Poll: Should There be Gay Characters in Kid's Shows/Films?
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
I said "Eh maybe not on the really kiddy etc", but that's less out of any kind of conservatism as much out of it not really being relevant. If a show is kiddy, it's kiddy because of how it's presented and in the subject matter. The characters don't really need to be representing any issue or minority simply for the sake of shoehorning them in there (which is not to say all minority characters serve that purpose, simply that the last thing pre-K children's shows need are uncomfortably serious subtext)
I'm gonna go so far as to say not only is it 'okay' if there are gay characters in kids' shows, but there should be. Human beings, and children, absorb the majority of social norms and accepted practices through observation, and whether for good or for ill, a great deal of that includes popular culture. No one's saying we need flaming characters seeking their homoerotic thrills on Sesame Street. But when a show like Adventure Time has the innocent child norm of 'hero has a crush on the princess; blushes when he sees her; etc', why would the opposite not be acceptable?
Wouldn't it help children who already, or will in years to come, discover they are gay, to have it reinforced that this is a normal thing? That there ARE such a thing as gay people, and it's perfectly acceptable?
I mean seriously, what's the fear here? Gay Spongebob would 'turn' straight kids gay? You might have to have an awkward conversation when your kid asks why some boys like other boys?
Specific jokes aside, it strikes me that, in terms of proportionality to the age bracket addressed, spongebob is a pretty gay-friendly cartoon. Male characters engage in activities normally outside the masculine gender role, and regularly compliment one another for being 'gorgeous' and things like that -- not always for comedic effect or 'pushing a gay agenda', but just as the other side of the coin to how a boy character might say something similar to a girl character. You get the sense that the writers of spongebob aren't gay, and aren't making a conscious effort to advance gay awareness, but are just so progressive and cool with the whole thing that it bleeds through.
But as always, I would say you should probably expect the 'hollywood time capsule' effect; ie, Hollywood won't address a moral issue until ten-twenty years after it has been irrevocably decided. See also: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.
Wouldn't it help children who already, or will in years to come, discover they are gay, to have it reinforced that this is a normal thing? That there ARE such a thing as gay people, and it's perfectly acceptable?
I mean seriously, what's the fear here? Gay Spongebob would 'turn' straight kids gay? You might have to have an awkward conversation when your kid asks why some boys like other boys?
Specific jokes aside, it strikes me that, in terms of proportionality to the age bracket addressed, spongebob is a pretty gay-friendly cartoon. Male characters engage in activities normally outside the masculine gender role, and regularly compliment one another for being 'gorgeous' and things like that -- not always for comedic effect or 'pushing a gay agenda', but just as the other side of the coin to how a boy character might say something similar to a girl character. You get the sense that the writers of spongebob aren't gay, and aren't making a conscious effort to advance gay awareness, but are just so progressive and cool with the whole thing that it bleeds through.
But as always, I would say you should probably expect the 'hollywood time capsule' effect; ie, Hollywood won't address a moral issue until ten-twenty years after it has been irrevocably decided. See also: Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.
I'd put them in kids shows, not for entertainment purposes, but to educate and promote gay tolerance and accept to the youth of coming generations.
A thousand times NO!
This isnt flamebait. I can see no possible reason to justify going even further into sexualizing children than we already are.
No to true "kid" shows like sesame street, or spongebob.
and absolutely NO to "tween" shows. Because invariably its usually kids who are a lot younger than the core demographic who are watching such shows. Just look at how many 6-9 year old girls basically lived for the cult of Hannah Montana. Putting those topics into shows of the like is basically like showing them how to run before they even know how to crawl.
So honestly I would not put representation of such until you get to the level of programming designed for say 15-17 year olds such as much of the programing of MTV, and by that time it is already more than well represented.
Im sorry if people confuse this with being intolerant of homosexuality. I am the furthest thing from intolerant to homosexuality. One of my best friends is homosexual, and I was the first person he came out to because he knew I would be more likely to be tolerant. What is being proposed here is not being tolerant.
It will only be a method of encouraging and I think people seem to forget that there is a MASSIVE gap between being tolerant and being accepting. Theres absolutely no logical reason to expose children to sex in any way shape or form, regardless of preferences. Even presenting this idea comes off as a false sense of enlightenment. Being tolerant does not inherently make you wise.
A thousand times, No. I am sorry if I come off brash, but honestly this notion and the corresponding faux enlightened responses have lit my fuse.
