Gay characters in children's cartoons

[intheweeds]

Kid pregnancy was around for millennia. Hell, it was the practice in the middle age. Some kid ofter sold for farm animals. Hell, one of my friend and I had the luxe to look at an old wedding list kept by priest. I went back to the 1490... We found a wedding between a 40 year old and a 14.

And in the 1900, kid where sent to the relatives where they would give birth and then give their child into adoption before being allowed back into the family. It's hardly an excuse.

In the middle ages, people were getting married and having kids at 15 because you were lucky to live past 40.

but really, rainbow Dash is slightly young to be anything, but she is obviously has the 'potential' to be gay when she grows up or we wouldn't be talking about her like this. The fact though, that a character like that is portrayed as 20% cooler and has lots of friends, (a 'normal person') is a positive gay role model for straight and gay children alike. It shows it is a non-issue by not highlighting it at all.

P.S. I love Rainbow Dash!

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Although, I think I would prefer it if there were characters of all sexual preferences included.

On the one hand, I agree on principle. On the other hand, I can see how it might be difficult to handle a bisexual character without making them stereotypical.

My best idea for doing so would be as follows: We've got an adventure show, with your typical core cast of four to six characters. A female character's boyfriend is the sacrificial lion in the pilot episode, and she mourns his death (and is out to avenge him) throughout Season 1.

Then, in Season 2, she starts to recover. Eventually, she pairs up again...with another woman. The rest of the cast sees nothing unusual about this, unless they're somehow comically mismatched. (To put this in RPG terms? If it's the grim, wiry rogue and the statuesque, shy but surprisingly tough paladin, the rest of the cast will find that more worthy of comment. And possibly joke about the rogue being a tsundere.)

Please note that any of the characters could be gender-flipped. (And yeah, I'm aware that this would be more of a show for older kids.)

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I'd like to restate how much I dislike children's romance stories first of all they don't address sex which is a big deal in romance and attraction. Second they rarely talk about break ups or heartbreak or anything like that, so it leads to the same stories over and over that give a really bad impression on what love and romance is actually like.

No real argument on that. But it should be noted that when it comes to romantic subplots in kids' shows, either nothing comes of it, or it takes a while (often the whole damn series) for anything to come of it.

 

[ngl42398]

I agree.

[Yes, I know my comment is short. Don't fucking bother me about it.]

 

[moretwocents]

Homosexuality is underrepresented in cartoons, I will admit. However, this is only due to the massive amount of parents that would think that the shows are trying to make their kids gay. Homophobia, and indeed xenophobia in general, is a driving force in the world today. It effects everyone in one way or another, unfortunately.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a bit of homosexuality in cartoons as long as it's done tastefully. This means no entire episode of the character being made fun of for being different. The character should just be subtly shown to be gay, but everyone accepts them for it. It should never be stated that they are different, because they aren't. Cartoons are meant to depict "perfect" worlds with simple problems that can always be resolved in the course of twenty minutes. Sexuality, whatever it may be for the character, should just be accepted, while getting someone to love them should always be the conflict an average episode should revolve around.

Also, to negate the problem all together, we could have cartoons that don't focus on sexuality, hetero or homosexual.

On the idea that Rainbow Dash is a lesbian, I wouldn't mind that revelation, but I always believed that the fact that she is rainbow striped and a tomboy was supposed to be ironic rather than homosexual. She's tough, fast, and very strong, characteristics of your stereotypical male character. She's also got (for lack of a better term) the girly-est colors of the bunch. It kind of clashes with irony for me, instead of defining her as a lesbian, and there would be nothing wrong with it if she was.

 

[Labyrinth]

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

Out of curiosity, when did you choose to be heterosexual? Is this just a phase you're going through? Are you sure that's a good choice given the current rate of relationship breakdown among heterosexual couples? What about the fact that heterosexuals are the dominant demographic in prisons, hospitals and mental health institutions? Would you want any children you might have to be heterosexual knowing that this greatly increases the chance that they will face trauma relating to accidental pregnancies, loss of potential babies and that they will take part in global over-population problems?

