Gay Super Villains

[ed2962]

Wow! I am WAY out of the loop...when was Electro established as being bi?

[xenomaniac]

Wow! I am WAY out of the loop...when was Electro established as being bi?

It was in Mark Miller's Marvel Knights Spider Man series like 10 years ago...not sure if it has been brought up since then.

[krazijoe]

Wow! I am WAY out of the loop...when was Electro established as being bi?

Um, in jail...

[Daken]

Same here! I wish it wasn't my favorite trope, but I really enjoy it.

Yeahh, I know it's meant to be all, 'Oooo, those bisexuals, so untrustworthy, you never know what they're gonna do or who they're gonna screw', but let's face it, they made thier depraved bisexuals too cool for people to really care they're sorta evil most of the time. Like, people love Loki.

On topic, would Victoria Hand count? She's not exactly a villain, and the Marvel wiki says her alignment is neutral, but she DID work for Norman Osborn.

[Tiamatty]

Yeahh, I know it's meant to be all, 'Oooo, those bisexuals, so untrustworthy, you never know what they're gonna do or who they're gonna screw', but let's face it, they made thier depraved bisexuals too cool for people to really care they're sorta evil most of the time. Like, people love Loki.

On topic, would Victoria Hand count? She's not exactly a villain, and the Marvel wiki says her alignment is neutral, but she DID work for Norman Osborn.

She worked for him because she genuinely thought he was doing good. I wouldn't count Hand as a villain.

[The Overlord]

I think Blizzard is perhaps the best candidate. Even in his guest appearance on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., his big motivation for going through his plan that episode was his male friend/ possible crush, and when that friend died, he was super devasted and that seemed to push him towards the dark side. However, the creators probably meant it as more of a best/ only friend type situation.

In regards to other potential gay villains, it's hard to think of any major ones because it seems characters are often quickly and offhandly established as hetero, even when they have no reason to mention it. So what you're left with is very minor characters like the Nasty Boys from X-Factor; I could totally see Ruckus, Gorgeous George, or Ramrod (yikes) coming out.

See I disagree, I think there are lots of underdeveloped villains where their sexuality has never been mentioned, they are plenty of C-list villains you could make gay and no one would bat an eye.

Is there a reason that a villain's sexuality is important, or even addressed? Unless it's important to the character's motives or the plot, why even touch on it? I'm not
being disrespectful here, but it seems to me that the only time that should be addressed is when it's important to the overall character's story. Otherwise, it feels forced,
and that's when people go nuts and all the fighting starts. I know there is an argument that it's okay to present heterosexual relationships in comics and that it
be the same for homosexual ones, and I agree with that. But the difference is that since in society, the default "normal" relationship is with the opposite sex, we take
for given that the characters are heterosexual, and really don't even think about it at all. If a creator wants to move away from that, the time to do it would be early in
the character's creation, preferably in a civilian setting, to establish it as an important part of the character. And from there just treat the character's relationship just
like any other, except in instances where sexuality is a part of the story. It's certainly a better way that taking an old villain (or hero) whose sexuality has never been
touched on, and saying "Oh, this guy's gay now", showing a couple of examples of their "gayness", and never talking about it again. That doesn't benefit anybody in the
long run, and it causes hostility because it's so obvious in its intent. That's all I have to say. If I offended anyone, I didn't mean to, and I'm sorry.

I think there are several villains that are so underdeveloped, exploration their sexuality and relationships can make them seem compelling and make them seem more like human beings then cartoonish villains who have no life or interests outside of robbing banks and trying to kill the hero for preventing them from robbing banks. At least if you made some villains gay, you are giving them a dimension beyond "Mwa, ha, ha! I'm an evil villain who likes to rob banks! First I will rob a bank and then a will kill the hero for preventing me from robbing banks!" Heck giving some of these guys more developed relationships period, gay or straight, could move them beyond this one note archetype.

[thor]

I guess that the point is that heterosexuality is, according to society, the norm. We just need to step away from the idea that everyone is straight until proven otherwise. While sexuality can be a huge influence on characters, characters who are defined by their sexuality are boring. That's just my opinion anyway.