Now, you may proceed to call me a hate filled homophobe and misinterpret what I have said to spin my words to make me look so. I sensed it coming from the letter A
This isnt flamebait. I can see no possible reason to justify going even further into sexualizing children than we already are.
No to true "kid" shows like sesame street, or spongebob.
and absolutely NO to "tween" shows. Because invariably its usually kids who are a lot younger than the core demographic who are watching such shows. Just look at how many 6-9 year old girls basically lived for the cult of Hannah Montana. Putting those topics into shows of the like is basically like showing them how to run before they even know how to crawl.
So honestly I would not put representation of such until you get to the level of programming designed for say 15-17 year olds such as much of the programing of MTV, and by that time it is already more than well represented.
Im sorry if people confuse this with being intolerant of homosexuality. I am the furthest thing from intolerant to homosexuality. One of my best friends is homosexual, and I was the first person he came out to because he knew I would be more likely to be tolerant. What is being proposed here is not being tolerant.
It will only be a method of encouraging and I think people seem to forget that there is a MASSIVE gap between being tolerant and being accepting. Theres absolutely no logical reason to expose children to sex in any way shape or form, regardless of preferences. Even presenting this idea comes off as a false sense of enlightenment. Being tolerant does not inherently make you wise.
A thousand times, No. I am sorry if I come off brash, but honestly this notion and the corresponding faux enlightened responses have lit my fuse.
Now, you may proceed to call me a hate filled homophobe and misinterpret what I have said to spin my words to make me look so. I sensed it coming from the letter A
I think you're misinterpreting the question. Having gay characters in a cartoon doesn't mean you have to have gay sex in a cartoon.viranimus said:
Look at it like this:
You remember something like Rugrats. One of the boy characters might see one of the girl characters and blush or something. Or something like Adventure Time; the boy hero, Finn, has a crush on the princess. It's not sexual, but it's implying a heterosexual romantic attraction that all children are going to start feeling by the time they're turning 12-13.
Why should the opposite be any different? Why not have a boy character blush and make silly faces when the prince walks into the room? What harm can that do? What GOOD MIGHT it do?
No one's saying dial up the sex scale. Just to give an equal, proportionate look.
Perfect example/opportunity for what I mean: the 'valentine's day' episode from [insert your favorite children's cartoon].
Exactly this. Heterosexual attraction and romance is a total non issue in shows of all ages, including shows for children. Nobody questions the mom and dad character. Nobody bats an eye when the male lead gets all embarrassed or flirty around the female lead or vice versa. These are heterosexual relationships, but nobody is screaming that it's showing sex to kids. It is however quietly convincing them that such relationships are natural and normal.
So why can't all of this be true for homosexual relationships as well? Nobody is saying add sex to a kid's show. That really doesn't belong, be it homosexual or heterosexual in nature. But being gay is shockingly enough not just about sex. Homosexual and bisexual people have the exact same relationships and range of emotions as heterosexual ones. By not including them in children's programming it only reinforces the idea that these relationships are not 'natural'.
Aside from people who fear and hate homosexuality, who would be harmed if a character on a kid's show had two dads instead of a dad and a mom? Or if a female character got all shy and blushing around the princess instead of the prince. It would be no different than if the relationships were heterosexual, but more inclusive of the sort of people who really exist, instead of marginalizing a minority.
Would anyone be arguing now that the inclusion of a black character would be somehow offensive or confusing to children? If not, then why are homosexual characters denied the same screen time?
So why can't all of this be true for homosexual relationships as well? Nobody is saying add sex to a kid's show. That really doesn't belong, be it homosexual or heterosexual in nature. But being gay is shockingly enough not just about sex. Homosexual and bisexual people have the exact same relationships and range of emotions as heterosexual ones. By not including them in children's programming it only reinforces the idea that these relationships are not 'natural'.
Aside from people who fear and hate homosexuality, who would be harmed if a character on a kid's show had two dads instead of a dad and a mom? Or if a female character got all shy and blushing around the princess instead of the prince. It would be no different than if the relationships were heterosexual, but more inclusive of the sort of people who really exist, instead of marginalizing a minority.
Would anyone be arguing now that the inclusion of a black character would be somehow offensive or confusing to children? If not, then why are homosexual characters denied the same screen time?
Jaime_Wolf said:
There ya go. Girly-girlness without any "well he'll grow out of it / become football team". Although he falls in love with a female nurse so maybe that's the type of cop-out you were referring to?
