I think you got it pretty well nailed there.

For some reason when you mentioned Mighty and Espio I got them mixed up with Charmy and Vector in my head, but still thought the idea was cute. :T ...No I don't have a point that actually pertains to the more serious content of this post, my brain liquified sometime while I was drawing last night and would rather gently slide under the point than address it.

I almost said Mighty and Ray, but figured nobody would know Ray. :P

Oh, I could probably be added to that list of nobodies. :b But to be fair, I only know about the Chaotix characters vicariously through Heroes and Generations (still amused by the "missing" posters of Mighty in City Escape). I missed out entirely on the CD titles and comics.

I know Ray!

... he's partnered with Bullwinkle, right?

Ray is somewhat a minor character.

Nail on the head, pretty much...

Personally, most of my objections to various gay/bi pairing is usually more along the lines of "That doesn't really make much sense for the characters." Of course, I have similar issues with *straight* pairings that fly int he face of characterizations, logic, or even biology and basic physics. I don't find anything *wrong* with the pairings based on sexuality (btw, I found the concept of the pairings you mentioned adorable. :) ), but rather it's that it often results a bizarre interpretation of the character that often has no resemblance to the one I enjoy. I tend to ascribe it to the same level I do nonsensical straight pairings: the person find the characters hot, and finds them even hotter together, regardless of the logic and logistics that'd be involved in such a pairing. In short, fantasy material.

Maybe that's why people object, despite having no other objections to non-normative sexuality? the idea of their objects of fantasy being differently-oriented causes problems with their fantasy life?

Ah, but therein lies my issue- why does it not make sense? Do bisexual people have personalities that straight people don't? What's the justification here?

Well, then, let's establish a baseline here- does being attracted to more than one gender make you behave differently than if you did not? Change your attitudes towards other people? Establish in some way who you are and what you want in life?

Mmm... no. It changes my prospects of romance, but just as any given heterosexual man isn't attracted to but a small portion of women they encounter, not very many people catch my fancy in general.

The only ways I can say that it's affected me is by removing misconceptions.

So you'd say it's not affected your personality at all?

Other than having to deal with the realities of being a minority, no, I would say it's had no effect whatsoever. So, what are you getting at?

Establishing what points I can use in discussion, and have you agree to them as valid, so I can formulate a logical statement to make a point- Debate 101?

Anyhow, fair enough- what about others? Does revelation of your orientation change other's perspectives of you?

Over 90% of the population is straight, people write what they like.

Which is why most guy-guy slash is written by girls and most bronies are male.

Thank you, Louis. That was short, but pointless.

It all depends on a lot of factors that you can't possibly know, I suppose. When someone is introduced to a character, at first their orientation or sexuality may not even come to mind. No one even considered that this character may or may not be gay simply because it was never intended to be a focus in any way. So when someone 'perverts' the idea, it's bringing light to something that someone might never have considered before. It can go one of two ways, but it usually leads to the 'eww' reaction you noted. It doesn't help that, as you said, most people remove the romantic fluff and sweetness of a relationship in their art. That's not exactly easing anyone into the idea.

Other people just place a character in a particular orientation by default - most often hetero - without a second thought. What people are really reacting to is just an idea they haven't been able to get comfortable with, mostly because it rarely, if ever crosses their minds.

It's all ignorance I guess, yeah. But sexuality and orientation is more of a touchy issue to some than to others, so it can't really be helped. But heck, I'd say the generation shift between our parents and us, and us and our kids, people are getting a lot more open with the subject.

Tolerance =/= acceptance. Can't mandate or legislate acceptance, all you can do is educate or ignore.

... Ahaha, what? You are talking straight out of your ass. =)

Alright, first off, you talk like "spirit" is an actual thing. I hope you were just throwing the word in some sort of figurative way and you don't belive that it -actually- exists and that it can be used to argue about actual objective differences between men and women.
Second, generalizing how all women and how all men view sex is just plain ignorant, specially if you're trying to use that as an argument to why certain relationships or sexualities are more interesting to read than others (Hint: it isn't) Every person, regardless of gender and sexuality, has a different way at approaching this matter, some are more romantic, some aren't, etc. If you're talking about how men are teached by our culture to overvalue sex and to oppress their emotional side, it's because of misogyny and rape culture, not because of a biological difference between men and women. Genders are merely genders, they do not somehow dictate our personality, if you cannot find many good gay or bisexual romances, it's because there just aren't as many romances of different sexualities, because of heteronormativity.
Third, "ad hominem" means arguing about the person speaking rather than what he has to say. Norithics was pointing out the obvious, that what you are saying is obviously out of your ass rather than actual research. There's a difference between saying that you're talking out of your ass to saying that you're outright stupid.

