Gay characters in children's cartoons

[Dark Pythos]

The lack of gay character's in children's cartoons is simply because being gay is a persons "sexuality" i wont get into personal beliefs on the subject, but these are children, they do not or at least SHOULD not know about sex ESPECIALLY non pro-procreational sex until nearly pre-teens. To introduce the idea of a gay person to a child who see's people as people can only have negative affects on their psyche and confuse them. When a child is young their trying to figure out the world and if someone says that if seeing this or thinking of this has an affect on you than "your gay", the child could easily convince him self, "Oh well i felt something i guess I'm gay". While like i said before i wont go into personal beliefs on the topic, i would classify this as a false positive due to circumstances, rather than the individual.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

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?

Irony's Acolyte is right: that's nonsense. Many cultures throughout history turned a blind eye to homosexuality, or even outright encouraged it.

And beauty standards have shifted hugely throughout history and across cultures. (For example, thinness as an ideal is very recent in the grand scheme of things, and is almost entirely limited to post-industrial cultures.) Aside from possibly the waist to hip ratio and maybe the perennial appeal of big shoulders, there is no such "basic drive."

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.

Well, humans in general aren't made to be monogamous. It's just that there's less of a stigma attached to men who flout that particular taboo, and so we've learned to view it as a guy thing. But that's a minor quibble, since I agree with everything else you've said here.

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.

Glad I could help.

 

[Treblaine]

Any sexuality in kids shows is bad. Straight, gay or robosexual.

Although, for awkward points, I'm going to rate 'Grown men arguing the sexuality of a product-tie-in show designed for kids' as what the fuck is wrong with you people.

Are you saying cartoons shouldn't even show ANY family units, like the mom-and-dad, or King-and-queen, or any married couples?

I have heard this argument "NNNOOO sex at all" when it boils down to:

-Hetero-couples = Perfectly OK and acceptable.
-Same-sex couples = OHHH IT'S OBSCENE!

Even though you'd show both couples EXACTLY the same.

If kids learned about same-sex couples the same as hetero-couples that would do a great job of countering to almost ubiquitous prejudice and abuse there is towards homosexuality amongst American youth.

PS: children do NOT need to know about gay-sex to comprehend gay-marriage, just like they can understand a man and a woman getting married without needing the 'birds and the bees' explained to them.

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.

That's the idea. WHY do you think so many think of just "sex" when it comes to homosexuality? Why no love?

How much of that is down to how gay-characters somehow cannot be shown in young kids publications, even in a love. While they are watching so-many cartoons of the Prince falling in Love with the Princess; they are hearing in the school-yard about "you know I heard on Fox News that gays like to do X", "EEEEWW! Those gays are sick!".

To introduce the idea of "gay crush" because children only understand the straight-couple "they're in love" ONLY because the media has given that opportunity. Introduce the idea of acceptable same-sex love before their minds are polluted by schoolyard innuendo and negative rumour about homosexuality.

 

[breadsammich]

If the character adds value to the show and is tastefully presented...sure.

But I can't support the idea of a token gay character.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I think it would be great on the chance that it is never made a big deal out of. "Here's Bob, he is living with Steve and loves him very much. Moving on to the Lolipop tree that grants wishes..."

 

[Gralian]

I think part of the problem is that children's cartoons rely very heavily on gender roles. If you notice, you have a very typical "this is what a 'man' tends to be" and "this is what a 'woman' tends to be" archetypes. The girls are girly (for example they may like dresses and shoes and tend to be more cautious), the boys are manly (they consider girls 'icky', they try to be brave, they like male iconography). Whether it's something as basic as a prince and a princess, or characters living on a fictional street. Because kids' shows are so heavily rooted in such gender roles, gay characters would turn that on its head. Because of this social integration of gender roles and stereotypes, the child may ask "but who plays the part of the woman and who plays the part of the man?", because of what Disney or whatever kids' TV show or movie has taught them to recognise over the years. I think before we have gay characters implemented in a way that won't cause a fuss, we need to break down or perhaps do something about draconian gender roles and stereotypes. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Can a man have the same qualities as a woman, and vice versa? What about gay men and women? Do they fit into either category? Do you have a 'male' prince and a 'male' princess and vice versa for the other gender? Or two princes / princesses? How is a child supposed to react to that?

