-
[QUOTE=Colt Cape;3913446]Kitty doesn't seem bi to me tbh.
I could see Magik being lesbian though.[/QUOTE]
How can you look at someone and say she doesn't look bisexual to you? I mean, lol, its not a physical trait. There's been plenty of subtle references to her liking girls in the past.
[QUOTE=Quentin;3913441]....oh god...[/QUOTE]
Oh god what? Provide argument instead of nothing. I'm a guy, i've got my fingers licked before for the reason y'all discussing. But i've also seen lesbians do it to eachothers because of the toys they're using. I don't know why this subject is so important or why we're talking about it but man. I feel like this discussion is useless.
-
[QUOTE=Magneto;3913454]How can you look at someone and say she doesn't look bisexual to you? I mean, lol, its not a physical trait. There's been plenty of subtle references to her liking girls in the past.
Oh god what? Provide argument instead of nothing. I'm a guy, i've got my fingers licked before for the reason y'all discussing. But i've also seen lesbians do it to eachothers because of the toys they're using. I don't know why this subject is so important or why we're talking about it but man. I feel like this discussion is useless.[/QUOTE]
Did I mention looking at somebody to judge their level of queerness? No.
I'm just saying we've seen this character's thoughts for years, and we've never seen them show interest in females.
-
[QUOTE=Colt Cape;3913423]sub·cul·ture
ˈsəbˌkəlCHər
noun
a cultural group within a larger culture, often having beliefs or interests at variance with those of the larger culture.
Lgbt culture=a subculture. It isn't the norm.
Also, Funnily enough I talk about social issues with my closest friends quite often. And 9/10 times, we end up agreeing on most topics.
And I'm not using LGBT people in my life as a shield, thats SJW think. I'm just using them as examples of me not being divorced from the subculture completely.[/QUOTE]
If you talk with them this closely, you should ask them how they feel about queer representation in media and how it makes them feel when they appear and how they are depicted. As someone who does not identify as LGTQB+ you will not have the same interest or reactions to discussions of queer subtext or representation that those within the community do. And there's nothing wrong with having a differing opinion, it's how you go about responding and how open you are to learning and respecting. So far you been argumentative, disrespectful, dismissive, and juvenile in responding to threads/posters here in regards to overt and implied queer tones and themes with characters in the X-Men universe.
SJW think - eyeroll, ok. Then don't throw tokens out when trying to make a point or counter that you do 'know' things around a topic. They ring as excuses to behaviors or thoughts and undermine a point you're trying to make.
I do agree with you that often times when presented in various forms of media (comics, TV, etc) queer characters often are presented as personality vs a human whose life is not defined by their sexuality. The problem is that target audiences often are reinforcing that writing as they are writing for laughs or their same mindset, vs writing for accurate portrayals that educate and inform.
-
[QUOTE=Colt Cape;3913457]Did I mention looking at somebody to judge their level of queerness? No.
[B]
I'm just saying we've seen this character's thoughts for years, and we've never seen them show interest in females.[/B][/QUOTE]
There's plenty of references pointing out a relationship between Kitty and Magik.
-
[QUOTE=Askani's Flame;3913461]If you talk with them this closely, you should ask them how they feel about queer representation in media and how it makes them feel when they appear and how they are depicted. As someone who does not identify as LGTQB+ you will not have the same interest or reactions to discussions of queer subtext or representation that those within the community do. And there's nothing wrong with having a differing opinion, it's how you go about responding and how open you are to learning and respecting. So far you been argumentative, disrespectful, dismissive, and juvenile in responding to threads/posters here in regards to overt and implied queer tones and themes with characters in the X-Men universe.
SJW think - eyeroll, ok. Then don't throw tokens out when trying to make a point or counter that you do 'know' things around a topic. They ring as excuses to behaviors or thoughts and undermine a point you're trying to make.
I do agree with you that often times when presented in various forms of media (comics, TV, etc) queer characters often are presented as personality vs a human whose life is not defined by their sexuality. The problem is that target audiences often are reinforcing that writing as they are writing for laughs or their same mindset, vs writing for accurate portrayals that educate and inform.[/QUOTE]
As I've already said, I talk to them about topics of representation. The general consensus is that, as long as it isnt forced, its okay.