Physical dimorphism isn't a myth and I never said it was. You didn't even talk about physical dimorphism, you were going on about some fiery spirit thing that definitely isn't the same thing as that.

And also, now that what you said there is ad hominem! And speaking out of your ass! But I think I made my point, same-sex relationships can be interesting, because you sure are very interested in my own!

I want to copy paste this post. It is the most well-rounded, world-wise thing I have ever read ever.

You need to watch less cartoons.

Yes. Science states that heterosexual relationships are more interesting.
Wait, what?

Oh, such a cute little video, thank you!

I'm glad you are able to accept mistakes, I hope you research on things I've referenced, they are very interesting reads, I promise.

Also Nystre is doing very well, thanks for asking! He keeps growing because he can't stop eating those cakes...

Yeah, okay, WHAT does that have to do with this?

Holy fuck. Wow, you are a disrespectful little shit the second you don't get your way. You haven't grown at all. Look at this.

LOOK AT THIS.

What was all this? I jibe at you kiddingly and you flip out and be the biggest little asshole you can. Why did I waste my fucking time on you.

wat happan

I was really tempted to reply to him something along the lines of "Ad hominem. You keep using that term. I do not think it means what you think it means." But it's best not to feed trolls, even ones who are just mindlessly repeating the name of a single logical fallacy with no understanding of what it actually is.

I didnt read the whole thread. but there is that gilmmer of hope of optimism that even people who you have had bad experiences with because of stupidity,immaturity or just plain spite can change and be someone you can talk to ,to rationally debate and have an exchangee of ideas with.
But like Barney Frank said to one woman who was asking him about Obama being Hitler or something equaly dumb " I have no further interest in talking to you madam. its like trying to talk to a kitchen table.it`s a waste of time" or something to that effect.

I'm going to just wash my hands of this conversation before you get more defensive and spiteful. That sort of infectious hatred will just bog up my senses, and uncreative people who can't put 2 and 2 together just irritate me further. We are clearly just pouring oil.

Happy new year and take care of yourself, man. I'll learn more tact and present my argument better next time. And I'm okay learning if you have something to actually, you know, tell me.

Also, this had nothing to do with any of that. You just made the argument about what you wanted it to be about, like you always do. You make everything about yourself and don't ever bother with anyone else.

Just stop.

'You know damn well those gays do nothing but fornicate!" XD

There is the reverse. I have to hate this else I could become it. Then friends and family won't love or like me like they once did...blah, blah, milarky.

There is also the fear that if they humor such ideas, it could take over the character. I can especially see that around here. As a gag or for a friend, an artist puts there character in a compromising scene that is not canon. Then it gets too far out of hand, challenge the canon-ness of a character, and people only know the character from that one instance. I've actually had that happen twice where I thought someone's character was gay but was not the case, due to the one image I saw the character in they were being dominated by the same sex. Go figure I'd think they were gay instead of totally straight. :p

having been straight in my mind before I turned bi .Id say I remember not liking gay pairings of some characters because i thought of bottoms being an insult to a character, a weakening of them .Id imagine straight people who really like a character being very disturbed by the idea of the character being a bottom.As in masulinity and anal sex being two incompatible things in general society.
Ive come to only dislike gay or bi pairings now when it doesnt seem to make any sense.When it contradicts all cannon material.

I think your theory has some credence, actually. That is seen as pretty weak. But somehow that same inference isn't assigned to straight women. Or perhaps it is.

well see in that mind set of sexuality all women are supposed to be weak and desire the male cock. If its a male character wanting it too then they are being "weak" and female .And like Shep said if you like girls then its a bit of ... lesbians? "hey! its twice the wommins! *drool*" where if its dudes its just twice the "do not want" and confusing to boot for those whose parents have sheltered them from the concept of "the gay".

also unless they are girly guys or cross dressing bishi types or whatever girls are just cuter then guys as a whole so more appealing to both genders.dudes are more a specific taste as are the butch lesbian types.At least thats what mainstream society as a whole thinks I believe.

That's because to our society, women are "supposed" to be weak and submissive. So when you have a man being "brought down" to that level, it generates alienation to the more conservatives (read: misogynists and homophobic) masses, because men are somehow supposed to be strong and dominant.

just noticed rick2tails said the same thing, lmao. But yeah, it's basically due to misogyny - women and femininity being associated with weakness and submissiveness, and therefore, men who are weak or submissive are associated with women ("you play like a little girl!"), and also the contrary - men who are feminine are considered weak and submissive. Homophobia's roots aren't all based on misogyny, but most of them certainly are.

