out of it just fine. Once more I address these are not Token characters, as those are based on stereotypes.

Your friend of a friend of a friend with a doctorate does not impress me. Carole Lieberman also has a doctorate, and she thinks video games are responsible for rape.

And you need proof of me holding a doctorate while you yourself refuse to present this "friends of the family's" doctorate? What joke is this that your playing right now?

 

[viranimus]

Just as I stated in the original thread of this. This notion is incredibly inappropriate and offensive and will not service the pretty little notions that the faux enlightened think it will and if anything would be a determent.

 

[Small Waves]

To learn something, you need to understand it first.

Marriage: A legal union between two people (ie. their mom and dad).

That much is easy to understand. They already know about the basic groundwork for marriage from their experience at home and every other show on TV having two parents. You are giving children WAY too little credit if you think they cannot understand that much.

When you show two guy on screen to a child, he will think friend. Even if you talk about couple, it would fly over the child. No, to make them understand what a gay is, you need to actually teach them sexuality.

They're going to be exposed to this long before their hormones kick in so it's better to try to dispel any negative connotations that the media slaps on alternative lifestyles before they grow up with judging them by stereotypes they were exposed to on TV or the internet. The world isn't going to wait until little Bobby reaches puberty before telling him that some boys like other boys in that way, so why would it be a good idea to ignore it until it might be too late?

This can all be easily done without bringing up the topic of sex.

If you can't wrap around that, I'm glad because that mean the children are safe. And that's all i want.

The children will be fine. I'm more worried about the small percentage of those children that turn out to be gay that will have to live in a society that constantly stereotypes homosexuals as being flamboyant sex mongers which puts little to no effort depicting them as normal human beings who you would have never known were gay unless they outright told you.

 

[Timberwolf0924]

I'm sure this was said, and I'm way to lazy to go through 19 pages of posts.. but

Big Gay Al (shows accpetance of who he is)
Greg and his Room-mate (Dharma and Greg) (Greg shows the newly 'outed' and his life after, while his room-mate is just flamboyant)
Mr. Garrison (shows the battle of identity)
Mr. Slave (yea, I just had to add him, because somewhere inside, we all want a Mr.Slave)

 

[Radoh]

I'm sure this was said, and I'm way to lazy to go through 19 pages of posts.. but

Big Gay Al (shows accpetance of who he is)
Greg and his Room-mate (Dharma and Greg) (Greg shows the newly 'outed' and his life after, while his room-mate is just flamboyant)
Mr. Garrison (shows the battle of identity)
Mr. Slave (yea, I just had to add him, because somewhere inside, we all want a Mr.Slave)

The point of this thread is for Children's cartoons, and since I'm pretty sure three of those are from South Park, that doesn't really help.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

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.

Being homosexual is not biologically normal because one homosexual cannot procreate with another homosexual, heterosexuals can (biological). On a counter statement though it is still normal for someone to be homosexual.

Being monogamous like our culture tells us to be isn't biologically normal due to the fact that males can have sex and impregnate several women at a time. Does this mean we should totally forget about sexual affairs now?

Of course you seem to be misunderstanding the meaning of "biologically normal". You're confusing "useful" with "normal". Men have male nipples. This is totally normal. They serve no purpose though. They are "biologically normal" but serve no purpose whatsoever.

 

[yamitami]

America's not ready for up front homosexual characters that aren't DEFINED by their gayness. This is why I hate the L Word. It also probably accounts for a decent portion of kids throwing themselves into anime; in those cartoons there are homosexual characters who aren't turned into stereotypes. Even though dubbing tries to erase those--such as the 'cousins' from Sailor Moon--it generally still comes across. I remember watching Card Captor Sakura as a kid and, terrible dub though it was, I still figured out that Yuki and Touya were romantically interested.

However while anti-gay groups will set out to ban anything up front homosexual on Saturday morning, the more subtle things fly here and now. Such as the failed attempts at making CLAMP shows not rampantly gay. As long as there's reasonable doubt then the anti-gays can deny it out of existence and the people who are interested can choose to see it. While it's a game and not a cartoon Metal Gear Solid is a great example of this happening; so many fanboys refusing to admit that Vamp is bisexual even though it was said in canon.

Of course the real problem with trying to do this is the Princess and the Frog effect. Everyone flipped out over Tiana saying that it was racist that it took this long for a black princess or that her name was racist or whatever. And of course if Mulan was released afterwards then it would be racist against Chinese, or if Pocahontas was released today it would be against Native Americans, or if it was Lilo and Stitch it would be against native Hawaiians, and so on.

One day they're going to have a gay princess or prince--and probably much later someone who's transexual--and everyone will flip out. And that's NOT what is needed. When a gay MTF!Princess finds her true love and no one makes any kind of deal about her sex or gender or preferences, then THAT will be the day when a breakthrough is made. Same thing for race or any other thing people freak out about.

