Gays and Minorities as villians in fictional media... Good? Bad?

[orangeban]

In a perfect world, no, of course it wouldn't matter. And in this world, it usually isn't a bad thing.

However, when it becomes a trope and accepted that when you write a villain, that's what they're like, it's a problem if you contribute to that.

Examples of this; having a typical thug character, or pimp character, being black. Having a transgender person being some kind of serial killer or dangerous "crazy" person (this one is pretty common but not noticed much).

 

[SonicWaffle]

So suppose we had a straight up Disney film, with an openly gay villain character who's sexuality bared nothing on the plot.

That being said, why does the audience need to know the villains sexuality in the first place? It's the same as the author of Harry Potter coming out in a press conference and just announcing "Oh, by the way, Dumbledor is gay." I honestly have no idea why she did that, it has absolutely nothing to do with the character, the story, or how the character behaves in the story. There's no hints that he's gay, no signs that he's gay, absolutely no point to him being gay in a story that is devoid of sexuality to begin with. There's no point in announcing that he's gay other than, well, to just announce "Oh, by the way, he's gay."

...did we read different books? Because to me it seemed pretty clear that the Grindelwald/Dumbledore relationship was written as a pair of lovers.

 

[Epic Bear Man]

OT: It was a shame that The Road To El Dorado didn't get mentioned. I know it's a Dreamworks movie, but it is the closest we ever got to having a gay couple as the leads in an animated kids movie. Tulio and Miguel were originally written as having a gay relationship (and it really, really shows when you watch the film), but the studio execs vetoed it on the basis that the current moviegoing audience was "progressive, but not that progressive". Makes you wonder how far things have come along since 2000, and whether if El Dorado was released today they might have preserved the relationship, or at least not forced Tulio and Chel into that really awkward, misplaced romance subplot.

Spoiler: For those who don't remember this movie

While this is anecdotal evidence, I think this is a really, really good point that boots made. I watched The Road to El Dorado when I was about 6 or 7. At that time I never even conceived the idea of sexual orientation, let alone consider them gay. In fact looking back at it just now (from what boots said) is the only way I can actually see it. And that kind of relationship didn't turn me gay, I'm 100% heterosexual. So the idea that this kind of media will poison the minds of kids and turn them gay is outright idiotic. At a young age most kids can't even understand the concept of sexual orientation. They may like some people and develop crushes, but they don't conceive the idea of "I'm attracted to X person because they have this kind of genitalia"; they just think "wow, what I'd give to be with X".

OT: I don't believe that if a character's sexual orientation was a small part of the story, or wasn't inherently critical to the plot (although I will give a useful one that would be a good critical plot centering around their orientation), then of course it wouldn't be bad. It wouldn't necessarily be good, but it would definitely be interesting to see, and honestly gays and minorities do need to be perceived better.

Take Modern Family for instance. One of the central characters of the show are two gay guys with an adopted daughter. A frequent plot point is that one of the gay men, Mitchell, has a father who isn't very approving of his sexual orientation. But regardless of the difficulties he has understanding why his son is gay, he still loves him and accepts him (also it's just part of his character. We see that he's this way with his daughter, his step-son, and his new wife as well).

While Modern Family is a great show and has a lot of good messages, they still pander to the common gay stereotypes. Mitchell and his partner, Cam, are flamboyant, throw lots of parties, etc. it could be executed a bit better. I'm not saying that gays shouldn't be accepted for who they are, flamboyant or not, but what I'm trying to get across is that while a show like Modern Family has good intentions, they're still utilizing common stereotypes for comedic value. Although I will give Modern Family some credit in this instance. One of the side characters who's a friend of Jay (Mitchell's father) turns out to be gay, even though his character seems like a very hetero dude.

Back to the critical point centering around sexual orientation; I would say the best way to make a character openly gay and to center around the plot would be a loss of love. A significant other of their's died, and the reason they are motivated to fulfill their role in the story. This of course would work best for a villain, but a similar trope could be used for the hero. Just instance of fulfilling the story, it helps weaken the hero and makes them ponder whether completing the journey is really worth it or not.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Does it really matter a persons sexuality has nothing to do with being a villain or not people are always so fixated on such arbitrary physical or personality traits I don't get it.