I'm hetro and I think girl-girl pairings are cute. Since I like girls there's just twice as much for me to like about it. Not into gay male stuff personally, but I don't have any problems with it.

It's an odd way to talk about Heteronormativity by taking fan-pairings as an example, but alright, I'll take it, it's a fair example!

We still aren't over sexuality, gender, or heck, even ethinicities. The society might accept it, but not fully, specially when everything needs to appeal straight, white males first, often forgetting about other kinds of people, fueling the notion of what's normal and what isn't. And worse - this notion is also implanted into the heads of said minorities, which isn't nice at all.

There's just waaaay too much stuff about this, but really, short version: It's always been this way, it's not nice, and we should make people aware.

Imagine a beloved gay character portrayed as hetero.

As long as they're not a horrid campy stereotype, I can. Easily, in fact.

Isn't that the issue? I mean, normally, it wouldn't matter, but if their sexuality becomes an issue, then, well, so does this.

Scott Thompson, portrayed as totally hetero in a fanfic.

Julien Clary, happily married with a woman!

But, say, Dumbledore - really, who gives a toss? It's not relevant in his case.

Although it would be humorous to see a campy version played up to Austin Powers levels...If only because its deliciously absurd. It would be interesting to see a kind of female distaff of Jack Harkness with a 99% sucess rate in stealing the ladies >:3

...

I miss Leisure Suit Larry D:

Imagine a beloved gay character

That alone is incredibly hard to do, and I think therein lies a rather good illustration of the inequality being contested in the journal.

I want to say Neil Patrick Harris but can't, because of the whole; actual person vs actor thing.

Thinkthinks..

Leeron from Gurren Lagann? :D

(Shame on me if I misunderstood what you meant by "beloved", mwahaha)

There's actual Marvel lore floating around that Beast of the X-men has been quite gay since the Avengers, but he's such an erudite that he doesn't go around sticking his tongue down other people's mouths, and holds his relationships to the platonic level (mostly? Because rule of comics is if you start declaring I love you to people regardless of gender, Galactus tries to eat the earth yet again and ends up killing your lover as a result, or your lover sacrifices themselves to close up hell, or some asinine drivel meant to drive plot). Why they ended up retconning that stuns the crap out of me: It made for a far more interesting character! Besides, pretty much everyone besides Beast hit on Wonderman at that point in time >.>

"Most people think it's gross" sums it up well, I think. It was pointed out how odd it was that it took Around The Fur ten chapters to get to anything sexual, and I thought "Why is that so odd? It takes Clive Cussler 200,000 words to get there, and no-one thinks it's wierd."

Pretty much what other people have said. The blend of social alienation of LGBT people and issues combined with the few nonrealistic portrayals (especially from Japan via "shonen-ai" and "yaoi" works) has led to a real fetishisation of homosexuality. No longer is it a "love" thing, it becomes purely a "sex" thing, and I really think that's potentially damaging.

Let me begin by saying everything here is my personal opinion and somethings I have noticed other people bring up when it comes to this subject, I am not going to even begin to assume everyone agrees with me. I will also be useing examples from the subject that got me into fanworks in the first place and the subject I still read fanfiction on the most often, the anime/manga Naruto.

Now for myself any annoyance I have with homosexual pairings comes from one of two areas, that may or may not mix together depending on the pairing in question
1)When the pairing itself due to the interactions between the characters themselves, both in canon and the fanwork itself, does not make sense. This is for any kind of pairing, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or anything else.
2)When the number of times a specific homosexual pairing shows up outnumbers, massively, the number of heterosexual pairings for a character who in canon is infact heterosexual.

The most blatant example of both of these, a subject I have ranted on before, is the Naurto Sasuke pairing. I will not get into the numerous ways the pairing wouldn't even work due to their interactions and just point out one shoved his fist in the other's chest until it came out the otherside and leave it at that. This is in addition to the fact Naruto is rather blatantly heterosexual in canon, and yet the most common pairing(Him and Hinata) numbers somewhere in the 400s worth of pages of fics on Fanfiction dot net whereas the Naruto Sasuke pairing numbers in the 600s.

Other examples of the first are also very common, HinataxSasuke, TayuyaxShikamaru, KankuroxShino, and so on. It's not that I have a problem with the sexuality of the pairing, it's that the pairing itself makes no sense do to the interactions, or complete lack there of, between the characters themselves.

The second admitedly is homophobic, but in my mind it is just incredibly annoying when a character, of any sexuality, is in canon attracted to one sex, and yet somehow the number of fanworks of them being attracted to the opposite sex of their canon attraction outnumbers, vastly, their canon sexuality.