Ex.
Iceman turned the character from a layered character to a stereotypical gay archetype.
However, a show like Steven Universe does LGBT representation right. New characters created to be gay, and their sexuality isn't the main focus of their characters. I mean the show isn't my cup of joe, but I have to admit they did that right.
[QUOTE=Magneto;3913462]There's plenty of references pointing out a relationship between Kitty and Magik.[/QUOTE]
References or assumptions?
-
[QUOTE=Colt Cape;3913457]Did I mention looking at somebody to judge their level of queerness? No.
I'm just saying we've seen this character's thoughts for years, and we've never seen them show interest in females.[/QUOTE]
As pointed out, there have been instances of subtext. Like the panel shown above with the finger lick. It's true that doesn't always have to be a sexual thing. But in most cases when something like that is done in fiction, it is usually gonna be conveying a bit of sexual attraction.
I think it's become a problem in recent years where more people need t be spoonfed or beat over the head in order to get something because the world has entered the age where being subtle or discrete means being non-existent. lol
When Destiny was alive, she & Mystique were gay lovers. But at the time comic law didn't allow the overt depiction of gay relationships. So it had to be implied & hinted before things relaxed a bit and you could have it be openly declared they were lovers.
Writers & the last editor declared Deadpool was pansexual and he's flirted with men a good few times. But since he hasn't been shown naked and in bed with a man, people still try to argue he's straight and is only joking when he shows attraction to men. Once again, it's another case of being discrete and doing what they can get away with. Especially if most writers & editors are straight white men. A fan asked JDW if he'd give Deadpool a canon boyfriend. White said he was all for it, but it was complicated behind the scenes. So they do what they can.
Given all that, I don't think it's hard to believe Kitty is or was set up to be gay, or bisexual, but behind the scenes, a few are reluctant to let that ever really come out & have someone write her with a girlfriend. So instead, we get what can be considered hints & subtext.
-
[QUOTE=Silver Fang;3913471]As pointed out, there have been instances of subtext. Like the panel shown above with the finger lick. It's true that doesn't always have to be a sexual thing. But in most cases when something like that is done in fiction, it is usually gonna be conveying a bit of sexual attraction.
I think it's become a problem in recent years where more people need t be spoonfed or beat over the head in order to get something because the world has entered the age where being subtle or discrete means being non-existent. lol
When Destiny was alive, she & Mystique were gay lovers. But at the time comic law didn't allow the overt depiction of gay relationships. So it had to be implied & hinted before things relaxed a bit and you could have it be openly declared they were lovers.
Writers & the last editor declared Deadpool was pansexual and he's flirted with men a good few times. But since he hasn't been shown naked and in bed with a man, people still try to argue he's straight and is only joking when he shows attraction to men. Once again, it's another case of being discrete and doing what they can get away with. Especially if most writers & editors are straight white men. A fan asked JDW if he'd give Deadpool a canon boyfriend. White said he was all for it, but it was complicated behind the scenes. So they do what they can.
Given all that, I don't think it's hard to believe Kitty is or was set up to be gay, or bisexual, but behind the scenes, a few are reluctant to let that ever really come out & have someone write her with a girlfriend.[/QUOTE]
Eh, Deadpool is definitely pan going off canon alone. Especially in the Way run and in "Cable and Deadpool" But Kitty hasn't been shown to be gay canonically is my point, so I find it weird when fans accuse writers of "straightwashing" her.
-
[QUOTE=Colt Cape;3913475]Eh, [B]Deadpool is definitely pan going off canon alone.[/B] Especially in the Way run and in "Cable and Deadpool" But Kitty hasn't been shown to be gay canonically is my point, so I find it weird when fans accuse writers of "straightwashing" her.[/QUOTE]
You'd think that. But some fans still won't see that because he's never had a male love interest. It's never been overt enough for them to take it as more than a joke. So given he's never seriously made out with a man or been shown sleeping with another man, some don't see it as serious. And instead he's a straight Bugs Bunny character who jokes around with men but isn't serious about his antics.