It's not an easy thing to consider. It goes far beyond the realm of just 'inclusion of a minority', it deals with gender issues and how that affects the representation of homosexuality. Just my £0.02

 

[Totenkopf]

Ah, okay.
Let's look at the implications of the statement in bold letters here.
There aren't enough positive role models for homosexual children -->
That means that those children can't relate to straight characters, and can't regard them as role models,
what in return means that a heterosexual person can't relate to homosexual characters,
and is unable to regard a homosexual character / person as role model.
Nice trench-digging I have to say, inconspicuous but effective.

I'm not picking on you or your opinion, but what does that quoted section mean? I can't understand what you are saying by it.

Not being a jerk. Promise.

Excuse me if I wrote this incomprehensible. I'll try to word it more understandable now.

I just wanted to say that sexuality shouldn't mean any differences in terms of role models, because they should represent basic values. And in my opinion it's wrong to draw a line ("dig a trench") between them and say that people who have another sexuality need another kind of positive role model, because they would be unable to relate to already existing ones with different sexualities.
There shouldn't be so much weight put on sexuality, in my humble opinion.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I think part of the problem is that children's cartoons rely very heavily on gender roles. If you notice, you have a very typical "this is what a 'man' tends to be" and "this is what a 'woman' tends to be" archetypes. The girls are girly, the boys are manly. Whether it's something as basic as a prince and a princess, or characters living on a fictional street. Because kids' shows are so heavily rooted in such gender roles, gay characters would turn that on its head. Because of this social integration of gender roles and stereotypes, the child may ask "but who plays the part of the woman and who plays the part of the man?", because of what Disney or whatever kids' TV show or movie has taught them to recognise over the years. I think before we have gay characters implemented in a way that won't cause a fuss, we need to break down or perhaps do something about draconian gender roles and stereotypes. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Can a man have the same qualities as a woman, and vice versa? What about gay men and women? Do they fit into either category? Do you have a 'male' prince and a 'male' princess and vice versa for the other gender? Or two princes / princesses? How is a child supposed to react to that?

The use of fixed gender roles isn't nearly so universal in cartoons nowadays. And at any rate, who says that those roles are necessarily a good thing to indoctrinate kids with?

Are you saying cartoons shouldn't even show ANY family units, like the mom-and-dad, or King-and-queen, or any married couples?

I have heard this argument "NNNOOO sex at all" when it boils down to:

-Hetero-couples = Perfectly OK and acceptable.
-Same-sex couples = OHHH IT'S OBSCENE!

Even though you'd show both couples EXACTLY the same.

If I had a dollar for every time I've said more or less this, I think I could buy...well, at least another flash drive with it.

 

[rodain]

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?

people don't attribute enough to genetics. try to find documentation on the orphan and heritage experiment. people with stupid genes remain stupid, and there is little people can do to change that and whatever change there can be is only there because the genes allow it.

as to the topic: i'm guessing i can average out that 0% of you have children; let me tell you why parents are afraid of exposing children to anything and everything: kids are stupid - they put things completely out of context and make up their own logic around it. things they see, they might try, a kid has killed another with a wrestling move. most of you will think that they can't possibly be that stupid, but unless you've been around a developing child or two for at least 10 years, you simply don't know. they can say things that scare the crap out of you, not literally scary, but you get scared on their account for what they might do with their understandings.