"yet the most common heterosexual pairing(Him and Hinata) numbers*
Forgot to type a word, sorry.

Seems to me less of a problem withpairings and more of one with counterculture.

Doesn't bother me a bit. In a fan comic I have planned, Sonic and Silver are a gay couple.

You hit the nail on the head near the end by not suspecting malice but plain ignorance. There's that lovelyquote, "One should not ascribe to malice what may be explained by ignorance." People are just dumb in large numbers, and have all these double-attitudes that you can examine in light of things like the Bradley Effect, where folks say they will vote for a minority but do not follow through. Prejudice thrives in secrecy and the internet allows for perfect secrecy and yet connectivity, so you can have secret homophobes going around saying such things.

Now you know me, I think. I have far, far more lesbian pairs than straight ones. Hell, I took the two straightest... three straightest ladies in The Lion King and made them absolute lesbians (Vitani doesn't count; she was never that straight in the movie, that I could tell.) And that doesn't even get into my My Little Pony stories where I actually had someone complain there are too many lesbians (And, true, I've implied two straight relationships and blatantly shown only one that wasn't absolutly canon.)

So, I don't have a problem with homosexual characterization of characters, but I offer one big, honking huge caveat: O. T. P. I am a shipper at heart and soul. When I make a pair then farkdammit it gets MADE. So if someone was to take, say, Tigress and give her the super-hots for Viper, I'd get bugged. BUT, and here's the separation, I'd feel exactly, 100% as bugged if it was Tai Lung, Shifu or anyone else, gender irrespective. And thinking on that story you once made, I see that I DO have a kind of prejudicial sexuality berzerk button. If someone gave Fluttershy the hots for Big Mac (and it happens a lot) I'd get extra mad, moreso than I would if they made it Dash or Twilight. I guess, when it comes to lesbians that I support, and feel very strongly about, I would be classed as homo-normative (At least in Equestria.)

*quiet hoof-bump*

funny how were all wired so radically differently. and im not just talking about sexual orientation but how people observe things like it. i myself hold the moto that you should never stand in the way of love no mater what it looks like. because that is the one thing that is truly blind to all other factors and will do as it pleases regardless of anyone's interference or whining

Yeah... I agree with you, but it does bother me when characters are put together by fan-works who wouldn't ever really have anything to do with each other, regardless of the genders of the involved parties or whether or not there's a sexual aspect to the relationship.

It just strikes me as cheapening the characters they're trying to pay tribute to by reworking their personalities to fit some fan's idea of a "one true pairing"

Of course I mind a lot less when there's proven subtext or ambiguity in the nature of a relationship between two characters, because then there's something there to draw on.

I think I would like to observe that our society is at base religiously asexual (look at Jesus? He wasn't even hetro.. 8I) and then go so far as to say that heterosexuality gets away with such "perversions" as puppy love being seen as harmless and hetero marriage being seen as normal and a mostly acceptable depiction in G-rated fictional families due to a few centuries of head start eroding away at the asexual canvas of expectation.

So, counter-intuitively I suppose, I would vote that saying "non-hetero platonic interaction should be seen as just as harmless as hetero platonic interaction" is less of a good start to change minds than simply championing sex-positivity from the start. Otherwise, the first problem you'll see is that platonic implies asexual, and hetero only gets away with it because a glut of cultural cannon prevents it from tripping anyone's immediate realization that there still exists a sexual undercurrent. Getting people to forget that undercurrent in non-hetero puppy love won't work, you have to get them to both see it and embrace it in hetero (the most common) first.. since it really is there for both.

Get society to embrace sexuality, to admit to it's prevalence in virtually all of the pantheon of human interaction, to seriously calm the fuck down about the very finite implications therein, and you'll diffuse whatever panties would otherwise be tied into a knot when they see what are, to them, "exotic" pairings of a mild and heartwarming nature: be that intragender, interracial, interspecies, or what have you.

That is my mind on the subject and I hope the idea makes sense instead of makes frustrated. ;3

Good luck, Nori!

Hmn. Interesting perspective. I suspect you just might be right.

I do have to agree with some of the above comments of not minding gay/bi/les pairings in general but sometimes I dislike them for canon characters. This has more to do with overtly sexual pairings than romantic ones. The result of it being, as stated above, while the gay/bi/het status of the character shouldn't and sometimes doesn't matter, the behavior that winds up being a result of it (personality rewrites for the sake of the fanfiction) come across as a willfull misunderstanding of the characterization.

Basically I just want it to make sense. It's just as bad when a canon les/gay character is suddenly het/bi for the sake of fanfiction/porn/etc.

