Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 21 Next >>
Topic: Jim Shooter’s views on homosexuality in comics (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Kor Watkins
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 765
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 9:12am | IP Logged | 1  

In trying to make the homosexual poplation number smaller, you are missing the point. 10% is not accurate, no matter if the true number is smaller or larger - - it is more representative. For every homosexual who is "out of the closet", there are many more who stay hidden. They do this out of fear. I have stated some of those fears in an earlier post, and will not re-hash it.

Gay people are a part of society, and should be accepted as such.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4944
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 9:18am | IP Logged | 2  

Never said they were not part of society. The problem with the statement that there are many more that are hidden is that it is an unknown. How many? 1%? 35%? Who knows? Since it is a total unknown, it is not fair to use it when discussing orientation.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Kor Watkins
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 765
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 9:21am | IP Logged | 3  

Neil - if the Beast were gay, there would be a change. It would likely be subtle. I don't know you, but I assume you are heterosexual... think about what you would be like if you were homosexual. Most of what would be different would be subtle or minor changes. Depending on things like your age and where you grew up, there could be some major changes. I'm 38 - - when I was a teen-ager (in the 80's), I knew that it was not okay that I was gay. That was the message that was sent to me. I grew up in a city that has a small-town attitude. Had I grown up in New York City, I might have felt that it was more acceptable - that I was not the only one. Had I grown up in a small town, my feelings of isolation might have been more acute. Had I been heterosexual, I would still be me, but there would be changes. I might have had more confidence and security, for example. It's hard to imagine being different, and how it would affect you.

I recommended some books in an earlier post - - pick one of them up and read it. (Particularly "Venus Envy" or one of the Bob Smith books.) It might give you some more insight and understanding.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Bradley Dean
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 26 March 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 538
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 9:24am | IP Logged | 4  

Neil, I have been making the same point. Homosexuality does not mean characters have to dress in pink, have a lisp, fantastic fashion, hit on EVERY male he runs into including his teamates, etc.

Gay people are normal people to, and gay characters should be portrayed in the same way. Northstar faces prejudice because he is a mutant, and then he should face a different kind of prejudice because he is gay.

What would change? Well in his down time instead of wanting to catch a movie with a hot gal he would want to catch a movie with a hot guy. This may seam like a simple change but I think it is important. A few gay characters is just realistic. Changing historically heterosexual characters into gay characters is just a disservice to the gay community. It makes people wonder if the character really is gay, if its a choice, when will that right girl come along and switch him back to being straight again, its insulting. A gay character should be a gay character through and through, created to be gay in the first place.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Neil Lindholm
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: China
Posts: 4944
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 9:26am | IP Logged | 5  

Hey, my best friend in high school came out right after we graduated (we are almost the same age. I am 40). I think I was the first person he told. We were from a very small town and he would have had the shit kicked out of him if anyone had found out. I taught in Northern Alberta a few years ago and got pissed at my students with their anti-gay comments. They told me that if anyone at their school came out, he would be beaten pretty much every weekend. The idea that being gay is a choice is laughable. I don't envy you.

I just don't see the point of having it an issue in comics.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Kor Watkins
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 765
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 9:42am | IP Logged | 6  

Here's why it should be in comics: So that gay teenagers who are scared to come out, and feel isolated will know that 1) it's okay 2) it's normal and 3) they are not the only ones. Gay teens have a high suicide rate. Having characters like Wiccan & Hulkling, or Batwoman, is a step in the right direction. Have some of the gay characters deal with what real world gay people have to deal with. I agree that we don't need to see their sex life, unless it's important to the story. (For example, in 52 Renee Montoya was on a self-destructive path, and showing her sleeping around was part of that. It reinforced that she was behaving badly - not because she was gay, but because she was behaving badly.) The point I may not have made there is: don't show the sexual side of things (gay or straight) just to show it - - make sure it has meaning to the character and story. Now, showing the romantic side of things is fine with me - gay or straight.