now, i undertsand most of you want to be understanding, but being submissive to the idea, is not the same as understanding it. i don't think you people understand half of this. i have gay friends, one who have had to explain to me what it actually means, because it's not just a sexual orientation, it's a lifestyle - and don't take that out of context, LIKE A CHILD - i don't mean that it turns you feminine and compells frolicking... he said to me that it's for one reason, because it's hard to be open about it, even if you're not ashamed of it. it's hard because you don't always know who is gay, and you might make a fool of yourself. it's hard because that feminine stereotype is something you hate about the culture, but it might be avoidable to be part of that because you need someone who understands, and it's hard to find other gay people who aren't like that.

that's just him specifically, though. children have tons of time to figure out who they are, and they don't need to start at age six, i'm all for understanding, but you seriously need to sit down and explain it to them - exposing them even to the idea might give them ideas of their own, misintepreted and not understood the way they were meant to, because they don't know what being gay actually entails.

so no i don't want gay characters - but then again, why not - it'll be interesting to see if people can pull it off. i'm not a kid and my kids aren't dumb enough, so what do i care?=D

 

[Jack Macaque]

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

Kids don't get turned gay by seeing gay characters on TV. If they did, we'd never see any gay people because straight couples are on TV all the time, it didn't turn the LGBT individuals of today straight, now, did it?

But fine, okay, let's assume some kids see Rainbow Dash has a crush on Applejack, and they think, "Golly gee, that sounds swell". What's wrong with that? What is inherently bad about an individual being gay?

Firstly I have no problem with gays, you wanna be gay, do it, just keep it out of my face, just out of common courtesy. And anyone who has enough courage to admit they're gay, good for you, it takes a lot of balls to do something like that. Only strong people could manage something like that.

Oh nothing at all is wrong with being gay, but these days it seems to be more of a fad than anything, just like being a goth or any other fad for highschool kids.

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

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

So people are born with it? Not likely. That's rather ridiculous.

 

[Gralian]

I think part of the problem is that children's cartoons rely very heavily on gender roles. If you notice, you have a very typical "this is what a 'man' tends to be" and "this is what a 'woman' tends to be" archetypes. The girls are girly, the boys are manly. Whether it's something as basic as a prince and a princess, or characters living on a fictional street. Because kids' shows are so heavily rooted in such gender roles, gay characters would turn that on its head. Because of this social integration of gender roles and stereotypes, the child may ask "but who plays the part of the woman and who plays the part of the man?", because of what Disney or whatever kids' TV show or movie has taught them to recognise over the years. I think before we have gay characters implemented in a way that won't cause a fuss, we need to break down or perhaps do something about draconian gender roles and stereotypes. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Can a man have the same qualities as a woman, and vice versa? What about gay men and women? Do they fit into either category? Do you have a 'male' prince and a 'male' princess and vice versa for the other gender? Or two princes / princesses? How is a child supposed to react to that?

The use of fixed gender roles isn't nearly so universal in cartoons nowadays. And at any rate, who says that those roles are necessarily a good thing to indoctrinate kids with?

I thought i'd hinted my stance on this. It's now bolded for emphasis.

I'll admit i don't know much about kids' TV shows or films. I haven't really seen any in a long time. All i can do is recall an example from something like Toy Story 2. Woody (male) has to go on an adventure to save Buzz Lightyear to win the affections of Bo Peep (female), who notably does NOT go on an adventure and does little but provide adoration for this act. Though i do note here that they turn this convention on its head with Jessie(?) the cowgirl, who's more action oriented and almost a complete role reversal, like a female Woody. However, i believe this "Woody, Bo Peep" scenario is probably still fairly evident in kids' literature and TV. Disney is still kicking around, after all. (though they have tried to mature if things like the Prince of Persia are anything to go by)

My main point was that you can't really tackle the issue of homosexuality without first identifying and dealing with gender issues, roles and stereotypes. Once those are gone, the inclusion of gay characters won't be such a big deal because there's nothing to identify as "the norm".

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I thought i'd hinted my stance on this. It's now bolded for emphasis.

Sorry, missed that. My bad.

