- This topic has 296 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
But this is the POINT. You don’t have to prove someone is straight because everyone assumes that the person is straight because that’s NORMAL. Gay is something that must be clued into because it is “other”
I’m not saying being straight is “normal”, this is 2014. I’m saying that if they want us to know a character is queer, why wouldn’t they SHOW it? If a character is gay, in order for us to KNOW that they have to clue us in to it or else it just is completely random. Idk. I guess its just a difference of opiniom
But we’re not really speaking about what the show could or should show. We’re talking about the assumptions people make–that until someone says otherwise, everyone you encounter is straight. That’s heteronormitivty.
Not necessarily true, because every human has a First Impression. And that First Impression will make you decide whether he/she is gay, straight, or bi….it’s human nature really. It’s nothing that can be escaped. Although Society has enlarged it into such a big deal, judgement with opinion is within every human.
And how many first impressions are wrong?
What if the person whom you are meeting isn’t “cliche” and doesn’t flaunt their sexuality. You have now made an egregious error about this person by assuming one thing.
Knowing Disney as being a kids company…I’d highly doubt they’d risk the Elsa/lesbian thing being known, but they settled with giving you hints and subtext to read into it, and settle with it.
So kids who self identify (and there are MANY MANY MANY MANY who do ) shouldn’t have role models or shouldn’t be given heroes to look up to because of their sexuality? And why should queer folk have to settle for hints and subtext? It’s once again degrading who they are to “the other” and making heterosexuality “the normal”
Because one thing about it, if a four year old kid woke up in the morning and said, “Mom, I wanna be gay because Elsa was gay,” the parent would be the first one to blame Disney
Because all parents are woefully ignorant and don’t know how to sit down and ask their children if they know what this means and have an adult conversation with their child about self identification?
And then Disney profits would gradually decrease, till they are a nonexistent company…it’s sad but it’s also the truth.
Because every parent is homophobic?
And many Christians who saw Frozen, and deemed it “wicked” will be the very same Christians watching Once Upon A Time to see their interpretation of the character of Elsa
So a few people dictate the storyline as a whole?
May the best side win…
I get what you’re saying but this is a horrible sentiment. If Elsa becomes straight (in canon) then it’s because straight is “best” and it “won” out over everything else.
[adrotate group="5"]"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"It seems like we are going in circles. let’s move on to something else (which RG’s comments reminded me of):
So kids who self identify (and there are MANY MANY MANY MANY who do ) shouldn’t have role models or shouldn’t be given heroes to look up to because of their sexuality
This is intetesting. They should. But all children (since Disney mostly markets to kids) aren’t LGBT and a LOT of kids wouldn’t want to see a movie about a lesbian ice queen or a gay prince as well as a lot of parents wouldn’t want their kids to watch said movie. This reminds me of something I read about a while back.
Idk if you all have heard of this show, but there was this show awhile back called She-Zow (I think) and the premise involved a young boy who (after stealing some super ring) becomes a female crime fighter whenever he powers up. Parents went ballistic because they felt it was pushing young boys to want to be women/trans (cause they would want to dress up as the female superhero that they main character becomes). One person suggested that having a channel with a LGBT programming for kids was better than just having shows like that on “normal” television. What do you guys think about that? Do you think LGBT programming should come on specific channels for kids who identify as such? Should we just mix it in with every other show on whatever network? Would mixing it be forcing LFBT down the throats of other children and parents who don’t approve of such?
OUAT has an older audience for the most part. I think we could handle Elsa being a lesbian even if it isn’t so in the Disney cartoon version. But making Elsa a full on lesbian in actuality of the film, I’m a bit iffy about, personally. Let’s discuss 😀
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGICFrom my point of view it is up to the character to define themselves, as strange as that sounds. Some writers approach their characters even not as entities they’ve created, but fictional person they are getting to know, observing, shadowing for a while, so there are some surprises sometimes in for the writers even.