I can also apply this sometimes to dickgirl versions of characters, where I like the straight lesbian version of the pair and find the addition of dicks, while cute, to undermine the drama of their pairing (Konoka and Setsuna from Negima for example)

Going completely off the rails of the subject here, two of my favorite lesbian pairings in fiction are Haruka/Michiru (Sailor Moon) and Fang/Vanille (Final Fantasy 13), who show themselves to be far more true and committed to and honest with eachother than the primary hetero pairings in the same title (Usagi/Mamoru and Snow/Serah). The FF13 lesbian relationship is never stated but massively implied, and Fang was actually originally a guy at the conception of the game but was changed to female to match their tradition of 3 female pcs in the party. In this case, it's interesting to think on it because the relationship would have been exactly the same whether Fang was a guy or girl, but the fan conception of it would have differed massively. But now I'm drifting into the TG corollaries for heteronormative pairings in fiction.

Anyway, sorry for getting so off topic, but this is the stuff that popped into my head.

It seems like gay/bi is viewed as a personality trait, that a gay or bi character is fundamentally, inherently different than a straight character. This is probably caused by a variety of stereotypes, not helped any by the tendency for some people to have gay/bi characters listed or described as "a gay *job description*", as if it is as much or more of a defining characteristic than their chosen occupation, or makes them deeply different than anyone else who does that job.

I agree with this, I think you could say it's a failure in trope. That's among the reasons I'm happy with Dumbledore being gay in canon; he doesn't appear overtly effeminate so it's good to have that representation.


But a lot of the comments above complain about the same issue; when canon het or undisclosed characters get slashed the fan writers often alter their personalities to suit gay stereotypes along with the bargain, which is kind of insulting to begin with. A great example there is Rainbow Dash. Her orientation is literally hardwired to canon-undisclosed (how often do you get that?) but I find her personality to be incredibly subtle, nuanced and amazing. I think if she took a partner in canon (like that would ever happen!) her personality wouldn't change one iota, and you'd get to see her interact in a sweet, romantic way with whoever the lucky pony is. (hell, I'd argue you get a hint of that with her taking Tank as a pet *shrugs*)

But a lot of the fanfics I've read that cast her as lesbian also ruin her personality, making her behave more "butch", more impatient (and less charming in her impatience lol) etc.. just ruining the recipe. Orientational disclosure should pretty much never have that impact on a character, so it's annoying as hell when it's written that way. :S

I completely agree with what you're saying. Moreover, there's just not enough positive role models of any of those orientations. It's part of why I started writing Partners.

I know this isn't directly related. But I feel like it's sort of the same idea, But whenever I see someone have a character who is a hermaphrodite, I always sort of expect that character to be mostly used for pervy art and sex RP and stuff. I feel sort of bad about it, but it's just how my mind works, I guess.

I think characters being gay triggers the same reaction for most people, Because to them, being straight is just the norm, as soon as someone is gay, it gives more of a sexual angle to the characters and instantly they just think that it's all about sex.

I've actually been discussing this with a bunch of friends of mine of late. We're into the My Little Pony fandom so deep that we're pre-reading fanfic for the biggest pony site out there, and we're constantly amazed by the sexual biases the reader base and fanbase in general has developed. F/F? perfectly fine for shipping... M/M? less so, but okay. M/F? cue the unholy rage and the story getting ratings-bombed in five seconds. It's interesting stuff to see, and you really laid it out in an impressive fashion.

Well said.

... that sounds like the complete opposite of what he's talking about above. Unless you mean something positive by 'ratings-bombed'

no no, it's negative, believe me. We're surprised as pre-readers. "Hey, this is great, post it!" *post on EqD* *watch it get nuked into the floor inside of 20 minutes* "What the hell?!"

i want to know someone who's gay, or bisexual. I've long since realized that i can spout tolerance spiels all i want but i won't know for certain if the very idea of a homosexual individual being near me offends me or not until i have first hand experience. i could be perfectly okay with it, i could be made just a little bit uncomfortable, just enough to make me feel awkward whenever they're nearby, or i could go full bigot (i doubt it, but you never know) i won't ever really know for sure until i have a chance. i can only hope that my faith in myself isn't misplaced.

I felt the same way before I had a chance to get out much. What I can predict for you is that you'll have a chance to uncover landmines, in your reactions and in your preconceptions, you may have never realized where buried down in there. It feels great to have that all out of your system, though it can be embarrassing in the moment when you say something silly or treat someone badly before having a chance to think out your actions. But that's all chalked up to experience. As long as you have a good heart at the core, and a level head, you'll find the decision easy which reactions and habits to cling to and which ones just don't make sense.