That's how bad things can get with people needing to get beaten over the head with something to see it. Even with the Cable beach fantasy, people have dismissed it because it was only a massage instead of a kissing or sex fantasy.
I think DP is pansexual. And if he ever had the mutual interest of Cable or Spider-Man, he'd sure as Hell jump on it (or rather, them lol). But what we've been shown doesn't count as proof for some people because it wasn't overt enough.
-
[QUOTE=Silver Fang;3913501]You'd think that. But some fans still won't see that because he's never had a male love interest. It's never been overt enough for them to take it as more than a joke. So given he's never seriously made out with a man or been shown sleeping with another man, some don't see it as serious. And instead he's a straight Bugs Bunny character who jokes around with men but isn't serious about his antics.
That's how bad things can get with people needing to get beaten over the head with something to see it. Even with the Cable beach fantasy, people have dismissed it because it was only a massage instead of a kissing or sex fantasy.
I think DP is pansexual. And if he ever had the mutual interest of Cable or Spider-Man, he'd sure as Hell jump on it (or rather, them lol). But what we've been shown doesn't count as proof for some people because it wasn't overt enough.[/QUOTE]
Oh man, that fantasy in Cable&Deadpool with Wade putting lotion on Nathan was priceless lol. Deadpool always has a thing for Cable as far as i'm concerned, i thougth of him as a bisexual.in denial, but pansexual works too if you think about it.
-
[QUOTE=TheCape;3913506]Oh man, that fantasy in Cable&Deadpool with Wade putting lotion on Nathan was priceless lol. Deadpool always has a thing for Cable as far as i'm concerned, I thought of him as a bisexual.in denial, but pansexual works too if you think about it.[/QUOTE]
Fabian N, DP's co-creator seems to ship Deadpool x Cable. Joel Kelly seems more for Deadpool x Spider-Man. lol I recall someone asking FN a question on who he'd rather room with, Cable or DP. He chose Cable, because Wade would try to spoon him.
-
Lol tell me again with a straight face that coming out of the closet turned Bobby from a "layered" character to a stereotypical one.
Steven Universe is entirely about queerness. Queerness is absolutely at the heart and core of that show. It's by no means tangential, like you seem to want queerness to be.
But whatever supports your narrative.
-
[QUOTE=Colt Cape;3913899]I do. The characters being gay is NOT the show's focus.[/QUOTE]
Isn't it though? I mean Pearl's entire character arc is about how much she loved Rose, and how much losing her has changed her life, and that motivation often drives the plot forward.
Garnet is literally two lesbians in a trench coat stacked on top of eachother, most of her character is about being made up of their love for each other. There was literally an entire arc about their temporary breakup and reconciliation leading up to a big gay wedding.
-
[QUOTE=Beetle;3913917]Isn't it though? I mean Pearl's entire character arc is about how much she loved Rose, and how much losing her has changed her life, and that motivation often drives the plot forward.
Garnet is literally lesbians in a trench coat, most of her character is about being made up of their love for each other. There was literally an entire arc about their temporary breakup and reconciliation leading up to a big gay wedding.[/QUOTE]
They're gay. That fact isn't the focus of anything though. Their relationships are. Not the fact that they're all lesbians.
-
[QUOTE=Colt Cape;3913924]They're gay. That fact isn't the focus of anything though. Their relationships are. Not the fact that they're all lesbians.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make here. Their relationships define who they are, have had a massive impact on their histories and how they interact with other people, and guide their motivations going forward. The fact that those relationships have been between women is not insignificant, it's not tangential to the story. They've faced discrimination and persecution because they've chosen to be in these relationships.
-
[QUOTE=Strong Girl Daken;3913826]Lol tell me again with a straight face that coming out of the closet turned Bobby from a "layered" character to a stereotypical one.
Steven Universe is entirely about queerness. Queerness is absolutely at the heart and core of that show. It's by no means tangential, like you seem to want queerness to be.
But whatever supports your narrative.[/QUOTE]
Seriously. What was so much more deep and nuanced about Iceman's depiction before?