Proof is when the character states something. So queer unless stated (and not unless shown) otherwise: Being shown so far in only hetero relationship doesn’t make anyone exclusive hetero IMO. But I am aware that this is a point of view not that much shared even in the queer community, because it means as well, unless stated, that a person shown so far in same gender relationship is not automatically lesbian/gay either. The binary of sexual orientation, to be one or the other, hetero or gay, doesn’t work for me, neither do I see bisexuality, pansexuality, fluid as something somewhere between these two assumed ends of spectrum, like the Kinsey scale suggests, but as something going beyond it.
Looking at characters as queer unless otherwise stated includes the possibility of hetero relationships, means same gender but as well opposite and even other gender relationships are possible, it is open. While seeing a character as hetero unless shown otherwise means to be exclusive, onesided: You assume they are interested in relationships with the “opposite” gender, you assume one possibility, unless something different is shown to you. I assume multiple possibilities until it is stated differently.
It indeed means to me at the moment as far as I have noticed no character is off limits, no character is stated to be hetero, we just have so far only seen or heard of hetero relationships. Maybe it is more likely, taking the statistical approach, but likely just doesn’t mean definite nor exclusive, and particular not on individual level. I am tired of just queer characters having to declare themselves, I demand the same from every character, hetero, queer, whatever.
To be absolute clear, repeating it: I expect hetero characters as much to declare themselves as you expect queer characters to declare themselves. It is as simple as that. I want characters to state, declare themselves regardless. Expecting just queer to have to state who they feel attracted to is discrimination.
But for the sake of simplicity and peace I work in the forums mostly with the common assumption, that some characters are more or less defined as hetero even without clear statement, that they are in a happy ending hetero romantic relationship, though they can not yet settle with a happy ending and are confronted by TPTB with some sort of crisis every season.
Did any of you notice, that the idea of being in love with a person and not with a gender has a tendency to come up only when heteronormativity is questioned? I seldom hear someone understanding themselves without doubts as hetero, and without being in a discussion about sexual orientation, say, “I am in love with the person not the gender”. All I can say is: you should be.
But, if we like it or not, gender is a part of our identities, for some more for some less. I’ve said it for a while, that it doesn’t matter what gender a person has, it is their personality that attracts me, falling in love with the person not with a gender, until a transsexual person made me rethink that. To some people their gender is very important, and it is disrespectful to not acknowledge it as part of their personality, their identity as a person, and as a part one falls in love with as with any other part, side, of who they are. So by now, although as bi I could claim I’d care less about gender in my attractions, I don’t phrase it that way anymore. I don’t even think anymore it’s true, because gender does play a role, even though my attractions includes different genders and I work on wrapping my head around non-binary ideas (like struggling to use other pronouns, not really there yet). As much as I wish for a world leaving the binary system of gender behind, I see us not there yet, gender images are running still strong in society.
Concerning Mulan: I can’t tell. So far what we know is, that she had feelings for Aurora, and though not outspoken, it looked likely romantic feelings. Did she have before eyes for Phillip? Maybe, maybe not. Was she checking out Belle? Yeah, looked like it, I would say. Maybe bisexual, maybe lesbian, maybe even straight with just Aurora as exception, I can’t tell. It’s open, nothing is stated so far. It might be likely that the writers think with her they have now already answered the call for a queer characters, so mean her to be lesbian or bisexual, but it is nothing explicit in the show, at best statement off screen in interviews. But in my view of course Mulan is queer, until otherwise stated.
To me SwanQueen is just an option, at the moment a non-canon ship in the fandom like Frankenwolf, but I respect it as that.
Stating, one doesn’t see Regina or Emma as queer is exactly that, a statement about the sexuality of the character, the gender of their love interest, and not a statement about a particular person, it means denying relationship based on their gender and not their personality. I have enough issues with Regina in any relationship at the moment, and certainly with Emma, but their gender is not the issue for me – that much I share with SwanQueen shippers.
A special channel with just LGBTQI program is a stupid idea, that is creating a ghetto on screen, that is exclusive and not inclusive. All children need to see that there is nothing wrong in liking to wear skirts and pants whenever they like, that there is nothing wrong if they want to have as boy long hair and as girl short, that it is sign of nothing but interest in the subject if a boys want to learn ballet or a girl play American football, that wanting to do crafts is not a sign of being lesbian, that liking fashion doesn’t make you gay, that liking your best girlfriend as girl or boyfriend as boy is no sickness, nothing that needs any cure.
