I think therein lies the problem - why would certain people (presumably even Joe Q, in light of the corrected quote Joe posted) equate homosexuality, or even DEALING with characters who are homosexual, with gun violence, crime, rape, or murder?
Homosexuality in Comics
- Thread starter Dr.Strangefate
- Start date
I think therein lies the problem - why would certain people (presumably even Joe Q, in light of the corrected quote Joe posted) equate homosexuality, or even DEALING with characters who are homosexual, with gun violence, crime, rape, or murder?
compound
Well-Known Member
Hmmm... Thanks for clarifying that.
Well, as long as that policy is no longer in place (as indicated by the quote from the New Joe Fridays), I guess I don't mind that he's waffling about it now.
We've got some role reversal going on here. I don't think he should be let off the hook that easily.
It would be different if he had said that in 1950.
Joe Kalicki
Well-Known Member
He says it's no longer in place but that hasn't been tested yet. I guess he's waiting for the "perfect gay pitch" to come across his desk.
Joe Kalicki
Well-Known Member
It's specifically a featured role, or solo title. He even defends Marvel by mentioning the amount of gay supporting characters they have.
See I agree what Iceshadow said before. It shouldn't be a "gay pitch" It should be a cool charracter who has real issues cool bad guys. Saves the day. Have just happens to be gay. Like spider-man does all that and happens to be straight. But been straight is not what defines him.
Building around him been gay is silly and will make the comic fail.
compound
Well-Known Member
Spider-Man is an interesting example, because yes, he's obviously not defined by his "straight-ness" or heterosexuality.
But he IS largely defined by his devotion to his wife/girlfriend, Mary Jane (heck, it's right there in the name of the all-ages title). His love for her is a primary motivation for many of his decisions, as a person AND as a super-hero.
If there was a gay character who was defined in the same way -- in terms of his devotion to his partner (regardless of his gender) -- I wonder if readers would be as receptive as they are towards Spider-Man's relationship (assuming, of course, that this hypothetical gay superhero was penned with the same breadth of characterization that has been given to Peter/Spidey, over the years).
Last edited:
No, because interestingly that would make the comic too gay.
Interesting double standard.
I think No he is defined from real problems. Look at the gap between Gwen's death and him first meeting M.J. She is still a huge part of his life though.
I wouldn't mind that at all.
However I think the problem (Sorry ladies) Is women are viewed as weaker physically and so are easier for the bad guy to kidnap. Not meaning that as sexiest even if it is.
But the guys (most) in comics = big muscles like the American football players, The women (Most ) in comics = Super model builds. Which is easier for writes to have get kidnapped or put in danger?
Gideon Stargrave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 3,395
Actually, he met MJ 11 issues after meeting Gwen. He dated MJ (albeit, briefly) before dating Gwen. After Gwen's death, MJ was the one who immediatly comforted him.
So, yeah. You're wrong. :wink:
Or, how about this? We have love interests who aren't captured by villains every other story arc?
It's an old, boring story cliche that needs to be done away with.
There was a gap before he dated her though
It'll never go away though.
Joe Kalicki
Well-Known Member
Not really Mole. They started going out almost immediately.
Not a gap like a year but at least 10 comics. Plus they have broke before too.
but this is off topic anyway
compound
Well-Known Member
Now I almost feel bad about bringing up the Spidey comparison, because it's veering the thread waaaaaaay off topic...
Mole, I understand your point, given the prevalence of uninspired love-interest-gets-captured storylines in mainstream superhero comics, as well as the tendency to depict characters with superhuman physiques.
But that's not actually what I was referring to...
When I described the possibilty of a gay character in the "Mary Jane role", I didn't mean a perrennial damsel-in-distress.
I'm referring to a love interest who is completely human (i.e. no superpowers), and who needs to make concessions and sacrifices in his personal life, on account of the fact that his boyfriend maintains an active career as a superhero. He doens't need to have a football player physique, or even be particularly tough. I just mean an ordinary Joe with a job like yours or mine, who just so happens to be in a committed relationship with the alter-ego of a superhero (on top of the usual temptations, complications, problems, everyday drama, ups and downs that happen in ordinary, "real life" relationships).
Do you feel that comic audiences are ready to accept -- or even embrace -- something like that?
Mole, I understand your point, given the prevalence of uninspired love-interest-gets-captured storylines in mainstream superhero comics, as well as the tendency to depict characters with superhuman physiques.
But that's not actually what I was referring to...
When I described the possibilty of a gay character in the "Mary Jane role", I didn't mean a perrennial damsel-in-distress.
I'm referring to a love interest who is completely human (i.e. no superpowers), and who needs to make concessions and sacrifices in his personal life, on account of the fact that his boyfriend maintains an active career as a superhero. He doens't need to have a football player physique, or even be particularly tough. I just mean an ordinary Joe with a job like yours or mine, who just so happens to be in a committed relationship with the alter-ego of a superhero (on top of the usual temptations, complications, problems, everyday drama, ups and downs that happen in ordinary, "real life" relationships).
Do you feel that comic audiences are ready to accept -- or even embrace -- something like that?
They might not. I know I think that would cool and something refreshing. But people may disagree
Gideon Stargrave
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 3,395
I would read that book. It would seem that gay superheroes are only allowed to date other gay superheroes. Seeing one's partner in the Mary Jane archetype would be interesting indeed.
Of course, I don't think it would sell, but I would read it, none the less.
Of course, I don't think it would sell, but I would read it, none the less.
Bass
Nexus of the World
Very true - but my point is that should homosexuality be a sin, an immoral act of any kind, then so is gun violence, crime, rape, and murder, and is indeed, a lesser immoral act than any of those and thus, should be portrayed with the same frequency as them. The counterargument is that the glorification of the 'immoral act' is the problem - but then, I'm pretty sure that The Sopranos is a TV show where the main characters, the good guys as it were, are murderers, rapists, and heads of an organised crime syndicate - so we can happily 'glorify' the more extreme evils in our nature than homosexuality, and thus, there is no justification for somehow saying it shouldn't be depicted.
The rationale for it is completely skewed and ill-conceived from start to finish. My point is that I don't even have to get into the argument of whether homosexuality is an immoral act or not to prove it should be in comics. Smart ***, I can be.
compound
Well-Known Member
Actually, no, the Sopranos example *supports* Joe Q.'s original point -- because it was shown (at least in America) on HBO, a paid-access cable channel, and branded as "adult" entertainment. Which is exactly how the MAX line posits itself.
By that token, a "sinful" topic like homosexuality would most likely be treated similarly.
Ooh, you're tricky.