So, by all means, do get out and about and explore all of the wonderful people and personalities out there! Get a little bit more orientationally worldly (and racially and culturally worldly while you're at it, saves time to do all at once. ;D) I'm sure you'll live through it, and become the sort of person who can make yourself today proud.

thanks for the advice, and pep-talk. my lack of knowledge and experience more comes from where i live though. just a little rural town in the middle of the US. i'm more then willing to meet new people, and i'm going to be starting college soon so i should have the chance, i was just saying i can't truly judge anything because i'm not worldly experienced enough

Honestly, I gave up on trying to understand things like this. Even in myself, I find odd little ticks like that. I accept pretty much everything, but in the back of my mind there's some part of me that is just looking at me like 'WTF MAN!?'. I could see a male on male, bi, femal on female, or hetero pairing of any character I grew up with and not be bothered by any of them, but somewhere in the back of my head, if it wasn't the way I imagined the character than that little section gets weirded out. Then again, while when it comes to furry stuff, I'm basically bi, though leaning more towards girls, in real life, I'm not attracted to men at all, and I get weirded out by thoughts that come to my mind whenever I'm doing something that could be taken slightly sexual with my friend. One time I was invited to join a three way, but I turned it down because not only am I a more one on one sensual lover, but I immediately said no because the other person was a guy. (1 girl two guys). Anyways, sorry for wasting the time of anyone who read this whole thing, just wanted to voice my feelings, not my stance in this discussion.

Experiences are important because they lead to a better aggregate understanding of people in general. Don't apologize. :)

Y'know it's irritating when I'm already in a thoughtful mood and I come across something like this that makes me loose my train of thought entirely just to consider what I've read. No offense to you or the subject, but y'got me going on the wrong track!

Not to over simplify my views here, but I try to view all fantasy relationships as just that, fantasy. I don't mind seeing characters typically viewed as hetero or a-sexual suddenly being bi or gay simply because it's not real either way. True, trying to logically justify it can drive me mad, but in the end it doesn't matter if it's cute or sensual or sexual, it's someone's fantasy and as long as it doesn't impede my own sexuality(and at times makes me smile/laugh) it shouldn't matter.

...mind you it does make me feel weird that I like fantasy gays, but not lesbians so much... as long as I remember it was a girl that set me in this mentality I think I'll be fine though ._.;

I've gotten away with posting gay porn at dA! :D It’s XXX, man, they’re totally touching!

...Someone on dA commented that he hated when people post ”porn of male characters" (with the mandatory free-card of ”nothing against your art” tacked on). The picture? Mario carrying Sonic because he was too battered to walk. I think it’s a good illustration of the double standards you mention.

I think part of the effect is because of the majority of the art (at least on dA) of homo or bisexual characters /pairings having a strong sexualization tilt. A great lot of it is made by and for straight people, because of the combination of ”the more cute <gender I like> the better” and ”ooh the gay is so taboo and dirty hehehe”. Which doesn’t do a lot to help the image of gay /bi relationships as ”equal” to hetero ones, and makes the idea invisible that homo /bisexual feelings can happen before you have any idea of what sex is (or any direct curiosity on the matter).
That's definitely part of why I end up drawing so much plain fluff with gay pairings - I see a gap and I'm trying to pour stuff into it, both to send out the visual suggestion that "there's this aspect too" and to give those that want to see something more than "hot and bothered" what they want (because that's something I like to see, too).

But I find myself choking on defense speeches that homosexual relationships have ”more than sex to them" because it feels like when people defend a girl called a ”slut” by saying ”Leave her alone! She doesn’t have much sex at all!” :/ The basic view is still that of judging - deciding what is right or wrong according to an external set of rules, rather than the authentic selves and needs (and integrity) of individuals.
...I see gaps to fill with sex pictures, too.

HappMacDonald up there voiced my growing notions pretty well. I think the root is how we view sexuality as such. Both the basically negative view, and the scope of it in most people’s minds. This is just a thought, but...
The focus on the attraction that might lead to procreation is so strong that I’d say most people think the sexuality aspects that might result in babies is ”true” sexuality (still not something inherently okay, but justifiable), and all other aspects and expressions of it are ”corrupted versions” of that, or borne from confusion. It might make the discussion more open-ended if you had the basic premise that sexuality is a drive with more than one possible outcome, and sexual attraction is a wide range of attraction between people that (for instance) might help them find individuals to bond with in different ways.

