In Your Face Jam - Dec 3, 2014

[Badou]

So people are this upset that a character that wasn't meant to be gay isn't gay? And they are angry and Kirkman and the show? All I can do is shake my head. TWD is one of the most diverse shows on television and I am thrilled that it gets the ratings it does with the cast that it has. People should be celebrating that rather than looking for stories like the one in this article. The Wire is my favorite show of all time and it was crushing how so many overlooked it because it had a diverse cast that was mainly black. Glad that isn't happening again.

I couldn't agree more with Brett. I didn't t even know about Kirkman's proclamation until now, and it's really disheartening news...

Why even bring it up as a possibility in the first place if they're going to back down? Why not keep him asexual as he has been so far? If there's no relevant romantic plot for him in the near future, why the need to confirm his sexuality as straight when it was previously stated they wouldn't touch on it if he was gay unless it came up naturally? I'm just baffled by all of it.

I dropped the comic around the same time as Brett, right after the All Out War arc. But not because of the room and gloom, but because Inrealized I just didn't care about any of it anymore. Same with the tv show, except that I'm still watching it, sometimes much to my dismay because it's amazingly boring most of the time. And I kept on watching for one reason: Daryl Dixon. He was the one character that hooked me up on the show and the only one for which I really felt a personal investment. And when it was teased that the possibility of him being gay was out there, it was a delight. But this? I'm out.

So let me understand this. You were only following the show on the hopes that a character who had shown no signs of being gay might have been gay? That seems like a very strange reason to follow a show. Maybe Kirkman mentioned it because people kept asking him about it and nagging him to make him gay.

[Lady Warp Spasm]

I feel the same way Brett did about Walking Dead in all of it's forms but I had a much shorter tolerance: about 3 issues and 1 episode. I can only take so much bleak horror.

As far as Darryl's sexual orientation, that's for the fans to discuss, not me.

[Iron Maiden]

So people are this upset that a character that wasn't meant to be gay isn't gay? And they are angry and Kirkman and the show? All I can do is shake my head. TWD is one of the most diverse shows on television and I am thrilled that it gets the ratings it does with the cast that it has. People should be celebrating that rather than looking for stories like the one in this article. The Wire is my favorite show of all time and it was crushing how so many overlooked it because it had a diverse cast that was mainly black. Glad that isn't happening again.



So let me understand this. You were only following the show on the hopes that a character who had shown no signs of being gay might have been gay? That seems like a very strange reason to follow a show. Maybe Kirkman mentioned it because people kept asking him about it and nagging him to make him gay.

I would also have to ask why the reviewer brings up the comics. Is that even relevant? Because Darryl was created specifically for the show and I thought it was Darabont and other writers that created him. I never got a sense that he was intended to be gay since he became very attached to Carol, giving her the Cherokee Rose and looking for Sofia for her all that time. If anything he might have conflicting feelings about her being a mother figure too. He's certainly comes across as very introverted and I think that comes from being ashamed of his family. We know he was abused by his father but that seemed to be recounted as beatings from his drunkenness. So far there's been no mention of sexual abuse.

[MODOK_operandi]

You know, it's starting to get pretty annoying. Every article I read about this issue plays the same way: 1) admit that Daryl appears to be decidedly asexual, and 2) therefore assume or demand that Daryl is homosexual.

While I have been in a few serious and fulfilling (heterosexual) relationships and had quite a few flings, I would now consider myself asexual for the most part. And I have done so for the past 5 years or so. I just don't spend a lot of time thinking about it. I don't go out of my way to find a girl. If it happens, it happens, and that's great, but it's not a goal.

Sometimes, people assume certain things about you when you are a long-term intentional single person. Friends make jokes (which I don't mind, and even join in on) and colleagues and acquaintances tend to make certain inferences. This doesn't happen a lot but enough to be annoying.

Then Daryl Dixon shows up and every entertainment journalist jumps on the, "handsome guy doesn't constantly bang every woman he can. He's asexual, so therefore he must be gay" bandwagon.

Homosexuals are great, and it's incredibly inspiring to see the stigma attached to their orientation falling away. But asexual people are not homosexuals and for the media to constantly push the narrative that they are or they *may* be is offensive and insulting.

