Non-Diaper Question From A Straight Person.

[BabyFergstar]

This question just occurred to me tonight, and thought I would post something here to see if anybody wants to discuss and offer an answer. From the start, I am a straight person who supports gay people and gay rights, and my question is really just a curiosity.

Recently Marvel Comics announced that their most popular gay character would soon be marrying his partner. VERY soon after that, DC Comics announced that one of their characters was going to be homosexual after the most recent restart - for those of you who don't follow comics, DC Comics (Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.) totally restart their universe every few years when their plots and characters become too convoluted - anyway, after the most recent restart, a previously straight character was now going to be gay.

My question is this: in the realm of entertainment, be it comic book, movie or TV, what is more offensive...the total lack of multi-faceted and interesting homosexual characters, or one who was made gay in a seemingly disgusting ploy to keep up with a company's main competition?

[windycityheat]

MMaybe they we always gay, and some gay folks don't tell anyone cause they don't have someone to point to in their life to say "There's a heroic, strong, smart gay person"

[BabyFergstar]

I would be willing to believe that, windycityheat, if 1.) DC didn't announce this until AFTER Marvel announced the wedding of their gay character, and 2.) They had to reboot the ENTIRE universe because their rights to Superman were changed after the families of his creators FINALLY won a lawsuit.

[BabyFergstar]

* Let it be understood, it is NOT the character being gay I have issue with here...I have issue with the questionable motives of the company.

[Bettypooh]

In general, companies have no morals, only ledgers and an eye on the competition They will do whatever they think is profitable or will help them reach their goals. The larger the business the more this applies. I know almost nothing about comics but I'm glad to see human diversity given good press anywhere

Probably due to the targeted age group, I can't recall much sexuality directly addressed in comics, and I don't have a problem with that. Us "Big Kids" may get turned on by Wonder Woman but that doesn't happen to a seven year old I saw where Spiderman got his girl, but never saw them in an intimate pic. Comics are part of the things that shape the younger minds for the world ahead, giving them an idea about acceptable or expected public behavior. In that I'm glad us adults have reached the point where being Gay can be shown like this so that the kids whose destiny takes them there can see themselves as being the normal humans they are I hope it's a good business decision too, but only time will prove that.

When I was a kid, I loved Sgt. Rock as did most of my friends, the epitome of a tough guy with cojones the size of a skyscraper and no tolerance for wimpiness. Now look where life took me- in the exact opposite direction So I don't see any problems with this except those created by paranoid or prejudiced stupid adults who have forgotten what it's like to be a kid It's not going to have a bad effect on anyone else.

I wish them well for success with this concept because human diversity is a good thing, and kudos for them being bold enough to go there!

Bettypooh

[RainbowDood]

I actually was greatly interested in these stories when they broke. I'm not a huge comic nerd, but I read a handful of books on a regular basis. In regards to the DC/Marvel timing, it's my understanding that the storylines are worked out around a year in advance of printing, so while the ANNOUNCEMENT may have been motivated by the Northstar wedding, the storyline of Alan Scott being gay was prepared quite some time in advance. It wasn't something that was decided a month in advance.

So while I question their publicity gathering tactics, I applaud their inclusiveness.

I remember going through that awkward phase in High School, trying to find books with LGBT characters in any form- major, minor, walk-on parts- Thom Creed in 'Hero', Blaylock from the Black Dagger Brotherhood, and Tony Foster in 'Smoke and Shadows'. Anything to show me that I wasn't the proverbial freak show (something I knew to be true but, like every teenager, didn't believe). For a while I was a huge supporter of Mercedes Lackey just because of her Magic's Pawn trilogy from the late 80s. Despite the fact that the protagonist went through hell and back, then *SPOILERS* died in a horrific manner, I bought those books and never gave em up. Alas, I still try to find books and comics with LGBT characters now and then, with some success but not enough.

So in my opinion, it's the lack of characters that bothers me the most, UNLESS the character change is done in a way that is not fitting with the story. If Johnny Superhero is chilling with the ladies in issue 11 and suddenly comes out to his parents in issue 12 with no warnings or clues, then I as a reader feel cheated.

[BabyFergstar]

Thanks for the responses. As I said, I was just curious. I'm not sure which would bother me more. Betty, did I really come off as paranoid?

[ForbiddenFruit]

I've quite a bit to say because the inner trope-fiend in me lurks just beneath my skin, but a minor correction with big implications first

I know almost nothing about comics but I'm glad to see human diversity given good press anywhere

Probably due to the targeted age group, I can't recall much sexuality directly addressed in comics, and I don't have a problem with that. Us "Big Kids" may get turned on by Wonder Woman but that doesn't happen to a seven year old I saw where Spiderman got his girl, but never saw them in an intimate pic. Comics are part of the things that shape the younger minds for the world ahead, giving them an idea about acceptable or expected public behavior.

Short version: Long-running comics aren't really for kids any more.

Long version: *chortle* The 'targeted age group' isn't so close to what you think it is any more. I'm not an aficiondo, but I hang around with enough fiction-hoover geeky people (and love one with all my heart) to know that comics aren't the 'thing' for kids in the single-digit ages and below fourteen these days Painting in broad strokes, kids generally are a bit more into cartoons, but the comic franchises (I mean, the big ones, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, et al and many others - Green Lantern, Capt. America, and so forth) are kept to A: movie versions for families / tweens / entry-level folk (think, say, Iron Man, the spider-man reboot, Thor and Marvel Avengers) and B: the comics which are read predominately by the people who read them years ago in the first place.