People love to be politically correct and shove their viewpoints and opinions down other people's throats mostly....

Yeah, it's definitely nothing to do with certain minority groups being a bit touchy about this sort of thing thanks to a long, long history of being used a punching bags by the more dominant groups. It's all those damn PC brigade creating a storm in a teacup when really there's nothing wrong with portraying all Arabic people as terrorists or all homosexuals as relentlessly promiscuous. Nobody in the history of the world has ever been harmed by a negative depiction in media, after all.

Come on, people, we're supposed to be better than this. Yes, some people react too strongly when they suspect negative motives behind the actions of a fictional character, but going too far the other way and dismissing such concerns entirely is even worse.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Gay people have just as much right to be evil as every other person, damnit!

Sexual orientation shouldn't be posited as the source of evil, but not as an inhibition either.

 

[SonicWaffle]

Most if not all male villains in Disney seem to be based on the standard dastardly villain with top hat and handlebar moustache reveling in their own evilness. Over the years this over the top image has apparently become synonymous with being gay. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it.

But think about it... The greatest villains tend to be over the top and campy.

Flamboyant, certainly, but presumably that's in aid of making them a more memorable and interesting presence. A lot of people complain that heroes, by their very nature as stoic do-gooders, aren't very interesting so the villain needs to carry a lot of that weight.

I do take your point about the gay association though - it's an interesting idea that creators aren't making villains gay, they're just making them interesting villains, yet in doing so they share certain stereotypical traits with the gay community. Not sure I completely buy it, but it's interesting.

 

[Froggy Slayer]

Hey, I'm British, and I would be upset if gays and minorities started stealing my villain roles in Hollywood films!

Seriously though, it all depends on how artfully it's executed. If it's HIS GAYNESS MADE HIM A MONSTER WHO CRAVES THE DICK then yes, you have reason to be offended. If the villain is just someone who happens to be gay, that's coolio. Same with any other minority.

 

[Sonofadiddly]

If it's a pattern to make villains gay because their sexuality is viewed as bad or "other," then you have a problem.

Personally all the gay individuals I know are the nicest people ever, so whenever there's a gay antagonist I'm like WHOA SUBVERTED EXPECTATIONS COOL.

Like in Sherlock. Best. Moriarty. Ever.

But as a breeder, it's not my place to say whether or not it's okay to be making villains gay for no good reason. And with minorities, well, the problem there is pretty obvious.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

So a lot of talk there how Disney villains are coded gay and ectera ectera, now I have a question and it follows a personal experience of mine. Back when GTAIV came out, I came to the two missions in the game that certain around selling and then later revenge on buyers of the jewels. Now I play the game and I'm shocked to see the buyers are, presumably, orthodox Jews based solely on their style of dress. I sat there, watching the scene expecting some grand stereotype to be displayed that weren't. Even when allegedly backstabbed by them not a single character utters a racial slur to my knowledge. I recall I walked away from that part of the game thinking how progressive that was, to be able to slip them into that role and not make even reference to their racial denomination. Perhaps I'm wrong and it was anti-Semitic but I didn't read it that way, and if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me.

First off, thanks for turning me on to the Nostalgia Chick. Great stuff.

Secondly, one thing she fails to consider is Old Disney (which produced many of those "coded gay" villains. It also had it's fair share of "coded Jewish" villains) vs New Disney (the very gay-friendly Disney). In the past decade or two, Disney has done a LOT to clean up their bad rep with the gay community. See also: Once Upon a Time. They've been trying. However, some of those characters were created during a time when Disney was far less gay friendly.

Thirdly, I believe it is time and past time for a lesbian princess. It wouldn't even be that hard. Just switch out the usual male love interest for a female one and you're done. You don't need to SAY anything about it, just have it happen - the princess marries the other girl at the end of the movie instead of a man.

ANYWAY, on to your actual topic:

There are a couple of things to consider when having a gay or coded-gay villain. First off, having a villain who happens to be gay is fine is you also have a protagonist who happens to be gay. Maybe not the main character, but an ally. This is why Aladdin works so well - I never got "gay" off of Jafar, but I certainly did off of Genie. Even if they were both supposed to be coded gay, Genie out-gays Jafar and thus you have a gay hero in the spotlight while any coded-gay qualities about Jafar become less obvious.