[Coin Biter]

There's always Dumbbledore!
From the best selling Harry Potter novels.

Dumbledore's an interesting example, because his sexuality is completely irrelevant to 90% of the story, and then is suddenly mentioned in the last book It's nice of Rowling to increase diversity I guess, and it angered the usual suspects which is generally worthwhile, but it's all pretty much in flashbacks/back-story anyway.

So far as the Walking Dead is concerned, like the writer of this article himself, I don't watch it. The sexuality of the character is up to the creators, but specifically clarifying the sexuality of a character in the show outside the show? That is a bit odd. I don't know why you'd choose to do that - the sexuality should be revealed by the plot/dialogue. Or not. Explaining/clarifying the character outside the show itself - well, let the viewers make up their own minds. Why close off possibilities unnecessarily?

Having said that, I do think this article would have been better conceived if practically every sentence didn't reek of the author's disdain for the comic and the show, although I guess reading 100 copies and watching two seasons is probably knowledge enough to write this, it's certainly more than I have.

[Hi-Fi]

But asexual people are not homosexuals and for the media to constantly push the narrative that they are or they *may* be is offensive and insulting.

lol what? Homosexual people CAN be assexual, just like straight people can.

The problem here is that Kirkman and the producers came out and said there was discussion about Darryl being gay (I think it was Darabont who proclaimed that, to him, Darryl was '"prision gay") and now Kirkman is quickly backtracking on that and saying "no, calm down, he's straight. Even though we've no interest in showing him act on it, I'm just making it official".

[Another Aaron]

If they made Daryl gay, they would have IMMEDIATELY been attacked with "of course the character with an abusive childhood is gay, you bigoted [insert whatever]". Abused folks can be gay just like anyone else, but the Internet brigade would have torn them to pieces.

In 3, maybe 4, episodes we'll get Jesus--who's a strong "can compete with Michonne and Daryl" character, does kung-fu, AND happens to be gay. Not only that, but we'll get a gay couple shortly as well, and will get to watch their relationship get put through the zombie apocalypse ringer just like everyone else's.

I *do* agree that Kirkman should never have brought it up in the first place, but it was probably a rookie PR mistake. He was being honest, talking about the development process, and never realized folks would take those words and run with them.

[Conch22]

Daryls sexuality hasn't been particularly relevant to his story arcs either.
And Dumbbledores sexuality was announced before being introduced in the books, mainly as the Half Blood Prince screenwriters wanted to give him a heterosexual relationship and Rowling clued them in that the characters meant to be gay, then made the official announcement concerning this.

If we're talking representation, a place I would truly like to see it take place is Star Trek. Gene Roddenberry wanted LGBT representation, pushed for it, but was overruled by network executives. Having the current Sulu in Star Trek be gay I feel would show a great deal of respect for the original actor

[MODOK_operandi]

lol what? Homosexual people CAN be assexual, just like straight people can.

Of course they CAN be. That's a lack in clarity on my part. To clear it up, read that sentence again like this "But asexual people are not [[automatically]] homosexuals and for the media to constantly push the narrative that they are or they *may* be is offensive and insulting." You'll see that it follows the logic of the rest of my post.

The point is this: The assumption that because a character is asexual they are homosexual is unnecessary and ignorant.

[joeshan]

I was tempted to stop reading after the author made it clear he doesn't read or watch The Walking Dead. It's baffling that he can be so invested in something he doesn't even consume. But yeah I do agree with the point that we need more diverse characters in our media but making Daryl gay seems like it'd play into the "abused as a kid grows up to be gay" stereotype, especially since 5 seasons in his sexuality hasn't ever really come up. So making him asexual I guess would've made sense. Also, TWD is at the very least racially diverse. I think it has the most black people in a show that's not a "black show" that I've ever seen.

Totally agree with your first sentence. So in keeping with the theme of writing ill-informed opinions based solely on a partial understanding of the topic, I only read the first paragraph of the article and have decided it is a missed opportunity to actually make a real statement about an important issue.

