Gay characters in children's cartoons

[Gigano]

I don't see any problem is showing kids that two humans of the same gender can be romantically affectionate towards each other, and that this is really no big deal.

...obviously there's a limit to how romantically affectionate they can be towards each other on screen, but that goes for heterosexual couples as well.

 

[BrEnNo1023]

I don't see why there shouldn't be. As long as they're campy stereotypes or actually having sex, where's the problem?

lol as long as they're actually having what? I...think you may need to reword that sentence to ensure its...kid-friendliness =3

But...your message was understood nonetheless

 

[Calbeck]

Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality is not all about the actual *act* of sexual intercourse.

I will repeat myself for the sake of obviousness: if you actually tell the children who are the target demographic of a given show that a given character is gay, and you're doing it for the sake of education, you cannot avoid telling them what that means...the SAME as if you are telling them that a given character is heterosexual.

In short, you're demanding that a given show provide education regarding sexual orientations which actually have NOTHING to do with, and no effect upon, its story.

 

[Tehlanna TPX]

There is so much fear and closed-mindedness in this thread, it's nauseating.

Really? Don't teach the gay until kids are old enough to differentiate! That's 5. That's when they know what they're going to go for. And also, what is this fear of sex that seems to make people want to pocket their children and coddle them forever? That worked great for the Abstinence Program in schools, didn't it (ohwait... hi there, teenage pregnancy...).

Societies work far better when there is a sense of honesty about life between ones adults and children. Children know you fuck. Get over it. You can lay there grunting into a pillow or biting your lip all you want during intercourse. Your kids will hear it.

Give LBGT people positive role models. It's easy to do without coming across as flamboyant. In fact, it's been done before (as has been pointed out) subtly, in other shows/cartoons. So what the hell is the big outcry?

Just because a few of you have daddy issues because your father was afraid you'd catch 'the gay' doesn't mean you should continue on that cycle. You should instead fight to overcome it.

 

[Akalistos]

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.

So a guy (or girl) is shown to be romantically interested in other guys (or girls). How is that any different than all the children's shows and movies that show a male and female character being interested in each other?

Right, so we should only have characters that fit within a very specific "Social Norm". I guess that means no more villains in kid's shows since they don't seem to care so much for societal norms either.

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.

this is the correct answer, the rest of you are wrong

extra text so i dont get low content wrath'd

I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[Calbeck]

Children learn sexual preference from the minute they can recognise gender.

Good luck pitching a show aimed at children to a network executive with that argument. Especially if nothing in your show's story actually has anything to do with a character's sexual orientation.

If you nonetheless insist on using such a show as a platform for education about things that have nothing to do with your story, then you are merely derailing your own plot.

 

[Typhon1388]

That wasn't pedantic at all. Homosexual means exactly what I said -- a sexual attraction to the same sex as oneself. Bisexuality is completely different from homosexuality and that difference bears mentioning. Those penguins never had sex with each other and went on to have sex with females. That doesn't sound gay, let alone bi to me.

How can something that is part of a whole be completely different from it? Most academic research into sexuality treats it as a "sexual orientation continuum" rather than a mutually exclusive system. The work of Fritz Klein and Alfred Kinsley are good areas to look up due to their impact on society. My stance is that sexuality is too complex to apply broad terms to it hence the issue many people have with gay stereotypes. This is especially true to studies of animal sexuality which is open a significant amount of observer bias.

'Roy and Silo' actually did have sex and I pointed them out as example more for the purpose to demonstrate that homosexual couplings don't lead to a full stop of breeding behaviors and proper care for the young of a species.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html

 

[Harbinger_]

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.

I completely agree with you on this whole-heartedly. It'd be nice if more people shared the same opinion.

Also I firmly believe that sexuality shouldn't exist in children's television.

I agree too, but not having explicit sexuality in children's programming doesn't mean that sexual preference isn't implied constantly. Every prince marries a princess. Every character with parents has a mummy and daddy. You don't need to go all brokeback mountain, just have 2 queens instead of a king and queen.

Edit: Just read my post. 2 queens? lol. No pun intended...

Except 2 queens doesn't make sense from a leadership standpoint. Also there have been gay characters in children's cartoons. There was one character I remember in particular in the tv cartoon the gummi bears.