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality, no more a defect than it either. You've just been socialised to think of heterosexuality as the norm.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I'd like to go into detail about how much I dislike children's romance stories. First of all they don't address sex which is a big deal in romance and attraction. Second they rarely talk about break ups or heartbreak or anything like that, so it leads to the same stories over and over that give a really bad impression on what love and romance is actually like.

So yeah put me down for neither.

I think that having some romance in children's stories can be good, not because it explains it all properly too them (admittedly they might not understand it), but because it shows them that it's out there. It sets a base of knowledge so that when they're older and they begin to actually understand the true depth of relationships, they aren't going in blind because they already have some basic dealings with the idea.

The same goes with sexuality as well. We don't need to teach our kids every detail about sex, but if we give them some basic stuff so that when they're learning the full story later on they already have a bit of experience with it (and learning everything there is about sexuality during puberty doesn't seem like the best idea).

 

[Chrinik]

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.

The fuck should we know? It´s your kid, deal with it. Just because you don´t seem very interested in actual parrenting, doesn´t mean the world has to help you shits. In my childhood, we broke into girls lockerrooms, by force! Just for fun. What´cha gonna say to that?

I know this is a first page quote on a 20 page thread, but this just bugs me to hell. Lousy parrenting is the CAUSE for every problem we have today.

Sex on screen IS NOT the issue here boy. What´s next, stop showing rabbit families on kids shows who have massive amounts of children? Because lil´ Timmy might ask his dad where all the lil´ bunnies came from during spring?
Where would BAMBY be without him being BORN...

I´d love Kids shows inspiring my children to actually BE INTERESTED IN LIFE! Instead of mindlessly absorbing bullshit morals by so called "kids shows".
If my kid watches a kids-show and starts asking existencial questions, I´d be friggin PLEASED to answer them the best I could. If my kid want´s to talk about sex, why the hell not?

Why is it such a burden to educate your friggin kids when THEY want to? And why do others always have to do it? Schools...OMG how did people ever procreate without Sex-Ed!?

And what is it with this sex thing? Is it an american stereotype that they are all prude as hell and best not talk about sex with their kids until they are 24 and about to get married?


Oh and BTW people, Spongebob multiplies asexually. He just sprouts more spongebobs out of himself.

 

[Chrinik]

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

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality, no more a defect than it either. You've just been socialised to think of heterosexuality as the norm.

Actually, that´s not sociality...We clash with homosexual couples because naturally, they cannot procreate, which is THE geneticly encoded goal in our life.
Sure, there are "homosexual" animals throughout nature, but the next day, they could be humping a female.

Males have urges, especially instinct-driven males, and if there are no females around, well, some dogs use your leg, it doesn´t make them have a leg-fetish...

Homosexually is a natural thing, but we also have a natural blockade inside our coding that makes us think it´s wrong, because you cannot procreate.
It is the same basic drive we have with deformed people, fat people, "ugly" people etc...starting to see a picture here?
Those kinds of people might be nice people, and still be totally functional to procreate, but our innert drive tells us "they have inferrior genes, they aren´t fit to multiply."...
It´s Darwin at it´s best.

It´s actually socialization trying to GET AWAY from that...one aspect of "Civilisation" is the ability to control your insticts, urges and genetic programming.
Or else we would all be raping, murdering and stealing everything...

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

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

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality, no more a defect than it either. You've just been socialised to think of heterosexuality as the norm.

Actually, that´s not sociality...We clash with homosexual couples because naturally, they cannot procreate, which is THE geneticly encoded goal in our life.
Sure, there are "homosexual" animals throughout nature, but the next day, they could be humping a female.

Males have urges, especially instinct-driven males, and if there are no females around, well, some dogs use your leg, it doesn´t make them have a leg-fetish...

Homosexually is a natural thing, but we also have a natural blockade inside our coding that makes us think it´s wrong, because you cannot procreate.
It is the same basic drive we have with deformed people, fat people, "ugly" people etc...starting to see a picture here?
Those kinds of people might be nice people, and still be totally functional to procreate, but our innert drive tells us "they have inferrior genes, they aren´t fit to multiply."...
It´s Darwin at it´s best.