[Imraith Nimphais]

Personally, speaking as a Bi-Sexual man, and one who follows the show religiously and reads the books...We don't need a gay Daryl Dixon, either. All we need is for him to: Just go out there and FRAK S**TE UP! Should Zombies run amok in the "real world" the very last thing I would care about is whether or not that guy is gay, transgender, bi-sexual or asexual..."that ain't none o' my bizz." *sips tea*

Less so in my comics and TV shows.

[suss2it]

I feel the same way Brett did about Walking Dead in all of it's forms but I had a much shorter tolerance: about 3 issues and 1 episode. I can only take so much bleak horror.

As far as Darryl's sexual orientation, that's for the fans to discuss, not me.

So you don't like or watch the show yet felt the need to comment? I don't get it. I don't watch Once Upon a Time therefore I never feel the need to discuss it or the fact that I don't watch it (except for now I guess).

Dumbledore's an interesting example, because his sexuality is completely irrelevant to 90% of the story, and then is suddenly mentioned in the last book It's nice of Rowling to increase diversity I guess, and it angered the usual suspects which is generally worthwhile, but it's all pretty much in flashbacks/back-story anyway.

Except it wasn't even mentioned in the last book, at best it was hinted at. Rowling announced it later after the book was released, which I think was a lame move. I don't see how it woulda messed up the flow of the book if she made it explicitly clear that he had a thing for Grindelwald.

So far as the Walking Dead is concerned, like the writer of this article himself, I don't watch it. The sexuality of the character is up to the creators, but specifically clarifying the sexuality of a character in the show outside the show? That is a bit odd. I don't know why you'd choose to do that - the sexuality should be revealed by the plot/dialogue. Or not. Explaining/clarifying the character outside the show itself - well, let the viewers make up their own minds. Why close off possibilities unnecessarily?

That's exactly what Rowling did... and what's up with people commenting on stuff they don't even watch?

[America / Bucky / Russia]

Of course they CAN be. That's a lack in clarity on my part. To clear it up, read that sentence again like this "But asexual people are not [[automatically]] homosexuals and for the media to constantly push the narrative that they are or they *may* be is offensive and insulting." You'll see that it follows the logic of the rest of my post.

The point is this: The assumption that because a character is asexual they are homosexual is unnecessary and ignorant.

The media seems to assume LGBT is one thing rather than many, pretty much.

[NewMutant]

What if the point was simply to make it clear so people hoping for him to be gay wouldn't get their hopes up?

Also, have people forgotten The Walking Dead TV show actually HAS a gay character in Tara? Not that I'm saying that's "enough", just that the tone of this subject seems to be that people think that Daryll would have been the first gay character on the show.

For me, I don't care what his sexuality is. I still love and identify with the character for many other reasons. If you are never actually going to address his orientation on the show then there is no point making a public statement. You aren't getting anyone's hopes up. It lets the audience fantasize/speculate one way or another.

There is a difference between the popular fan favorite lead character on the show, whose been there from the start, being gay to some supporting role that joins seasons later that is likely to not get the same attention Daryl gets.

So people are this upset that a character that wasn't meant to be gay isn't gay? And they are angry and Kirkman and the show? All I can do is shake my head. TWD is one of the most diverse shows on television and I am thrilled that it gets the ratings it does with the cast that it has. People should be celebrating that rather than looking for stories like the one in this article. The Wire is my favorite show of all time and it was crushing how so many overlooked it because it had a diverse cast that was mainly black. Glad that isn't happening again.

So let me understand this. You were only following the show on the hopes that a character who had shown no signs of being gay might have been gay? That seems like a very strange reason to follow a show. Maybe Kirkman mentioned it because people kept asking him about it and nagging him to make him gay.

The Walking Dead was not diverse till season 3, but yes I do consider it a great diverse cast. Gay characters included. But as my response above states there is a difference between an popular lead and later added supporting character.

The media seems to assume LGBT is one thing rather than many, pretty much.

So True.

[Ravyn]

I don't understand why this was even brought up in the press to begin with. It just seems cruel to troll gay fans of The Walking Dead by hinting that the most popular character on the show may be gay, and then months later go: "Nah, just kidding. He's actually straight. LOLZ!"