 

[Condor219]

Sexuality in children's shows.... no....

Gays in children's shows... absolutely not... Believe me, it's best for both sides... For once, trying to instill that gay is a valid choice is wrong... for the other hand, you do realize that gays would be shown as flamboyant weirdos in most shows.

Response to "being gay is not a valid choice": Error, trolls will not be responded to.

To the second part: The problem is that they already are show as flamboyant weirdos. The solution would be to create a gay character that isn't completely "fabulous" off the deep end.

How can you say that someone's opinion makes them a troll, just because you disagree with it?

Would that not make you a troll for having an opinion that someone disagrees with?

Why did you bother posting that first part? You are only supporting in the person's mind, whom you quoted that us gay's are ignorant to listen to other's opinions. They may not be right, they don't have to be right, but you are just being impolite.

Reported

He implied that being gay was wrong, and that we should show somthing so wrong to children. I can accpet his view in the second half of that, but not in the first, becaue being gay is not inherently wrong. To say that it is, is to be openly ignorant, a very troll-like behavior. And again, I didn't sa that his opinion onn gays being in shows was wrong. I said it's wrong to think that being gay is the wrong sexuality. andI never actually eloborated on that, simply stating that I wouldn' t respond to that part of the statement. If this is a violation of forum rules, then I don't think many members woudl ever past 1000posts without being banned.

 

[Akalistos]

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.

You want to see more gay character into show... because you are a adult and already defined your preference. Keep in mind that we are talking about Cartoon, a medium meant for children from 4 to 10. At this stage of evolution, they don't need to get pressured into choosing what orientation they gonna be. To be perfectly frank, they don't care. Not to say that they do not understand, but that's akin to forcing them to grow up in a rather nasty way. Sexuality is a topic that must be educated when it become important in the life of individual and that's during his teenage years, when his body start to change and he's ready for such a thing. By that point, don't you think that Teen show will be more their speed?

I find it pretty sickening to see people preference and sense of morality dictate something that is and never will be directed to them. Leave the kids alone.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

There's something that keeps cropping up in these gay threads that I just don't get.

nor·mal/ˈnôrməl/
Adjective: Usual, typical, or expected.
Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

I don't get how some people think that homosexuality fits that definition.

Without doubt that is the correct dictionary definition.

However the term "normal" is often used in a pejorative context, i.e: "let's go beat up that gay kid, he's not normal". This is often the way homosexual people are treated, so tend to respond badly whenever that term is thrown about.

Spoiler: insert maths joke here

Hmm, well, I sympathise, but I'm inclined to think that the right way to go about solving the problem is to encourage people to be accepting of people who fall outside the norm (which I should think everyone does in some way or other) rather than trying to change what the word "normal" means.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Meh. I think MLP is characterized by cracking jokes that appeal to an older audience, so it's not a terribly good case study.

As far as other cartoons go...eehhh. If the show's not already going to deal with sexuality and related subjects, I'd suggest steering clear of homosexuality. Certain episodes might have a racial tolerance message or something, but homosexuals aren't any single race, and in all honesty aren't be immediately identifiable by physical characteristics. It's a sensitive issue already, and I can't really imagine a cartoon being able to handle it gracefully.

 

[BrEnNo1023]

Homosexuality, just like heterosexuality is not all about the actual *act* of sexual intercourse.

I will repeat myself for the sake of obviousness: if you actually tell the children who are the target demographic of a given show that a given character is gay, and you're doing it for the sake of education, you cannot avoid telling them what that means...the SAME as if you are telling them that a given character is heterosexual.

In short, you're demanding that a given show provide education regarding sexual orientations which actually have NOTHING to do with, and no effect upon, its story.

I'm not demanding anything 0.o And the sexual orientations of the characters would only ever be relevant to the story if the writers so desire. Just as a female pony can go walking through a forest with a prince, she can do it equally with *another female pony* if the writer chooses. No explanation would be needed. We're not talking about singling out specific characters and labelling them straight or gay, we're portraying them simply as characters in a romantic context.

What i'm trying to get at is the teaching would be better done subliminally. Not as in in-your-face PSA episodes 'providing education' by singling out the gay characters and shouting at the kids 'hey you, treat these people nicely, or bad things will happen!' but as regular episodes with a diverse range of characters all treated the same.