Secondly (again), one way to have a pro-gay villain is if their repression - ie, being in the closet - is part of why they're a villain. One problem with the coded gay trope is that it tends to attack gay qualities and suggest that gay people are inherently bad. However, if you make it appear that your villain is a good person who has turned bad because they've had to repress who they are, then you end up with a sympathetic villain who demonstrates how toxic the climate in society that forces gay people into the closet is. Magneto, one of the most beloved villains in comic books, is an example of this (where, as with all X-Men, "mutant" stands in for gay). His ill treatment because he was "a mutant" has caused him to lash out. He was a good person who was hurt and reacted badly. His "mutantness" is not what makes him evil - society's bad treatment of him is.

Disney sometimes toys with this - more recent coded gay Disney villains all seem to be repressed, and have more open counterpoints on the good-guy team (see Aladdin and Lion King). Also, in Hunchback, the villain is NOT gay coded. At all. Whereas one of the good gargoyles (who is very open about his desires) is gay. Hunchback also has the scariest villain in all of Disney history (so scary he has no cute fan-service side-kick).

I've gone on a bit long and texty here. Sorry - this is a topic near and dear to my heart. I've had the "how to write a gay villain" talk with a female friend of mine who is attempting to write a story that involves both a lesbian protagonist and a lesbian villain. She was afraid that she was creating a "lesbian vampire" trope (where lesbian sexuality is symbolized by vampires) but I made the same argument I did above - she had a "free" protagonist and a "repressed" villain. The rest of my argument you already know (since I wrote it above) so there you have it.

Edit:
Damn you! I have just wasted two hours watching backlog of Nostalgia Chick and plan to spend hours more doing the same. You have just destroyed any ability of mine to be productive today! And, while I don't agree with everything she has to say, damn but she says it well.

So yeah... I'll just be on that website watching those videos.....

 

[BeeGeenie]

In theory, if they are a well rounded character, rather than just a cardboard cut-out stereotype, then it shouldn't matter. There is a difference between a "Gay Villain" and a "Villain" who happens, incidentally, to be gay.

Also, generally a character's sexuality has no bearing on the story, so it shouldn't matter. For example, nowhere in any of the Harry Potter books does it imply that Dumbledore is gay because that has nothing to do with anything. It simply never came up. It's just some minor detail that J.K. Rowling decided to throw out there.

A bigger problem is when the character's trait is used as their motivation. He's the bad guy because he's ____. because it fails to recognize that "the bad guy" would need a better motivation than just "I'm a ____, it's what we do."
Unless the bad guy is a carnivorous animal or a freaky alien, that's just not good enough.

 

[BeeGeenie]

In theory, if they are a well rounded character, rather than just a cardboard cut-out stereotype, then it shouldn't matter. There is a difference between a "Gay Villain" and a "Villain" who happens, incidentally, to be gay.

Also, generally a character's sexuality has no bearing on the story, so it shouldn't matter. For example, nowhere in any of the Harry Potter books does it imply that Dumbledore is gay because that has nothing to do with anything. It simply never came up. It's just some minor detail that J.K. Rowling decided to throw out there.

A bigger problem is when the character's trait is used as their motivation. He's the bad guy because he's ____. because it fails to recognize that "the bad guy" would need a better motivation than just "I'm a ____, it's what we do."
Unless the bad guy is a carnivorous animal or a freaky alien, that's just not good enough.

 

[rob_simple]

Reading the OP actually hurt my head. I think you're putting far too much thought into this, mate; I don't care what colour my villains are, who they pray to or what they fuck. As long as their motivations are believable that's all I need. There's no need to bring their sexuality or anything else into it unless it's relevant to the story.

I don't even mind the use of stereotypes and slurs in the dialogue, as long as it's in context and not just for shock value (see: pretty much any time someone mentions a gypsy in Snatch).