The thing is to integrate not to isolate, to show it everywhere. An extra channel for LGBTQI with the intention to keep the other programs conveniently clean of queer is discrimination. It is not helpful.
And because I find it more than important to object particular to this point:
Being queer doesn’t exclude at all fatherhood or motherhood, it doesn’t destroy reproductive organs or makes it impossible to have offspring. Tell that Cynthia Nixon or Cydney Bernard, both mothers of proper children, tell that Robert de Niro (father gay), 50 cents (mother bi), Lynn and Vanessa Redgrave (father bi). Having children says NOTHING about who you romantically love, feel attracted to. Claiming it does matter, that people having children can’t be queer or queer people can’t be (biological) parents is homophobe prejudice and offensive.But before I start to dissect every offensive prejudice and discrimination expressed in the last couple of posts, and get more angry doing so, I will decline from further discussion.
One last statement:
OUaT lacks not just queer characters (potential is there), but queer relationship(s)It’s a show about love and hope – and I still hope, that they are not as exclusive as they’ve presented themselves so far looking at the pairings on the show, but finally show diversity and not just talk about it on panels.
And I couldn’t care less now, how the rest of the fandom, the audience reacts if they do it.
Thanks @RumplesGirl for being one understanding.
I am appalled how otherwise prejudices and negative attitudes towards queer people are maintained here by some people. edit: Nothing any moderation can take care of.
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
This is intetesting. They should. But all children (since Disney mostly markets to kids) aren’t LGBT and a LOT of kids wouldn’t want to see a movie about a lesbian ice queen or a gay prince as well as a lot of parents wouldn’t want their kids to watch said movie.
Perhaps and I recognize that Disney is a business. But the fact is, Disney is scary behind the times. How long did it take to make Mulan–the fire non-western “princess”? Or how about Tiana?
And why shouldn’t Disney try? If we want attitudes to change, then our culture (from which we get said attitudes) needs to change.
Do you think LGBT programming should come on specific channels for kids who identify as such? Should we just mix it in with every other show on whatever network? Would mixing it be forcing LFBT down the throats of other children and parents who don’t approve of such?
It should be mixed in with every other show on whatever network because in life we do not separate “others” from straight folk and relegate them to their own location for sake of the straight mentality. That’s catering to heteronormativity and frankly to homophobia. And no one is forcing LGBT down the throats of anyone. If those parents don’t approve, then they can stop watching. Their hatred should not dictate everything.
Take this outside of LGBT. Do you want an exclusive black channel? An exclusive Asian channel? What if a white person just so happens to like something on “black” programing? Do we start separating by every possible “type” of person?
And um…history lesson. America tried something like that once. It was called Jim Crow. Didn’t go well.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Maybe we should keep the topic to as the thread title suggests: Who should have an LGBT romance in Storybrooke?
When real world topics start entering the conversation such as religion, politics and in this case heteronormality, representation of LGBT in the media, etc, things tend to get a little heated, people get upset and begin taking things personally and it starts to become a tinderbox that’s about to blow up from one little spark.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixMaybe we should keep the topic to as the thread title suggests: Who should have an LGBT romance in Storybrooke?
My answer to this is simple: anyone who wants to have a LGBT romance in SB should have one. Whether or not they have had exclusive heterosexual relationships in the past or not, if they decide that they have fallen for/are interested in someone of the same sex…go for it. If it’s a brand new character who is a blank slate…go for it.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"Maybe we should keep the topic to as the thread title suggests: Who should have an LGBT romance in Storybrooke?
My answer to this is simple: anyone who wants to have a LGBT romance in SB should have one. Whether or not they have had exclusive heterosexual relationships in the past or not, if they decide that they have fallen for/are interested in someone of the same sex…go for it. If it’s a brand new character who is a blank slate…go for it.
I agree. However would this extend to previously established true love couples (of which there are a surprisingly high number considering true love is meant to be so rare)? For example, if Snow suddenly decided to hook up with Red, despite the last 3 seasons being about her and Charming?