It´s actually socialization trying to GET AWAY from that...one aspect of "Civilisation" is the ability to control your insticts, urges and genetic programming.
Or else we would all be raping, murdering and stealing everything...

Bull-shit. Grade-A bull-shit. Okay, that was too strong. Nonsense is more the word I'm looking for.

There is nothing in our genes that make us go "that person's gay, let's treat him differently". Human males aren't made to be monogamous yet our society generally frowns upon people who have more than one sexual partner at a time. It's not because we're born that way, it's because society tells us that's how we should act. You aren't born with an opinion on everything, you learn it from the society you grow up in.

Also, evolution is not some ultimate goal that our genes have. We don't evolve by getting stronger, we evolve by simply changing. Usually to better fit our environment. And if that' by turning into a blind, fat, hairless race; then that's what we'll evolve into.

Out of curiosity, when did you choose to be heterosexual? Is this just a phase you're going through? Are you sure that's a good choice given the current rate of relationship breakdown among heterosexual couples? What about the fact that heterosexuals are the dominant demographic in prisons, hospitals and mental health institutions? Would you want any children you might have to be heterosexual knowing that this greatly increases the chance that they will face trauma relating to accidental pregnancies, loss of potential babies and that they will take part in global over-population problems?

I just had to quote you to say that I love your post. It's truly awesome. I've saved it and will plan on using it if I ever come across this issue again.

 

[Sylveria]

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.

That's homophobic and ignorant. Oh and avoiding explaining things about sex and gender to your children is what will likely cause them to have sexual dysfunctions and confusion. Start saving for the therapy now.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I'd like to go into detail about how much I dislike children's romance stories. First of all they don't address sex which is a big deal in romance and attraction. Second they rarely talk about break ups or heartbreak or anything like that, so it leads to the same stories over and over that give a really bad impression on what love and romance is actually like.

So yeah put me down for neither.

I think that having some romance in children's stories can be good, not because it explains it all properly too them (admittedly they might not understand it), but because it shows them that it's out there.

I'd agree if it were only a few TV shows doing that but it doesn't work that way.

If a TV show does it and is successful you can bet your bottom dollar that others will follow. It's also an easy story to write which doesn't help matters. Soon you got a bunch of shows doing it even if it's just for an episode and that combines to give them a flawed outlook on love.

I'd like for it to be only a few but there's no way to fairly do that.

I guess if they were more realistic I wouldn't have that problem.

That's true. Hadn't thought about that factor. Curse you materialist-driven capitalism, ruining good things for profit!

Although I wasn't thinking so much about a series or movie based entirely upon romance, but more along the lines of series or movies that contain some romance in them.

 

[zeldagirl]

Wouldn't it be better to simply show kids that it's good to accept the differences of other people as a whole?

Probably, but that's kind of what this thread is about to begin with.

We didn't see heterosexual couples force themselves on each other to get the message that they're together and love each other, so why is there some crazy illusion that to show two characters of the same sex as being a part of each other's live you have to make them fuck.

And I still really have no idea why people seem to simply not get this.

I think the only way to stop it being a taboo is to raise the next generation not thinking that way.

And that's what I (at least) have been trying to get across in this thread. Thank you.

Don`t you people get that this could also turn kids gay?

Sexual orientation is not an ideology to which people can be converted.

Im sick to death of everyone on this thread treating everyone who doesnt agree with it "backwards" or "homophobic" or "happy to be the majority". No. It doesnt work like that. A post that doesnt agree with yours isnt a "bad post" or an "ignorant post" its an opinion, and ive seen them referenced as such a few times either way.

I'm really not sure why you quoted me there, seeing as I never used any of those words.

But if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's not really in a position to get offended if someone thinks it's some species of waterfowl. Just saying.

Here's the fundamental issue with this conversation as whole: When people think "straight", they think the whole array of emotions regarding love. When they think "gay", they think "sex". It's innocuous to have a character with a straight crush, because kids can handle "they're in love". But when a character has a gay crush? THAT MEANS THEY MUST FUCK. THINK OF THE CHILDREN. With the Blueblood thing, imagine if Rarity was male. Now play the exact same arc out in your mind. Done.