 

[RJ Dalton]

Villainy is the ultimate equal opportunity employer. Greed and evil knows neither race, nor sexuality, nor even sex. The trick is to not make it seem like being the minority is, by itself, the reason for being the bad guy. For that, you need to have your villains fleshed out and complete characters, with realistic and believable motivations. And it wouldn't hurt to also have a narrative that explores the issues in more complexity than the usual black and white.

But that's just a standard practice of good writing anyway, isn't it?

. . .

*cries*

 

[ninjaRiv]

Well, first off I thought the video was awful simply because it wasn't funny and it was repetitive. That's just my thoughts about that.

As for the gay villain thing; Am I the only one who grew up not giving a shit about any sort of sexuality in these films? I don't see any racism in the old Disney cartoons, either. It honestly drives me nuts. I always figured the love thing was the most boring part for young brats, it was for me. Alladin was cool because Genie was funny. To a five year old, a Disney movies star is the comic relief, the rest is just things for them to play off. Just set ups to gags.

I see that there is gay coding in the villains but I also see that those stereotypes are celebrated in the media, sometimes (the New Normal, anyone?) and I think that's more harmful. With so many "Princesses" prancing around, being the generic stereotypical gay guy, I think Disney is at least doing something right by not letting sexuality dictate their character. Is the bad guy from Pocahontas gay? I dunno, it doesn't matter. He's a bad guy. Are Timone and Pumba gay? Well, that one DOES matter because, as the video said, it makes a good case for gay parents.

I'm all for gay love interests in Disney films but that shit needs to be done right. Also, I don't think it should be Disney leading the charge but that's just me.

But I've always said that the best way to beat homophobia, sexism, racism, etc is to act like it's not big thing. "Oh yeah, these two guys are in love and they go on adventures and shit. They fight bad guys and stuff." Like it's just a thing, that they're gay. No big speeches, etc. I feel that if a person, any person wants to be treated equally then making a big fuss isn't the way to go. Fighting for rights, yeah. But splashing homosexuality in places just for the sake of seems wrong. Being gay is a thing. Being straight is a thing. Being bisexual is a thing. It shouldn't even matter, yet it does. To both "sides."

Also, original poster, you need to post a link to that shit if you want folk to discuss it. or at least give the title. I didn't know if I was looking at the right video until someone posted it here.

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Long reply made short. I don't care at all if the villain in a film is homosexual.
I would take a lot of issue if the villain in a film is the villain because he's homosexual.

 

[Darken12]

though I am now annoyed at the speculation that the princes form brave *must* have been a lesbain if she wasnt into boys *sigh*

I don't think she *must* have been, but rather that it would have been very nice if she was. Because, you know, LGBT protagonist in a kids' movie. Massive, massive progress.

unfortunatly true...plenty of good female charachters but sadly not as often in the "protagonist" seat

like I doubt we would have gotten a game like the latest tomb raider had it not had that name and years of gaming history behind it

Indeed. That's why I was so startled by Remember Me [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/trailers/6917-Remember-Me-Trailer], which is a new IP with a woman of colour as a protagonist. Who isn't overtly sexualised in the trailer. I find that to be literally too good to be true. I fully expect the whole thing to be a con or some other form of massive disappointment.

 

[II2]

I think no matter how you portray a character with "real world (affiliaton}", someone will be upset.

That said, I think LGBT types of sound mind and reasoning have an understandable position taking issue with LGBT status being a 'tagged on' characteristic on a bad guy just to make them WEIRDER or more OTHERLY or easier for normal people to fear and hate.

I think most queer/trans/etc folks might appreciate a gay villain who was driven to commit evil acts from internalizing all the hatred they faced and chose to mirror it back at the world that scorned and wronged them, ala a "Gay Magneto" (save the Sir Ian Macellen jokes for the moment). I think that would give plausible depth for a character and also nicely underscore the notion: "you know, this could all have been avoided if we'd just been nice to one another", while delivering a cool villain.

So, I guess, it's down to how it's done. Is it relevant and useful to making the character+motivations relatable or just thrown on to make them seem more weird, depraved or monstrous though exploitative shock value?

There's your answer.

 

[Brad Calkins]

To be honest the only thing even remotely intolerant about this issue is that it's an issue at all.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

You mean like in Skyfall?