...I would take one more step and say that a lot of this goes back to the primal warning of "disgust". Quote Charlie Glickman (brought up in connection with irrational critique of porn, but perfectly applicable)
One of the best ways to rally people behind a cause that has very little merit is to get them to not think about the details. And the easiest method to do that is to get them angry, scared, ashamed, or disgusted. These are all very difficult emotions and most people have very little practice at sitting with them, exploring what causes them, or articulating what it is that triggers them. In particular, disgust is an effective way to manipulate people because it’s really easy to blame the icky thing for how we feel.
http://www.charlieglickman.com/2010.....tique-of-porn/

This is a bit of a tangent. But it’s got to do with heteronormativity, so it’s moderately on topic.
There are cases where gay stereotypes shine through in characters "written as gay" for fan pairings. (And I sense projection, here. After all, it's easier to go through your own conflicted desires if you have "sexual deviants" to read them into, right? Getting promiscuous is what gays DO! And molest. And so on.)
But some of those warps happen with het fan ’ships too. I think that many times, it’s simply the result of fans starting with a ”relationship blueprint” rather than the characters’ own personalities.

The heteronormative gender roles that are part of that blueprint are so thoroughly woven into most people’s concept maps that they don’t notice them too much in heterosexual couples - but by that same token, when you dress a gay couple in that ”straight-jacket”, you notice the roles because suddenly, a guy carries the ”girl” role. And some traits that are OK or even a merit for girls - subordination, vulnerability, emotional openness, dainty build, et c - are perceived as failures, or even unnatural, for guys.

Which makes me wonder if the reactions to these portrayals are about more than the actual breach of character. It would be interesting to see if the same fans who rant when Sonic is shoehorned into the ”schoolgirl" archetype are as upset when Blaze is the one squeezed into it.

I missed one point there, about the "I hate when characters are turned into X! No offense to people who are X" statements.

Often, I swear they simply want to make their opinion heard, but without having to take any negative reactions that might be the result. It is a simple case of really feeling that they are in the right, and that they're being generous by "not wanting to offend" and not acting on their feelings of disgust.

Other times, more rare but existent, I think they just feel out-of-their-heads uncomfortable with the idea, but are kind people at heart who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings.

...this has been brewing with me some time now. I can spot two main kinds of "I don't --- but" people.

A) someone who is jumpy around queer people and open with the fact they deeply dislike the idea or just can't understand it - while voting for the legalization of homosexual marriage and other related rights,

and

B) someone who goes out of their way to say how little they judge and how they don't treat "gays" differently, while making it clear that they will never risk supporting people's right to be that way, or to have such relationships recognized by society.

The latter also usually has no clue whatsoever that a minority is dependent on the majority at hand to be allowed their living space. To them, it's a personal "purity" issue and if I go out on a limb and judge them with myself as mirror, they're too tangled up in their own fear of taint to see that they're trampling other people.
Also related: the idea that heterosexuality is just one aspect of a wide spectrum of attraction and emotions robs them of a feeling of safety and "sanctity" in knowing the rules; knowing the "one true thing". I have to wonder if the "I don't support your happiness. We're friends, right?" lines that I've actually gotten before stem from an inability to understand just how much they could affect the chances of these people, too.

I first want to address what I think is the potentially less neanderthal-esc explanation.

I would think believe that it has far less to do with sexual orientation and more the concept of being repulsed by any 'shipping' that isn't congruent with the shipping that said person envisions. Like, I would have to imagine that all the people who went 'ewww' all had their own personal view of how things should be shipped. And really, you'd find that to be the case: people who spoke positively would no doubt have the same characters, if not shipped together in their own works, then atleast shipped together on the same gender lines, where as the people who voice their disapproval have them opposite. I mean, if you really want to get down to rather they don't like thinking about the characters sexually, or if they're just big ol' bigots, I think this is a more feasible mid-line then those two options.


.... I had a big coupla paragraphs about women using 'girlfriend' freely to mean girls that they are friends with... but it got out of hand.

Who's a neanderthal?? o.o I thought my explanation was pretty detailed.

Also, I kind of have to resist this endless attempt to find the middle in everything. It's useful when you have other ways of finding the answer to two extremes, but it's gotten to where we no longer consider the possibility of extremes, and it exists as this weird middling Occam's Razor for us now, regardless of any evidence. We're growing more afraid, intellectually, to draw the same conclusions as someone who has no idea how to draw a conclusion, despite the fact that logic points out they might still accidentally be right.

The reason why I think that it's a bigotry issue is that it's been a bigotry issue in the past. There's so many facets of our lives that are still affected by this. And as I point out, bigotry isn't always a conscious decision- or one people would make if they were aware of it. I don't feel this kind of behavior should be punished, I just wish to challenge the thinking that leads to the conclusions they draw.