You hit the nail on the head. (Or if Blueblood was female. Either way.)

I just wrote a long response to many things, and my browser ate it (NoOoooooOO!), but thankfully, you've pretty much summed up everything I was going to say. And it you did, like, way better too.

 

[zeldagirl]

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

Out of curiosity, when did you choose to be heterosexual? Is this just a phase you're going through? Are you sure that's a good choice given the current rate of relationship breakdown among heterosexual couples? What about the fact that heterosexuals are the dominant demographic in prisons, hospitals and mental health institutions? Would you want any children you might have to be heterosexual knowing that this greatly increases the chance that they will face trauma relating to accidental pregnancies, loss of potential babies and that they will take part in global over-population problems?

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality, no more a defect than it either. You've just been socialised to think of heterosexuality as the norm.

Okay, this post, equals thread WIN. Seriously, pretty much the best argument anyone could have posted. Well done, and have an Internetz. Also, totally friending you for being awesome.

 

[cobra_ky]

first off, i need to say that Labyrinth is just, so great.

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

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality, no more a defect than it either. You've just been socialised to think of heterosexuality as the norm.

Actually, that´s not sociality...We clash with homosexual couples because naturally, they cannot procreate, which is THE geneticly encoded goal in our life.
Sure, there are "homosexual" animals throughout nature, but the next day, they could be humping a female.

Males have urges, especially instinct-driven males, and if there are no females around, well, some dogs use your leg, it doesn´t make them have a leg-fetish...

Homosexually is a natural thing, but we also have a natural blockade inside our coding that makes us think it´s wrong, because you cannot procreate.
It is the same basic drive we have with deformed people, fat people, "ugly" people etc...starting to see a picture here?
Those kinds of people might be nice people, and still be totally functional to procreate, but our innert drive tells us "they have inferrior genes, they aren´t fit to multiply."...
It´s Darwin at it´s best.

It´s actually socialization trying to GET AWAY from that...one aspect of "Civilisation" is the ability to control your insticts, urges and genetic programming.
Or else we would all be raping, murdering and stealing everything...

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.

 

[Izzyisme]

first off, i need to say that Labyrinth is just, so great.

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

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality, no more a defect than it either. You've just been socialised to think of heterosexuality as the norm.

Actually, that´s not sociality...We clash with homosexual couples because naturally, they cannot procreate, which is THE geneticly encoded goal in our life.
Sure, there are "homosexual" animals throughout nature, but the next day, they could be humping a female.

Males have urges, especially instinct-driven males, and if there are no females around, well, some dogs use your leg, it doesn´t make them have a leg-fetish...

Homosexually is a natural thing, but we also have a natural blockade inside our coding that makes us think it´s wrong, because you cannot procreate.
It is the same basic drive we have with deformed people, fat people, "ugly" people etc...starting to see a picture here?
Those kinds of people might be nice people, and still be totally functional to procreate, but our innert drive tells us "they have inferrior genes, they aren´t fit to multiply."...
It´s Darwin at it´s best.

It´s actually socialization trying to GET AWAY from that...one aspect of "Civilisation" is the ability to control your insticts, urges and genetic programming.
Or else we would all be raping, murdering and stealing everything...

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.

Yeah, that's an excellent point. People attribute way too much to genetics. It does make me wonder how much of homosexuality, or sexuality as a whole, is genetic and how much is a product of one's environment. Sexual development is definitely dependent on childhood experiences, but is homosexuality at all dependent on anything other than a genetic marker?

 

[Sean Steele]

I think it might be because these are characters that are meant to relate to children who um hopefully don't have a sexual identity yet.

 

[Digitaldreamer7]

Just no, keep all sexuality (hetero and homo) out of kids shows and let them be kids FFS. I don't want some show to teach my kids about sexuality, I want to teach my kids about sexuality when I think they are ready.

So really, all sexuality in kids shows can just piss off.