 

[Lt. Dragunov]

The future is in the children and i think that it would be a great idea to include gay characters in children cartoon, but it has to be done in the right way like it's just apart of who they are nothing more. If we can get that right then this nation of "equality" can finaly be a nation of equality.

 

[Akalistos]

There is so much fear and closed-mindedness in this thread, it's nauseating.

Really? Don't teach the gay until kids are old enough to differentiate! That's 5.That's when they know what they're going to go for. And also, what is this fear of sex that seems to make people want to pocket their children and coddle them forever? That worked great for the Abstinence Program in schools, didn't it (ohwait... hi there, teenage pregnancy...).

That's wrong. Most people discover their true orientation during their teenage years. Some people claim they were gay since they were born but that's far from being the truth because nobody care about sex until the "Fun Factory" is open for business. Also, either your phrasing is wrong or you think that orientation must be taught and it's not a choice to the individual, then again, that is wrong.

It isn't a coddling issue as much at a relevance to their life. They don't need to know about sexuality until they are ready. Also, keep in mind that teenage pregnancy was a problem far before the Abstinence program. In the 1800, they would send the daughter away to some secluded relative where she would give birth and was then force to give it to adoption. It played for many, many years.

Societies work far better when there is a sense of honesty about life between ones adults and children. Children know you fuck. Get over it. You can lay there grunting into a pillow or biting your lip all you want during intercourse. Your kids will hear it.

You don't discern that kid are anything between 4 and 10 and teen are 11 and older? Also, Why do you think parent often let their children do sleep overs? They can't hear you if they aren't here. Basically, responsible parent would force sexual material on their children and it's prohibited and down right criminalize in most part of the world. You should look your local bills of right or whatever you have that describe the laws of your country.

Give LBGT people positive role models. It's easy to do without coming across as flamboyant. In fact, it's been done before (as has been pointed out) subtly, in other shows/cartoons. So what the hell is the big outcry?

That is true. Dumbledore is a good example because his sexuality never came across in the books and movies. It was a wink at the mature audience and nothing more. What you are describing is nothing more then to forcefully spoon-fed that doesn't care by shoving it down their throat. Not Only do I think it's immoral but I'm sure it's illegal.

Just because a few of you have daddy issues because your father was afraid you'd catch 'the gay' doesn't mean you should continue on that cycle. You should instead fight to overcome it.

In this day and age, it's far from being a daddy issue. Gay is something often accepted and less marginalized as it was before. Theres vocal group going around, the pride parade and influential people that claim to be are gay. All I see is a minority trying to get exposure at the cost of the children and that far more sickening when you realize that they don't judge nor think about sexuality.

 

[BringBackBuck]

Children learn sexual preference from the minute they can recognise gender.

Good luck pitching a show aimed at children to a network executive with that argument. Especially if nothing in your show's story actually has anything to do with a character's sexual orientation.

If you nonetheless insist on using such a show as a platform for education about things that have nothing to do with your story, then you are merely derailing your own plot.

Wow, I only wrote 4 sentences and you still managed to take that remark out of context.

I watched an episode of Pingu the other day. It is an animated show about a penguin. He was in his home, with his mum and dad and sibling, then he went outside and played in the snow. It was windy. he saw a fish. It was fun.

How about this instead: It is an animated show about a penguin. He was in his home, with his two dads and sibling, then he went outside and played in the snow. It was windy. he saw a fish. It was fun.

The episode is still about playing in the wind and seeing a fish. 90% of kids wouldn't even notice the difference. No plot is derailed. Exactly what is the problem with that?

 

[Akalistos]

I'm pretty sure children under a certain age, probably 12 or something. Don't really notice.

You don't care about it, since you have no interest whatsoever in sex (at least ussually) you don't care about wether someone is gay. At best a child might notice, "that man seems really happy" or something like that. And if they are told they don't mind.

same goes for race, a child couldn't care less if the person he is looking at is white, brown, black or asian.

So it's best to just let them be diverse, then thats what children will grow to assume as normal.

If they don't care, why would you shove that concept right into their faces?

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Isn't Spongebob gay?

"Word of God" (term meaning the creators words outside of the cartoon) says that he is asexual.