Edit: Actually, Private also falls head over heels for a robin hood type character("Wow, he's just, wow" "Even your charming accent... was a fake!"), but I think it's more out of him wanting a hero to believe in or something. However, it can be seen both ways if you really want to, I guess.
yes without a place where kids dont just see straight cartoons we will see kids as fascists and that will always be bad
Yes, but (for a kids show) the character in question can't be so obvious that he/she is practically saying they are gay in the show. At young ages, kids don't even know what sex is and probably shouldn't find out because of what they saw on TV. Gay characters are fine so long as they are presumed to be gay rather than it just being out there. With luck, flamboyant characters in their shows will make them more open to accepting flamboyant gay people in real life.
I certainly wouldn't mind it if it made sense. Like the implicit relationship bit, again if it makes sense for it to be there, not just for the sake of it being there.
but really if you ask me i'd rather it NOT be there.
Merely on the grounds that, when i was a kid that sort of thing didn't really ring a bell with me. Would probably only serve to confuse me further - then again i was asking questions about anything and everything i was seeing when i was a kid.
Anyone ever watch He-Man or Captain Planet?
two different situations, but in He-Man - at my age now, i can kinda see where the gay jokes coming from, and i laugh at it now, but that stuff totally flew over my ahead at the time when i was kid. It's so unintended, but seem so obvious at this age.
Captain Planet, really cause it's shoving a very pro-environmentalist position, and at my age now it's plain as day light. Note i'm a NOT anti-environmentalism, just saying when it seems to be incredibly pushy about a topic. Then again that was the whole thing with Captain Planet.
by the by, both are great cartoon series in my eyes, even to this day. even if either of them make me chuckle every once in a while.
but really if you ask me i'd rather it NOT be there.
Merely on the grounds that, when i was a kid that sort of thing didn't really ring a bell with me. Would probably only serve to confuse me further - then again i was asking questions about anything and everything i was seeing when i was a kid.
Anyone ever watch He-Man or Captain Planet?
two different situations, but in He-Man - at my age now, i can kinda see where the gay jokes coming from, and i laugh at it now, but that stuff totally flew over my ahead at the time when i was kid. It's so unintended, but seem so obvious at this age.
Captain Planet, really cause it's shoving a very pro-environmentalist position, and at my age now it's plain as day light. Note i'm a NOT anti-environmentalism, just saying when it seems to be incredibly pushy about a topic. Then again that was the whole thing with Captain Planet.
by the by, both are great cartoon series in my eyes, even to this day. even if either of them make me chuckle every once in a while.
It depends on what type of kids show it is. If it's something like sesame street or sponge bob then no, they shouldn't have any gay characters because as far as I know, they don't have any straight characters. If the show has nothing to do with relationships you don't need to throw one in there. On the other hand, if the show already has dating and relationships in it as part of the show, then go wild with characters of all sexual orientation.
I do understand what your saying and that your trying to make a valid point. However I think it is safe to say that I did not imply that this idea means showing kids gay sex. All I pointed out is that it goes against the common established order of what exists, and basically confuses a kid when they see two people of the same sex have a similar type relationship that somewhat mirrors what they see with their mothers/fathers, grandparents, aunts/uncles, Family friends etc. Going against what they are normally used to being exposed to will likely lead to them wondering why that is different, and that right there IS sexualizing them too early. It will be unavoidable for them to ignore something like this when one of the foundations of their childhood education is the sesame street game "One of these things is not like the other" Had it not been presented, they would not have noticed or even cared.Brandon Carbaugh said:
As for what harm it can do. Many of the posts in favor of this, bring up the notion " I had no idea I was gay and I was confused, because I had no idea that was even an option" type posts. Now imagine that same type of confusion when you have some kid who thinks he is gay because he identified with other characteristics of one of these chars and has to work through the confusion of that. If some of the things that you see happen in the gay community are any indication of what that can do to a person it can often be an awful experience for that person. Now consider this proposal is wanting to shift that confusion from 10-20% of the population to 80-90%. I am not saying that it is a perfect situation by any means, but I am saying that can potentially do a LOT of harm.
Honestly, it might not be right or fair in some respects, and there does need to be a greater degree of tolerance, but that needs to occur with the parents/adults becoming more tolerant that way when the kid does have questions, they dont also have their confusion compounded with fear.
Ive said what I needed to say, and I do thank you for presenting your notion in a logical and civil fashion. But it is getting late, and I must force myself to finish DA2 now