 

[Treblaine]

To learn something, you need to understand it first. When you show two guy on screen to a child, he will think friend. Even if you talk about couple, it would fly over the child. No, to make them understand what a gay is, you need to actually teach them sexuality. This loop with everything i said before and repeating something akin to LULWAT doesn't make it more or less true. If you can't wrap around that, I'm glad because that mean the children are safe. And that's all i want.

I'm still trying to figure you out, but it seems you have the wrong idea about what this idea is trying to achieve.

The idea is kids have the same attitudes towards same-sex couples as they have towards straight couples.

That's it. Kids can know that married couples exist without knowing that they have sex with each other but they do know their relationship is "special", MORE than just friends and children WILL leave it at that as you have said over and over again: "children couldn't care less about sex".

This is laying a ground work for a population to accept that same-sex relations exist and from an early age never have the false impression that merely being together is wrong.

I don't know where you get this idea that if a child is to know anything about a subject they must know EVERYTHING about a subject. You can teach a child that other countries exist without having to teach them to language of the country.

 

[AgentBJ09]

See, here's the issue with this. Rainbow Dash is NOT the standard lesbian stereotype.

Is she athletic? Yes. However, Applejack is more so.

Rainbow Dash is also very spontaneousness, prone to running off before she knows the situation, or sticking her head into things before she ready.

She also has hidden self-confidence issues, that come out rather spectacularly in one episode.

She is extremely loyal, but also kind of a ***** to her friends.

Of these, only the athleticism is a lesbian stereotype.

The support for her being gay (or bi) is as follows:

Her rainbow motif (gay pride colors).
The fact that she seems to crush on all of the Wonderbolts equally (male and female alike).
The fact that she is rather physical (both on affection and just rough-housing) with her female friends.

And honestly that isn't much to go on. The fact that she stalks Spitfire and Soaren through a party is the best evidence for it, IMO, but even that can be attributed to simple fan obsession.

tldr: My point is that Rainbow Dash is not actually a lesbian stereotype.

That was my first thought as well when the subject of Dash being gay/bisexual was mentioned. Applejack is athletic as well, but she works as a farm hand. She has to be strong for her job and livelihood.

It's been stated all throughout the season that she is a major fan of the Wonderbolts, enough so that she stalks them through the gala and keeps trying to impress them, even though she saved their lives and did a sonic rainboom ten episodes before.

I'd put her on the near obsessed fan/adventurer pony list, not as a lesbian/bisexual.

 

[Judas_Iscariot]

I type this post due to my feeling that those who share my views are both misunderstood in this thread as well as misrepresented. In order to both establish my views and defend them I will be making quite a lengthy post in as logical a progression as possible. If you feel that it is too long to read, do not voice that as a criticism and instead simply do not read it. Those who balk at arguementation due to its depth are not worth explaining one's view to regardless.

If I make any grammer mistakes, please refrain fro mattempts to use that as establishment of my lack of intelligence. Ad hominem attacks do not invalidate my reasoning.

In addition, all of the reasoning provided within this post are from an American point of view, and as such cannot be applied to countries that do not share our distinct cultural problems.

I, and those who agree with me, strongly oppose expicitly gay characters being added to childrens programming for the following reasons.

1) The debate on Homosexuality is to complex an issue for childrens television.

While it is true that childrens programming has for decades been used to convey a moral, and if traced back to the fairy tales of medieval societies moral lessons to children through stories have a long history indeed. Morals such as "Stealing is wrong" appear in childrens cartoons frequently, and I understand the concept that tolerance of homosexuality should be included as well, but I disagree with the concept regardless. Gay rights is a politcal issue that embodies a strong current in our modern era, especially with the recent decision to repeal "Don't ask Don't Tell". There are many proponents, activists, and detractors on both sides of this expansive and divisive issue, and I would say, based on no factual evidence and mere political observation, that in America the country is divded roughly evenly between gay rights proponents and traditional family value proponents. It is exactly for this reason that the issue does not belong in childrens television, as MORALLY DIVISIVE ISSUES SHOULD NOT APPEAR AS THEMES IN CHILDRENS TELEVISION.
While we have already discussed how morals have been conveyed and continue to be conveyed to children through the medium of stories, when we discuss a medium such as television we must realize that the entirety of the political spectrum is exposed to these programs, from conservative households to liberal households. As such, specifically siding with one mode of thinking over another will cause strife within the household and the country. For instance, Abortion would rightly not be the topic of an episode of "Hey Arnold" for exactly the same reason as gay rights, because it is a divisive issue with no clear moral answer and as such should not be presented to children. Cartoons are exposed to EVERYONES children, and the only moral themes that should be present are those that are OVERWHELMINGLY accepted by soceity. Tolerance of another race or of another creed are both overwhelmingly supported in our society, so they regularly make appearances in childrens programming.

2) Programming should not attempt to "parent" the child of someone with an opposing view.