[Grayson]

Has Loki always been bi? I always thought he was straight, until I saw some pictures of his marvel now series that made me think otherwise.

[RD!]

Mysterio is possibly gay/bi - according to the Adam Castro-Daly Sinister Six trilogy of prose novels.

Also, I may be confused but doesn't the Black Cat say she hasn't had a date - male or female - for a while in The Evil That Men Do (by Kevin Smith though...)

[Peter Porker]

I agree, to me, I could care less if Superman were gay, all I care about is if he could kick Darkseid's ass! There is no Gay super hero/villain. These are heroes/villains that happen to be gay.

Same old, same old.
It does matter because sexuality does matter in real life. That's how simple it is.
I'm not heterosexual, but heterosexuals force their sexuality on me all the time. In all types of media. So all queer people want is something they can relate to. It's a big thing, because these characters play big roles in our lifes.
If society wouldn't see heterosexuality as the "default" and if there wouldn't be any kind of discrimination, then I'd agree with you and say that it shouldn't matter. But we don't live in this utopia.
Saying that it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter is erasing the problem.

[Captain Astounding]

Has Loki always been bi? I always thought he was straight, until I saw some pictures of his marvel now series that made me think otherwise.

In the mythology Loki's sexuality is complicated in ways that we have no real terms for. I think Bi's a nice easy way to boil it down.

[krazijoe]

Same old, same old.
It does matter because sexuality does matter in real life. That's how simple it is.
I'm not heterosexual, but heterosexuals force their sexuality on me all the time. In all types of media. So all queer people want is something they can relate to. It's a big thing, because these characters play big roles in our lifes.
If society wouldn't see heterosexuality as the "default" and if there wouldn't be any kind of discrimination, then I'd agree with you and say that it shouldn't matter. But we don't live in this utopia.
Saying that it doesn't matter or shouldn't matter is erasing the problem.

Sexuality matters to those that want it to matter. I never introduced my father as oh, this is my Gay dad. or my Step son has my gay son. I introduced them as my father and son. I have yet to meet anyone that introduced their child/sibling/friend/parent/etc as the Gay one. It's not like we go around saying, The Black Man Luke Cage or the androgynous Loki or the hetero couple Reed and Sue or the gay hero Northstar.

[Thad937]

Sexuality matters to those that want it to matter. I never introduced my father as oh, this is my Gay dad. or my Step son has my gay son. I introduced them as my father and son. I have yet to meet anyone that introduced their child/sibling/friend/parent/etc as the Gay one. It's not like we go around saying, The Black Man Luke Cage or the androgynous Loki or the hetero couple Reed and Sue or the gay hero Northstar.

^LMAO^ I totally agree. I want well rounded and complex characters that just happen to be LGBT and are NOT defined by their sexuality.

[SuperBeetle]

Defined by their sexuality is generally used very freely though, some people believe that showing a gay character having a relationship is pushing their sexuality down their throats when in comics like it or not romantic relationships are very important.

[Tiamatty]

Defined by their sexuality is generally used very freely though, some people believe that showing a gay character having a relationship is pushing their sexuality down their throats when in comics like it or not romantic relationships are very important.

Yeah. It's a weird argument that always comes up. This fear that LGBT characters will be defined by being LGBT. I can't think of any characters who actually are, though. It's not about characters being defined by their sexuality, it's about seeing that sexuality represented. If, say, Shocker came out as gay, then he'd still be the Shocker. All his previous stuff would still be there, and he'd be the same person. It would just mean that he could also have a boyfriend.

Any time a character isn't the "default" of a straight white male, there are people who talk about not wanting that character "defined" by what makes them difference. I feel like this has a couple problems. First, it makes people a little more cautious about supporting characters who aren't straight white men. Second, there's a bit of an uncomfortable undertone to it that differences should be minimized. That a character being gay shouldn't really be brought up. That a black character should basically be a white character with a tan. That a woman shouldn't draw attention to the fact that she's a woman. It comes across as encouraging the assumption of "straight white man" as the default that should be aspired to.