Haven't seen a james bond flick since Casino Royale.

As a few people have said, if their sexual orientation or race or faith has nothing to do with their villainy, then there should be absolutely no problem with it. As mentioned above, Skyfall does this, and it was perfectly acceptable. It is only if the villain is portrayed as being evil because he/she is from whichever minority that there is a problem. Also, as you said about GTA4, it is important that the hero doesn't make any slurs out of anger or whatever, because, as the person we identify with in the story, their use of slurs will make us think that it's ok to use them or that it was justified...

Well... what about LA Noire where Cole Phelps stands idly by while black characters are talked down to, and a woman even gets slapped in his presence? I know many people weren't thrilled with those aspects of Cole's character but he remains likeable nonetheless. Roarshach from watchmen is a staunchly bigoted right-wing character but he gets a pass as well... I'm not sure the exact argument I'm making here, just that yeah we live vicariously through the story but it seems were likely to forgive negative traits of a character.

And that NChick episode was kind of missing or just ignoring the purpose of the characteristics behind the Disney villians they used as examples. Those villians are foppish not because the filmmakers are trying to use gay stereotypes (subconsciously or not) to villify the characters, but because they're trying to present them as shallow, greedy, and duplicitous.

I thought thats pretty much exactly she/sassy gay freind said...

though I am now annoyed at the speculation that the princes form brave *must* have been a lesbain if she wasnt into boys *sigh*

I never got into boys untill....ummm....I don't know how does one define "into" boys?

Ah the joys of Queer Theory, you can twist any character into a homosexual based soley on Code. I'm actually not to fond of considering coding, I tend to think the work lives and exists on the page.... Like I've read queer theory articles to suggest Nick Carraway and Gatsby of The Great Gatsby were both closeted homosexuals. I can understand how something can be read that way, because who doesn't love subtext? But at certain point Great Gatsby is just a tragic love story, and Brave is just a story about a mother/daughter relationship, and understanding the strengths and weakness of both gender roles.

Is it morally okay to have villains with different sexual orientation, or race, or religion?

I think you've missed the criticism here.

The issue with Disney is that they deliberately coded these characters as "gay" (by making them camp, effeminate, butch or whatever, not necessarily by setting out to making a character who will be read as gay) to illustrate that they are bad. It's part of the visual language Disney uses, which is why you don't see heroes or supporting characters being coded as gay in Disney films.

The issue with gay or minority villains right now is that, basically, there are pretty much no gay heroes, and not many minority heroes either. No, commander Shepard doesn't count. Imagine a male hero mincing around and being openly gay. It's kind of a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

Making your antagonist effeminate or dykey is currently kind of like giving them a British accent. It's not a bad idea in and of itself, after all British people are not always saints, it's just highly, highly overused to the point that it's actually part of visual language as a way of saying "I'm a bad guy". You see a character swishing it up on screen and you can be almost certain they will turn out to be evil (and if not they will turn out to be ineffectual comic relief).

These kinds of ideas about effeminate men and predatory lesbians as inherently morally weak and degenerate are pretty damn old. Movies have been using this kind of thing as shorthand since the early 20th century, the fact that they still do so today is.. it's a relic, and one which I think it's fair to say we probably shouldn't be relying on any more, not just because it's unpleasant in its implications but because it's kind of lazy.

So, one more time for the TL;DR crowd. It's not the existence of these characters, it's the frequency with which they appear.

Captain Jack Harkness. Most badass bisexual man on the planet. Probably my 2nd favorite character in the Doctor Who universe outside of the 9th Doctor.

See this.... This is what I don't know how I feel about it. How many OPENLY gay evil characters have we actually had? Is it really fair to say that these disney villains are defacto gay because they're coded? I don't know if it's necessarily fair to expect audiences to pick up the subtext if it is indeed what those films are implying.

It's the same as the author of Harry Potter coming out in a press conference and just announcing "Oh, by the way, Dumbledor is gay." I honestly have no idea why she did that, it has absolutely nothing to do with the character, the story, or how the character behaves in the story. There's no hints that he's gay, no signs that he's gay, absolutely no point to him being gay in a story that is devoid of sexuality to begin with. There's no point in announcing that he's gay other than, well, to just announce "Oh, by the way, he's gay."