I'll admit i don't know much about kids' TV shows or films. I haven't really seen any in a long time. All i can do is recall an example from something like Toy Story 2. Woody (male) has to go on an adventure to save Buzz Lightyear to win the affections of Bo Peep (female), who notably does NOT go on an adventure and does little but provide adoration for this act. Though i do note here that they turn this convention on its head with Jessie(?) the cowgirl, who's more action oriented and almost a complete role reversal, like a female Woody. However, i believe this "Woody, Bo Peep" scenario is probably still fairly evident in kids' literature and TV. Disney is still kicking around, after all. (though they have tried to mature if things like the Prince of Persia are anything to go by)

My main point was that you can't really tackle the issue of homosexuality without first identifying and dealing with gender issues, roles and stereotypes. Once those are gone, the inclusion of gay characters won't be such a big deal because there's nothing to identify as "the norm".

Yeah, there's been quite a bit of work towards breaking those stereotypes down already (hell, they were working at it before Toy Story 2). Action girls abound in modern animation; while nonaction boys are still fairly uncommon, they're becoming less so.

Still, I see no reason why the one necessarily has to follow the other (aside from the fact that action girls and nonaction boys are less likely to send reactionaries into conniptions than same-sex couples would).

So people are born with it? Not likely.

And yet, evidence is mounting that it's true.

That's rather ridiculous.

If sexual orientation really could be indoctrinated, no teenager would ever turn out gay after having been raised to believe that it's perverted. Furthermore, conversion therapy would have a decent success rate.

But they still do, and it doesn't. So what's so "ridiculous" about sexuality probably being innate, again?

 

[Gralian]

I see no reason why the one necessarily has to follow the other (aside from the fact that action girls and nonaction boys are less likely to send reactionaries into conniptions than same-sex couples would).

The reason for this is that, along with 'heterosexual gender roles', society also has stereotyped, often erroneous views on 'homosexual gender roles'. I'll use my parent's opinions as an example here, since they're over 50 and probably give a greater representation of the general public than the progressive youth. When asked what they think of when they picture a homosexual man, they imagine someone highly effeminate, like Alan Carr. When asked to picture a homosexual woman, they picture a tomboy or someone typically 'butch'(I'm afraid i can't give an example of a celebrity who fits this image for the moment). I know it's not just the older generation who hold these views too. I've heard people joke quite freely about these perceptions in the 18-30 age bracket. It's even 'celebrated' and parodied on shows like South Park and various stand-up comedians.

Warning - this is where it gets highly convoluted.

I propose that the reason for these 'homosexual gender roles' is because of the 'heterosexual gender roles'. It almost seems to be a reaction to say that "if person A likes the same sex, they must fulfill the same criteria as a member of the opposite sex". Essentially, if a man likes another man, one or both of them have to "fulfill the missing gender role of the woman". We all know that's a load of rubbish, and you can very much get masculine gays and feminine lesbians. We also know such stereotypes are hyperbolic, exasperated and damaging. My point is, however, that they are the result of the pre-conceived notions about heterosexuals and their gender roles. If people see homosexuality as a deviation from heterosexuality, then the gender roles they fulfill must also be a deviation of heterosexual gender roles - that's the crux of the mentality that i'm trying to get across, and why i'm saying change for homosexual inclusion should follow on from the deconstruction of heterosexual normativity.

Blimey that was a lot of rambling. I hope it came across alright. If any part of it is offensive, i apologise in advance. It's all just hypothesising. As always, i never claim to be a sociology expert. It's just a philosophical rumination. I find the topic of human sexuality rather fascinating and one well worth exploring in discussions such as these.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Blimey that was a lot of rambling. I hope it came across alright. If any part of it is offensive, i apologise in advance. It's all just hypothesising. As always, i never claim to be a sociology expert. It's just a philosophical rumination. I find the topic of human sexuality rather fascinating and one well worth exploring in discussions such as these.