To address your own point, I don't know that all people that disclose their thoughts in this direction have any opinion on shipping interpersonally (inter-characterally?). It seems like something you could either have or don't, and saying that wouldn't require this. It's true, not all shipping disagreements have to do with sexuality- many more of them have to do with personality- but we can't let that become the excuse to ignore the rest of it. You can be racist and not like somebody personally at the same time, or any combination of prejudice/personal opinion. We've seen that.

More big long paragraphs... Cont. + A, Del'd.

I was referring to the people going 'ew gay' as Neanderthals, though.

I'd pick grudging acceptance over being lynched for whistling at pretty things. At least with grudging acceptance the job market is pretty much open for grabs regardless of race, ethnicity et al.

You gotta admit though, for all the grumbly-bumbles out and about, compared to recorded human history up to this point the modern era is a fairer paradise than oh say, the middle ages or even 1812.

Still D: I have always wondered. What CAUSES the revulsion? I mean, what in particular do most people despise about it? Surely kissing or cuddling is a far cleaner activity than frottery .o

I think half of it is just that a lot of people tend to hold these fandoms too close to their hearts. ANY breach in how a character would atypically act would be shaking up their worldview.

On an odd example for asexualism, I've noticed a large fandom outcry over Sheldon finding he has feelings for Amy beyond the platonic level. Its like the community is crying murder because a person with an asexual taste to their diet shouldn't even experiment with intrapersonal relationships at all! The way the fandom views it, even the simple act of taking her out to lunch pretty much vaults itself into bedroom antics 0.o

Chalk it up to unpleasable fanbase. Im just glad I can count myeslf in the percentage of people who realize its just a TV show, I can just relax and have fun with the torrid fanstuff.

That said, Anyone here for MikexJoel? >:3 And don't get me started on Ponypairings in the ridiculous Extreme. There's an interesting surge in the Ms.CakexPinkiePie pairing that is reminiscent of The Graduate than of anything horrid.


Just my two cents D: and it can't even buy a stick of gum these days ;.;

I wish there was a goddamn edit button on this thing, I had meant to clarify the show The Big Bang Theory in reference to the fandom outcry over Sheldon actually going out and dating.

Then again, what other Sheldons' do we know on the teevee? :3

refraining from reading any comments, I'll offer this: there is a negative stereotype associated with bisexuals that is commonly believed -- one of plain and simple sexual opportunism. While this may or may not seem justified, to some people it's considered gross or unpleasant for a variety of reasons. Again, some of which are understandable, if misguided (for example, the mistaken assumption that sexual opportunism necessarily means sexual recklessness).

The only way this will stop becoming a widespread negative stereotype is when only having a weak a gender preference is considered normal, and that it doesn't necessarily mean that a person is haphazard about their activity. Unfortunately, people being icked-out when they hear about certain gender preferences will never go away completely, since there are certain sex acts which some people affiliate with certain gendered relationships that they consider generally unclean. I really don't blame 'em for that all on its own, really. "To each their own" is a fine attitude, but as you pointed out, it springs from ignorance or perhaps maybe just a slight lack of tact that gender preferences would immediately bring something like this to mind. Again, I can't blame people for associating these things together, since people tend to think about sex a lot.

I have no objection to gay or bi characters in literature or artwork; in fact, several of my favorite webcomics have gay characters. But my objection to these sorts of pictures is when they directly violate the way the creator has presented the character. It always irks me when a character is obviously presented as heterosexual, but people change his or her sexuality in a very out-of-character way*. If you want to write/draw a homosexual character, that's fine, but don't mess with someone else's creation.

*On the other hand, this can be done in a mature way that gives the character in question more depth, but sadly too many of the community are not mature enough for that sort of thing.

Anything which is not understood (or worse, may cause you to understand) is treated with--at best-- trepidation.

Its one of our greatest flaws, even if its what allowed a bunch of weak, psychotic apes to band together long enough to survive.

I think a large part of it is cultural and religious traditions which state that an insular paranoia and self-hatred/aggrandizement is required in order to be considered "loyal" and sane.
But that raises the question of where those traditions started; Are we nuts because of what we teach, or teach craziness because we're nuts?

We are afraid that if others believe that we even CONTEMPLATE things outside whats accepted, we will be considered outside the norm. Are we more afraid of thinking that there is something wrong with ourselves, or afraid that others will think there's something wrong with us?

No, grudging acceptance is not the same as real acceptance.
But it is one step along the path to real acceptance.

Most of the really important accomplishments were made one step at a time. That's about the only way to sneak anything past a psychotic ape.