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of FelixAnd what is the difference between real world and fiction? We have been discussing Storybrooke characters all the time, I have, with short distraction like this question about special TV channel. Unfortunately so far OUaT, Storybrooke doesn’t offer any example for queer parents, so had to take real world ones to point out it is possible.
LGBTQI is about politics, policies, society even in fiction. Fiction is a reflection of society and the possibility to play with options. Defining incest is as much about politics and society and that doesn’t seem to be an issue, is it? Adoption is about politics and society. Ethics, the question if there is something like redeemption is about politics, society, religion. One true love is about society and philosophy and politics. Women as rulers of a kingdom is politics, women as single working mothers are politics. But only here we have to exclude politics?
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I agree. However would this extend to previously established true love couples (of which there are a surprisingly high number considering true love is meant to be so rare)? For example, if Snow suddenly decided to hook up with Red, despite the last 3 seasons being about her and Charming?
Well on the whole, I frown on adultery. But if Snow begins to question her sexuality then we shouldn’t box her in and say “you’ve already found true love” because did she fall for Charming, the person, or did she fall for his GENDER. There is a difference here.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"And no one is forcing LGBT down the throats of anyone. If those parents don’t approve, then they can stop watching. Their hatred should not dictate everything.
Its not hatred. Some people just don’t prefer certain things.
Do you want an exclusive black channel? An exclusive Asian channel? What if a white person just so happens to like something on “black” programing? Do we start separating by every possible “type” of person?
I was actually going to bring this up 🙂 For those who haven’t heard the news, I am black 😛 And just as many of you have expressed dissappointment in the lack of LGBT characters and role models in not just OUAT but the media in general, I feel the same way about how blacks are represented. We have no black characters in cast of OUAT who play a significant role. When we have gotten one, they go away. I read a lot of fantasy books, watch a lot of fantasy shows and horror and Sci fi and my race is horribly absent from a LOT of those genres. So if someone came along and said “Hey, we are making this brand new network called Black Magic ( 😛 ) thats programming is specifically for those African Americans out there who love fantasy, horror, Sci fi, whatever and want to see their kind apart of the action, who wants to see black heroes, and witches, and fairytales in action!” Would I be on board for that!? YES!!!! Would I think that’s discrimination? No. Because I know everyone isn’t interested in seeing movies with people they aren’t…familiar with. Should we make tv channels for every kind of “type”? Perhaps not, but its not like it would be an EVIL idea. There are plenty of networks with programming intended for specific races or groups (not that others can’t tune in of course). Oxygen, WeTV, and Lifetime is intended for women, Spike for men, BET and TvOne for African Americans,etc. Even LOGO is aimed at a LGBT audiences. So having a channel that would promote, celebrate, and encouraging young LGBT kids who are tired of not seeing themselves represented, to me, isn’t like its the end of the world or discrimination.
If a white person wants to watch something that comes on a black channel, let them. If a straight kid wants to watch something on a LGBT childrens channel, let them.And um…history lesson. America tried something like that once. It was called Jim Crow. Didn’t go well.
Not what I mean. I’m just saying some people want to see films and shows about “themselves” whether they be black or gay or whatever. Everyone doesn’t want to see a movie about a black gay vampire love triangle with a trans werewolf and a bi wizard. Some do (well it does sound kind of interesting :P) Some people don’t want to see gay relationships and gay issues be the focal point in every movie or show. There’s nothing wrong with that. We all have prefrences in what we like to watch.
I am appalled how otherwise prejudices and negative attitudes towards queer people are maintained here.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but I think this conversation has actually been very civil. We may not agree on certain subjects but ultimately I don’t think any of us in here have a negative view or attitude towards queers here. Just differences of opinions.
"I could have the giant duck as my steed!" --Daniel Radcliffe
Keeper Of Tamara's Taser , Jafar's Staff, Kitsis’s Glasses , Ariel’s Tail, Dopey's Hat , Peter Pan’s Shadow, Outfit, & Pied Cloak,Red Queen's Castle, White Rabbit's Power To World Hop, Zelena's BroomStick, & ALL MAGIC
The topic ‘Out in Storybrooke: Who should have a Queery Tale romance?’ is closed to new replies.