I still think Gambit kissing Courier doesn't really count as "same-sex." Courier had become a woman. If I kiss a trans woman - someone who was identified as male at birth, but later self-identified as female - that doesn't make me bisexual. I wouldn't be kissing a man, I'd be kissing a woman.
In Gambit's case, while Courier was still having some problems adjusting to being a woman, she had become a full woman - she even dreamed about herself as a woman. It clearly wasn't meant to be Gambit kissing a man. It was meant to be Gambit not being able to resist kissing an attractive woman.
So I think classing Gambit as bisexual is a stretch, and probably a little bit of wishful thinking.
Agreed.
I can never get behind people insisting Gambit and even Wolverine are bisexual. Two of the biggest womanizers in the MU.
As you said, seems a bit wishful thinking.
On Machinesmith, in a more recent appearance of the character he actually told Danger that she wasn't his type or something like that in reference to his homosexuality. I got a good laugh out of that.
Possibly in Gillen's run on Uncanny. I'm not sure.
No-one's calling Gambit bisexual; I put "Gambit" NOT Gambit; and explained why he is in the list. Both "Psylocke" and "Valkyrie" are included too (for their same-sex kisses/romances, though, like Gambit, it's not clear whether sexual identity -- i.e. questioning their sexuality -- was in play)
In real life serial womanizers have turned out to be bi or even gay; why is it such a stretch that a fictional superhero could do the same???
Psylocke was engaged in a same-sex relationship. She was sleeping with someone who was physically and mentally female. While that doesn't mean she's bisexual, it does mean that there was at least the one woman that she was unquestionably attracted to.
In Valkyrie's case, it's a bit tougher. She was the one being kissed, not the one doing the kissing, and there was never anything making it clear that she was interested. Regardless, if she was interested, it was a same-sex attraction.
Gambit was attracted to someone of the opposite sex. It wasn't a same-sex kiss, because Courier wasn't a male when Gambit kissed her. It was a man kissing a woman, and that really, really is all there is to it.
Agreed, and sometimes (as you say) it happens. Between Tony, Clint, Logan, Herc, Gambit, Johnny and a handful of other "ladies man" characters at Marvel, having one come out as gay or bi isn't something that is unheard of in the real world. And one did, Herc!
We'll just have to agree to disagree. I count it as the first LGBT kiss in comics.
Last edited by Kieran_Frost; 05-11-2014 at 02:42 PM.
Well considering we actually get into the protagonist's head in a comic book, it would be jarring to have a character suddenly decide they were gay, when had no indication from their thoughts that they ever had any sort gay feelings and all their thoughts towards love were heterosexual. I am pretty sure gay people in the closet would have gay feelings or desires that they would express in their won thoughts, even if they don't express to anyone else. However with a villain they spend far less time with them, so its easier to have them be gay, because we have often have a far less of window on their social lives. A lot of villains seem to have no interests outside bank robbery and killing the hero, it would be pretty easy to take of these villains and make him gay.
Except that it wasn't LGBT. It was a man kissing a woman. It's also worth noting that James Robinson claims the first same-sex kiss in mainstream comics, Starman in 1998. Which was over two years before Gambit kissed Courier. So your claim isn't even chronologically accurate.
Isn't Starman DC?
People who come in later in life will often say they never even considered they were gay, it's only looking back they realise what their feelings were (i.e. they never had conscious thoughts like "man, he's hot", "hope no-one notices me checking out his package", etc). It's a subconscious feeling, that doesn't manifest in conscious thought (often this is very simply denial). Same can be true in comics; even conscious thoughts of "she's hot" doesn't mean he is void of subconscious homosexual desires be default.
Last edited by Kieran_Frost; 05-11-2014 at 05:14 PM.
I still think a character who has shown no homosexual feelings in both deed or even thought, suddenly coming out as gay in one issue and suddenly their sexual orientation is different, might seem both jarring and not a product of a natural character evolution. If it comes off as making a character gay just to be edgy, then I think we are doing no one any favors, if it doesn't come off as a natural story progression, it could seem like just making the character do a 180 out of nowhere, which isn't good writing. I think there are still characters with more undefined sexuality and making them gay might seem more in line with natural character progression. Heck that's why I find a gay villain thread interesting, I think exploring some of the villains personal lives more interesting.
All of that comes down to bad-writing, though. And (in general) I think we can all agree bad writing ruins nearly any development (regardless of what it is). But if we assume (for arguement's sake) it's written by a GOOD writer, then it's neither jarring, sudden nor "edgy for edgy's sake". And, as we've established, in the real world someone who didn't think they were gay, never had conscious homosexual thoughts, a true "ladies man" even... they have, nonetheless, come out as gay. If it can happen in real life, the fictional world of superheroes can handle such realism.
Villains, regardless of orientation, are nearly always more interesting. Heck, the Thunderbolts have been living off that idea for 15+ years.
Well lets be realistic, I don't think Marvel will change the sexual orientation of a major character that has been defined as heterosexual for 50 years or so. I would be willing to bet money that Marvel would not make say Spider-Man or Iron Man gay, any time soon, if ever. I think you have more wiggle room with more minor characters, Marvel would be more willing to experiment with them in terms sexual identity then with the major characters.
Well yes and no. Some villains are more interesting then heroes, others are not. There are some very underdeveloped villains out there, who seem to have no life or interests outside of robbing banks and trying to kill the hero who prevented him from robbing banks. Making some of those underdeveloped villains gay could give them some much needed character development.