This is primarily because (allegedly) a chunk of current writers and artists used to be fans in their younger years and landed their dream job. Now, comics are targeted at people like them, to an extent, not kids Fanservice (layman's term: the ass shot and such ) often happens sanctioned by the writer (one particular case regarding Lois Lane got a lot of people a bit mad), edgy is in, and blood on the cover isn't a rarity these days, so overall, it's not little Timmy who's learning that sometimes a hee-hee doesn't want to go in the hoo-ha, but people who know that already

*ahem*

But to address the original question: for me, it's all about context. If you want a blunt A or B answer, I'm gonna go with the first one. It'd be nice if we did have a wider selection of characters right now, I think. The second practice, well, that's how the world works. Follow the leader. 'Tone at the top' becomes a chain reaction or snowball effect. Do DC have their eyes on their pocketbooks? Well, duh. But I don't think it's a 'disgusting ploy'. It wasn't a disgusting ploy when the UK government went ahead with coming out (heh) with their gay marriage legislature after Obama made his statement, nor would I think that Oreo image was a disgusting ploy (what I was disgusted at was that it wasn't real! D: ). I don't think sales really factors into it that much - because the comic book market is generally long-term fans, I highly doubt it will attract new readers, and for those that do, there'll be a bitter fundie out of touch with reality who drops it. My beloved has issues with the current state of the industry, but it ain't the diversity

I'm interested in looking up the full circumstances of this story - I mean, to get the full context in DC's case. Are they retconning something heavily established? Is it going to be a one-word mention and back to business? Is this really a big deal from a business standpoint or maybe, just maybe, they're doing it because they see care and saw Marvel as giving the green light?

Going back to the first point though - what really constitutes a multi-faceted character? As much as I'd like to see more 'characters who just so happen to be gay', I don't bat an eyelid whenever I see 'flaming' characters, even if they're played for comedic effect. Our tropes are the building blocks of our fiction, and our fiction reflects our reality. Flamboyant gay guys who like lipstick and eye shadow, get weak in the knees at muscle bound guys and have a high-pitched voice exist, people A game I'm fond of, Valkyria Chronicles, has a cast of characters that are all delightful little packages of tropes, and

- and yet at the same time, he's a fan favourite. Players laugh with him, and adding 'honey' and 'sweetie' to death threats as well as getting a stat boost next to other men makes me chortle. There's a bunch of other gay and bi characters too, they just have the 'fancies men' or 'fancies women' abilities.

But there's a flip side to this. One thing that made me think about your question was the word 'offensive'. What's offensive to some won't be to others, and I'm a prononent of the idea that my opinions are made no more valid because of what and who I think about when I lay in bed There's kinda a problem with these 'multi-faceted characters' thing. In my experience with games, when a character is abound that shows 'stereotypical' gay tropes (Camp Gay, Hard Gay, Leather Gay) then people complain...

...and yet I've seen games with characters where being gay is a minor part of their character...and yet people still complain because it's not a big crux in the story I'll agree insofar a part of 'gay culture' (I'm an odd one, I don't like terms like 'gay culture', 'gay lifestyle', 'gay community' etc. No, I don't know why not either ) is the homophobia and if we want to be a post-orientation society then we need to be able to sit down and talk about it (oh, who am I kidding, we're hardly freaking post-racial...). The obvious response is "Well, find some middle ground." That's the problem. If you want to have a character not take up too much room or invade narrative space it's really freaking hard to find a spot between hand-wave non-issue and waving the rainbow flag. It seems immensely difficult to work around it without coming off as preachy and sanctimonious - and I'm probably doing that now without even realising it myself because lolpastbedtime 0_o;

I'm not sure myself if subtlety and indirect discussion is helpful in our kind of society. I'm not particularly jostled when a character being LGBT is treated as a non-issue because going another way runs the risk of dwelling too much on a side-arc. Others out there hate both the practice and me for my stance (I've been told that like other "straight-acting gays" I'm "trying to compromise and fit in a heteronormative world" because I don't want to wear pink in public rather than considering that, you know, I might not be a carbon freaking clone of you and could have my own personality? It's gay pride, not you pride). I've spoke about Mass Effect 3's Cortez (plus the option to have a gay relationship with Kaidan, which was handled a LOT better than Cortez IMO) and been ragged on for my position that 'promotes intolerence'...despite the fact that I point out the main ludonarrative mechanic of the entire series (but especially ME2) revolves around tolerance, diversity, acceptance, and valuing people for who they are.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand now I've gone extremely off point but might have entertained one or two people

/blog

[Bettypooh]

Thanks for the responses. As I said, I was just curious. I'm not sure which would bother me more. Betty, did I really come off as paranoid?

Not you dear heart, but those vocal grown-up people who scream against this kind of thing saying a comic book is going to destroy everyone and everything- which you haven't done You want to know and learn and understand- and that is the best way of self-betterment that there is May you find that which you seek; I think you're on the right course to succeed at that quite well

Bettypooh

[BabyFergstar]

ForbiddenFruit - apparently I've run out of my "likes" for the day, or else I would have liked your many paragraphs twice...LOL

Betty - glad I didn't come across as such. I hate all the crap that The Right generally have to say about these issues. - would have "liked" your last comment as well, my friend!

[DavidMW]

My question is this: in the realm of entertainment, be it comic book, movie or TV, what is more offensive...the total lack of multi-faceted and interesting homosexual characters, or one who was made gay in a seemingly disgusting ploy to keep up with a company's main competition?

I wouldn't consider it a "disgusting ploy". Businesses need to be competitive, and the country's attitude w.r.t. gays and lesbians is changing, as is the comic market.

Gay or straight, it's hard to introduce a new character that builds a fanbase, though it's probably harder to do so for a new gay character. Thus the restarts.

By reintroducing an established character as gay means that the character already starts with a built-in fan base. That gives the now-gay character a better chance of success in the market.