She didn't just come out and say it with no prompting. Someone asked her if Dumbledore ever found 'true love' and she then said that she saw him as gay, to preface her elaboration on his relationship with Grindelwald. Would you rather she answered with a yes or no, rather than giving information on a character when someone specifically asked for it?

And I don't know where you get this idea that a character's sexuality has nothing to do with them. I'm pretty sure most people would say that their sexuality has an effect on their life and that should be no different for fictional characters. Just because it has no bearing on the story doesn't mean the author shouldn't know this information.

It did make me watch those movies in a whole different light. Everytime Dumbledore was like "Harry, this is my old friend..."

Does it really matter a persons sexuality has nothing to do with being a villain or not people are always so fixated on such arbitrary physical or personality traits I don't get it.

People love to be politically correct and shove their viewpoints and opinions down other people's throats mostly....

No. I think there is a legitimate moral argument to be made here about what is right/wrong about representing non-white non-hetero characters in media.

So a lot of talk there how Disney villains are coded gay and ectera ectera, now I have a question and it follows a personal experience of mine. Back when GTAIV came out, I came to the two missions in the game that certain around selling and then later revenge on buyers of the jewels. Now I play the game and I'm shocked to see the buyers are, presumably, orthodox Jews based solely on their style of dress. I sat there, watching the scene expecting some grand stereotype to be displayed that weren't. Even when allegedly backstabbed by them not a single character utters a racial slur to my knowledge. I recall I walked away from that part of the game thinking how progressive that was, to be able to slip them into that role and not make even reference to their racial denomination. Perhaps I'm wrong and it was anti-Semitic but I didn't read it that way, and if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me.

First off, thanks for turning me on to the Nostalgia Chick. Great stuff.

Secondly, one thing she fails to consider is Old Disney (which produced many of those "coded gay" villains. It also had it's fair share of "coded Jewish" villains) vs New Disney (the very gay-friendly Disney). In the past decade or two, Disney has done a LOT to clean up their bad rep with the gay community. See also: Once Upon a Time. They've been trying. However, some of those characters were created during a time when Disney was far less gay friendly.

Thirdly, I believe it is time and past time for a lesbian princess. It wouldn't even be that hard. Just switch out the usual male love interest for a female one and you're done. You don't need to SAY anything about it, just have it happen - the princess marries the other girl at the end of the movie instead of a man.

ANYWAY, on to your actual topic:

There are a couple of things to consider when having a gay or coded-gay villain. First off, having a villain who happens to be gay is fine is you also have a protagonist who happens to be gay. Maybe not the main character, but an ally. This is why Aladdin works so well - I never got "gay" off of Jafar, but I certainly did off of Genie. Even if they were both supposed to be coded gay, Genie out-gays Jafar and thus you have a gay hero in the spotlight while any coded-gay qualities about Jafar become less obvious.

Secondly (again), one way to have a pro-gay villain is if their repression - ie, being in the closet - is part of why they're a villain. One problem with the coded gay trope is that it tends to attack gay qualities and suggest that gay people are inherently bad. However, if you make it appear that your villain is a good person who has turned bad because they've had to repress who they are, then you end up with a sympathetic villain who demonstrates how toxic the climate in society that forces gay people into the closet is. Magneto, one of the most beloved villains in comic books, is an example of this (where, as with all X-Men, "mutant" stands in for gay). His ill treatment because he was "a mutant" has caused him to lash out. He was a good person who was hurt and reacted badly. His "mutantness" is not what makes him evil - society's bad treatment of him is.

Disney sometimes toys with this - more recent coded gay Disney villains all seem to be repressed, and have more open counterpoints on the good-guy team (see Aladdin and Lion King). Also, in Hunchback, the villain is NOT gay coded. At all. Whereas one of the good gargoyles (who is very open about his desires) is gay. Hunchback also has the scariest villain in all of Disney history (so scary he has no cute fan-service side-kick).