No, I see what you're getting at. Because of masculine and feminine stereotypes and the sexual baggage attached, people presume that any gay man will be swishy and any lesbian will be butch. Or, at very least, that someone has to be the "girl" or the "boy" in a same-sex couple.

This is why I absolutely adore the (apparently completely canonical) chemistry between Uriel Chuluun and Kira Thanos in Rift. Neither of them seem to be caricatures.

I still see no reason why both stereotypes can't be tackled at once, but I can see your point of view.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Oops, the server seems to have hiccuped and doubled my post. Please disregard this.

 

[Gralian]

I still see no reason why both stereotypes can't be tackled at once, but I can see your point of view.

I'm glad for this and i will end with one final note, the reason why i feel it would make more sense to tackle them seperately, is that it would simply be more logical. To illustrate my point, i will use an analogy of making a sandwich for lunch and then eating it.

When you make a sandwich, you first take the bread, and the butter, and whatever is in the middle and lay it out - then you spread the butter on the bread, then put the ham on the bread, then the lettuce, then whatever else and put the other bread on top. You have a sandwich and you go away to eat it. Now picture you want to do both things at once. You want to make the sandwich and eat it at the same time. It would not only be difficult, but it would also be awkward and you would probably fail a lot, maybe drop some ingredients, maybe lose something or make a mess. Eating the sandwich follows on from making and preparing it. Eating it while you are making and preparing it leads to a clumsy situation whereby it won't ever be as good as if you'd spent the time preparing it and making it properly beforehand.

In this case, if you don't try to break down what is already the 'accepted norm', you may find little or lessened success in trying to break down the 'accepted norm' in a group that isn't percieved to be as such to begin with, particularly when those 'accepted norms' are based purely off the assumptions of those who believe themselves to be the 'norm' to begin with.

 

[Anjel]

This thread is painful to read.

-To those assuming that the "LGBT community" have found something else to ***** about - please don't tar us all with the same brush. Some of us, many of us even, are normal and the reason you assume we're all 'gay rights activists' is because of the volumes that a mere handful reach with their crap-spouting. Homosexuality is normal? No it isn't! It should be accepted, it is not a 'life choice', it is not disgusting, but it most definitely is not normal otherwise males would have a way of getting pregnant.

OT: I agree with a the heterosexual 'against' posse - only with less hatred for homosexuals of course. I don't remember cartoons aimed at kids promoting heterosexuality as such, they just were heterosexual - is that so hard to believe? Mickey Mouse had his Minnie, even as a gay bloke that makes sense to me. If you want to have a gay character in a kids show... go for it, why not? But let's not have Mickey getting randy with Donald Duck, eh? It is a kids show after all. Maybe they could just spend some time together in an episode? Y'know, no sex, no kissing, just hanging out?

And can I please remind people that gay characters may already exist in your kids shows, just because they're not shagging the male cast (I'd be quite worried if they were on a kids show) or mincing about it doesn't mean they do not exist and to anybody who opposes this... Dumbledore.

 

[LazyAza]

Yes more kids shows should depict to some degree society realities closer to our own such as characters who are homosexual without needing to be steriotypical or gratuitous in the depiction. As a species we will never truly evolve and improve ourselves if most people aren't taught at early ages how to be a better person and passively learning through entertainment helps a lot.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

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.

Well, humans in general aren't made to be monogamous. It's just that there's less of a stigma attached to men who flout that particular taboo, and so we've learned to view it as a guy thing. But that's a minor quibble, since I agree with everything else you've said here.

Well the only reason I said guys aren't made to be monogamous as opposed to humans aren't made to be monogamous is because when women get pregnant, they don't have to worry about getting pregnant again for another 9 months; but come to think of it, that doesn't mean they still can't be impregnated by different men every 10 months or so.

But yeah, point is monogamy isn't a biologically hard-wired thing in humans yet there are plenty of cultures and societies that believe heavily in it.

So... yeah, more people with varying sexualities in children's show (done tastefully mind you) to help expose them to the idea in a positive, or at least neutral, light.