I agree that ret-conning a character to be gay just doesn't work out well in most cases. If all of a sudden The Beast came out of the closet, I don't think I'd buy it. Create a new character who is gay. Or, I'm fine with recreating an unused character to be gay. Batwoman hadn't seen the light of day for a long, long time... I feel that she was recreated, because even without the lesbian angle, she's nothing like her original incarnation.

And, I will also say this... while I do want to see more gay characters in comics, I don't want it done just for the sake of having gay characters. Don't do it just because it's "politically correct", or whatever. Have the gay character be there because that character happens to be gay. Let it be organic and natural to the storytelling - not forced.

Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Jani Evinen
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 09 May 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 1104
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 10:09am | IP Logged | 7  

I agree with with Mr.Byrne on this one.  And I don't see anything "insensitive" by the writing in that issue. Sigh,political correctness is sometimes very annoying. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Paul Greer
Byrne Robotics Security
Avatar

Joined: 18 August 2004
Posts: 14191
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 12:12pm | IP Logged | 8  

Kor, you hit the nail on the head why there should be gay characters portrayed in not only comics but in all forms of entertainment.

Neil, as I stated in my last post, there are many variables I don't like in this study you cite. Kinsey's study was to probe human sexuality. Your study was to probe health care in Canada. Then it leaves out a portion of its sample group when it discusses sexuality. I'm no scientist, but shouldn't one case study be based on one scientific question or theory?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Fred J Chamberlain
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 August 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4036
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 12:18pm | IP Logged | 9  

Also remember that a large percentage of homosexuals don't self identify due to the stigma involved in doing so. If this study was done for anything other than sexual orientation, it is suspect. I'd question both reliability and validity issues involved.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Donald Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 03 February 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3601
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 12:50pm | IP Logged | 10  

I will jump in at this point,

1. I'm confused.  after seeing the actual piece in question, The two men in question were not presented as "gay".  They were presented as rapists.  My interpretation of the scene was that they thought Bruce was gay.  I have heard of many instances where a "straight "man , has tortured a gay man, up to and including raping to humiliate.  I did not see any lisp, unless you discussing the term "Pith" which i took to be a replacement for shit.

2. Kitty using the term "nigger".  I read this when it was published. I remember thinking to myself, "Go Kitty". This scene is all about context.  The message plain and simple is not to use ugly slurs unless you're ready to hear them back.

Our society (USA) has really fallen under the spell of Political Correctness.  It is a curse, and one I hope we can get out from under soon.  I'm not saying that i would love to hear racial, sexual, religious, etc. slurs bandied about all the time.  ( I try not to use them myself)  I merely think that in a land where everyone is special, there are no special people.  we all get a participant ribbon and no-one wins but the government.

D-
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Keith Elder
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1974
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 2:31pm | IP Logged | 11  

Kor:  And, homosexuality occurs in the animal kingdom, where for most species, is driven by instinct.

I've heard this... hell, I've noticed this... but I've wondered... when this occurs, is it homosexuality or actually bisexuality?  I mean, are there very many animals that they've documented as exclusively homosexual, or is it mostly that the animals are, um, switch-hitters?

Not grinding a political axe, just curious.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Keith Elder
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1974
Posted: 11 September 2007 at 2:40pm | IP Logged | 12  

Neil  And I spent an hour researching other reports, all of which contradict Kinsey and show that Kinsey's conclusion is too high. Therefore I dismiss his sixty-year old study as being superseded by new data and evidence that points toward a smaller percentage. This is how science works.

I don't disagree, and I think the Kinsey study is probably important not for the actual data, but for enabling future studies in a previously taboo area.  But I have another rational that's not so scientific:

Organizations that benefit from exaggerating the number claim 10%, so that's too high.

Organizations that benefit from playing down the number claim 1%, so that's too low.

The geometric middle (10 / X = X / 1) is 3.16%.  In the absence of information (or, too much conflicting information), I'll assume the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

<< Prev Page of 21 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login