I've gone on a bit long and texty here. Sorry - this is a topic near and dear to my heart. I've had the "how to write a gay villain" talk with a female friend of mine who is attempting to write a story that involves both a lesbian protagonist and a lesbian villain. She was afraid that she was creating a "lesbian vampire" trope (where lesbian sexuality is symbolized by vampires) but I made the same argument I did above - she had a "free" protagonist and a "repressed" villain. The rest of my argument you already know (since I wrote it above) so there you have it.

Edit:
Damn you! I have just wasted two hours watching backlog of Nostalgia Chick and plan to spend hours more doing the same. You have just destroyed any ability of mine to be productive today! And, while I don't agree with everything she has to say, damn but she says it well.

So yeah... I'll just be on that website watching those videos.....

She's awesome. Every video is like a little film class XD

I'm seeing a trend here however amongst the coded gay disney characters. It's either they're happy-go-lucky silly like Genie or Pumba and Tamone OR they're dark sexual deviants.

Theres no characters like the Protagonists of the films Crying Game or Kiss Of The Spiderwoman. The masculine "straight" man that comes to terms with bisexuality. All these disney characters have a level feminity to it, which I'm positive is not the defacto trait of all gay males.

Reading the OP actually hurt my head. I think you're putting far too much thought into this, mate; I don't care what colour my villains are, who they pray to or what they fuck. As long as their motivations are believable that's all I need. There's no need to bring their sexuality or anything else into it unless it's relevant to the story.

I don't even mind the use of stereotypes and slurs in the dialogue, as long as it's in context and not just for shock value (see: pretty much any time someone mentions a gypsy in Snatch).

Well, first off I thought the video was awful simply because it wasn't funny and it was repetitive. That's just my thoughts about that.

As for the gay villain thing; Am I the only one who grew up not giving a shit about any sort of sexuality in these films? I don't see any racism in the old Disney cartoons, either. It honestly drives me nuts. I always figured the love thing was the most boring part for young brats, it was for me. Alladin was cool because Genie was funny. To a five year old, a Disney movies star is the comic relief, the rest is just things for them to play off. Just set ups to gags.

I see that there is gay coding in the villains but I also see that those stereotypes are celebrated in the media, sometimes (the New Normal, anyone?) and I think that's more harmful. With so many "Princesses" prancing around, being the generic stereotypical gay guy, I think Disney is at least doing something right by not letting sexuality dictate their character. Is the bad guy from Pocahontas gay? I dunno, it doesn't matter. He's a bad guy. Are Timone and Pumba gay? Well, that one DOES matter because, as the video said, it makes a good case for gay parents.

I'm all for gay love interests in Disney films but that shit needs to be done right. Also, I don't think it should be Disney leading the charge but that's just me.

But I've always said that the best way to beat homophobia, sexism, racism, etc is to act like it's not big thing. "Oh yeah, these two guys are in love and they go on adventures and shit. They fight bad guys and stuff." Like it's just a thing, that they're gay. No big speeches, etc. I feel that if a person, any person wants to be treated equally then making a big fuss isn't the way to go. Fighting for rights, yeah. But splashing homosexuality in places just for the sake of seems wrong. Being gay is a thing. Being straight is a thing. Being bisexual is a thing. It shouldn't even matter, yet it does. To both "sides."

Also, original poster, you need to post a link to that shit if you want folk to discuss it. or at least give the title. I didn't know if I was looking at the right video until someone posted it here.

Understandable, in the confines of the story unless the character's sexuality plays a part it really isn't an issue.

I'd disagree however in saying that a character's sexuality doesn't matter because, yeah that's kind of a huge thing that makes a person who they are, and depending on the culture difficulties they should have to over come. Not a big deal for say, the evil lion of the Lion King cause male animals display homosexual activities all the time. For Jafar? Little different as if he is indeed a gay man he likely would be beheaded.

And maybe you're right and such a thing shouldn't be treated as a big deal, but, and this is just me, I recall watching Law and Order: SVU and out of no where B.D. Wong starts a sentence "As a gay man...." and I was like O.O Holy shit! Wong likes Wong! And yes, my friend asked me if that bothered me, and I said it bothered me they didn't make a big deal out of it and just kinda snuck the trait into the episode. That said, Captain Jack's Bisexuality reveal I thought made his character all the more badass.