Now obviously this paricular arguement is reliant on homosexual rights as a political dillemma, as it is in the United States. In such a society, those in charge of childrens programming have no moral or ethical right to foist there ideals on the children of other adults. While there is nothing wrong with attempting to share one's ideas and philosophies with another ADULT, specifically targeting children at a young age in order to expose them to your personal beliefs is a form of indoctrination. While some forms of indoctrination are universally regarded as "good" (We can refer to the stealing is wrong message) and can help in adjusting children to become functioning and morally responsible adults, attempting to inject controversial ideaology into childrens shows in order for said ideaology to affect the thinking of children, which is the ultimate goal of the arguement to write in explicitly gay characters, is morally wrong. Indoctrination or attempting to "convert" children into a form of thinking not accepted by their parents is not a traditionally accepted process and is an action I take extreme offense to.

As an aside, I will acknowledge that the arguement will be made that parents can simply refuse to allow their children to watch childrens programming. While seemingly logical, this is heavily extortionary on the part of the writers of the programming, as it is essentially the message that "You will accept and expose your children to our morals or they will lack entertainment."

In the end, it should be obvious that deliberate politcal controversy should not be the aims of a childrens program, entertainment and the conveyance of universally accepted morality should be.

3) Teenage Programming is a better vehicle for complex moral issues

Programming that targets demographics from age 16 on are the much better medium for complex moral questions. By this point the young adult has been educated both by the public school system and their parents and can make their own decisions about moral questions rather than be unduly influence in their mere inclusion in programming. This still allows for the more liberal population to produce messages that they believe will benefit man kind as a whole, IE tolerance of homosexuality, while also respecting the parents right to passtheir beliefs down to their children while they are still at a young age, while aslo respecting the childs reasoning abilities and waiting until their moral sense is significantly developed enough to COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSION when presented with all sides of the issue.



In conclusion, I will clarify that I have nothing against the gay rights movement, I have nothing against gays, and I have nothing against those who would include gay characters in children's programming. I simply believe that complex moral questions, especially those so controversial that they continue to divide the population of one of the world's super powers, should not be foisted on children while they are at an impressionable age and lack the moral experience to decide the resolution on their own. These questions should only be raised for the child once the child is a young adult who has been taught by their parents, society, the education system, and to some extent the programming that soceity has allowed for children.

If you have any disagreements with my beliefs I will gladly engage in conversation and clarification about them. I will restate that this is not an attempt to change anyone's decision or beliefs, merely a clarification of my personal beliefs and the beliefs of others.

Thank you for reading.

 

[Treblaine]

Why? Because the message will be lost to them, and probably will they understood it only when they hit puberty.

THERE! That is it right there!

We cannot wait till they reach puberty after hearing years of homophobic insults and gay-bashing and expect THEN to be told that:

"actually gays should be accepted rather than ridiculed and pilloried, to spite all your immature friends have said - unchecked - about them. While you're thinking about that I'm going to explain how they actually have sex"

See how that isn't going to work.

See how delaying any acknowledgement of homosexuality/same-sex partnership as in any way acceptable till so late in their development is way too little, way too late. They need to have built the ground work from a young age when children are getting a broad understanding of the world and how people are interconnected.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I'm surprised the OP spoke of animes and didn't mention any of the more obvious examples from, let's say, Disney films:

But how can it be gay if the naked animals have no, "equipment"? ( You know what I mean )

Because again, attraction is not the same as sexual attraction. You know what you like before you have the desire to have sex with it.

For instance: Do you love your significant other? Do you love your mother the same way? What about your dog or your friends? Different loves for different scenarios.

Ok. I see what ya mean. I could be a little kid and have a crush on a girl or boy but not want to have sex. Understandable.
Also, I just want to restate something from a previous chat; I HATE SPELLING! You go to hell spelling! You go to hell and you DIE!

I wanted you so badly to misspell something in that sentence so I could be cruel and correct you on it.
OT: I'm glad I could clear that up for you. Out of this entire thread I explained that to like twelve people and you're the first to acknowledge it. You've reestablished my happy demeanor, and I thank you for it.

No need to thank me. On the topic, the only reason I see to reject what has been porposed (a well made character who happens to be gay) other then the obvious hatred of anything gay, would be
A(The character is just another "I'M SUPPER FABULOUS!" crap "gay" stereotype. (IT's NOT funny. Its painful to listen to.)

or B(The fear that it will turn kids gay.

B is a dumb reason because it makes no sence. You either are something or you not. For almost every sexual thing you have to be one to start with, you can't become somthing your not, but you could discover that you are one I suppose. That may also be a fear. But think about it like this; Some people like to be tortured a bit when having sex. An example would be lets say testicular torture, twisting maybe. Now I don't know about you all, but extreme pain to my most sensitive areas, male or female, sounds like something I could say no thanks to. Same for gay sex. No matter how much you talk about it I, nor anyone else who doesn't want it, will NEVER be temped to have it. In fact the more you talk about sex I don't want the less I want to have it. If you think that gay sex is a choice, then teach yourself to like having testicular torture, or for that matter gay sex. If you can do that, then you are gay.