LGBT+ Marvel Characters Discussion

[Star_Jammer]

I think that this should still count. Is "sexuality", "sexual orientation", and "bisexual", that doesn't exactly means romance or relationships.

I call it "just being horny", but whatevs.

[Wiccan]

It would be so more easy if in real life most guys were "just being horny". That pretty much just reeally exist in gay porn.

[Tiamatty]

It's also worth remembering that the sexuality spectrum and the romantic spectrum can be very different. You can get heteroromantic bisexual. Or biromantic asexual. Or homoromantic homosexual. Or all sorts of variations. And then there's also the sexual identity spectrum.

That's the thing that should always be remembered when sexual orientation is being discussed: This **** is complicated. The Kinsey Scale kinda works as a shorthand, but not well. But ultimately, "prefers dudes, would be up for fooling around with chicks," is a lot more accurate that, "Kinsey 2." Sexuality is also generally very personal. What's true for you may not be true for someone else.

[Moral_Gutpunch]

Honestly I think that people who are attracted to both sexes, even rarely but call themselves straight are just afraid of the "bisexual" label. Is what the word was created for, you know.

People are afraid of that word for different reasons. It's got a lot more than just the one stigma of 'that still makes you a homo' to anti-gay jerks and prudes.

Even if people are okay with those stigmas or believe they're safe from them where they live, they can still be afraid (or nervous or whatever word you want to use) to use it. Are they SURE they were attracted to this person in that way? Are they SURE it can ever happen again? Are they SURE it wasn't just an overload of hormones and at the time, they'd find a tub of butter attractive? What if they're NEVER attracted to someone of that sex again? What if they just like sex, does that even count? What if you just like romance or what you think is romance?

Being confused is a very scary thing and even if you're okay having a label doesn't mean you're not afraid to use it.

[t hedge coke]

It would be so more easy if in real life most guys were "just being horny". That pretty much just reeally exist in gay porn.

Porn in general. "I'm here, you're here: let us ****!"

Which, sadly, reminds me how disappointed I've been in how Megan Mullally has handled affected sexuality in entertainment vs/with how she talks about it as a real person.

[Wiccan]

Porn in general. "I'm here, you're here: let us ****!"

Which, sadly, reminds me how disappointed I've been in how Megan Mullally has handled affected sexuality in entertainment vs/with how she talks about it as a real person.

Yeah. I meant specifically straight guys having gay sex like that was totally normal.

[Kieran_Frost]

This right here. Sexual identity is a personal thing, and no one should be able to define it for another person.

Are you not going to vote in the thread poll, Star_Jammer???

[Reality]

It's also worth remembering that the sexuality spectrum and the romantic spectrum can be very different. You can get heteroromantic bisexual. Or biromantic asexual. Or homoromantic homosexual. Or all sorts of variations. And then there's also the sexual identity spectrum.

That's the thing that should always be remembered when sexual orientation is being discussed: This **** is complicated. The Kinsey Scale kinda works as a shorthand, but not well. But ultimately, "prefers dudes, would be up for fooling around with chicks," is a lot more accurate that, "Kinsey 2." Sexuality is also generally very personal. What's true for you may not be true for someone else.

Hence why "patterns of attraction" thing is completely separate from sexual orientation. Though people only very, very, very rarely will have a romantic relationship outside of a sexual one, and that generally either involves an asexual or simply no sex due to the sexual incompatiblity.

Though that's cultural- back when marriage was for titles and protecting a lineage, nonsexual love with a close friend was considered to be the ultimate standard for love and was not only common, but encouraged. Romantic friendships are an interesting facet of love that has largely been lost, which is a shame. We see lingering notes of it with bromances and the like in fiction, though.

As for "defining sexuality for others", I think it's more important that the words used to describe sexuality have a consistent and easily understood meaning, as straight, gay and bisexual do than it is for people to call themselves whatever they want. Words have meanings and figuring out which definition matches your orientation and behavior is important, but not at the cost of the definitions themselves. Changing the meaning of "straight" to include "sometimes bones the same sex but no homo" weakens all of those definitions and renders the words meaningless.

Basically, your sexuality is your business but there's only heterosexual, homosexual, both or none to choose from. The rest is splitting hairs and dodging the issue for the sake of not calling yourself what you are.

[Star_Jammer]

Basically, your sexuality is your business but there's only heterosexual, homosexual, both or none to choose from. The rest is splitting hairs and dodging the issue for the sake of not calling yourself what you are.

What prizes do we win for knowing exactly what sexual orientation another person is?

Are you not going to vote in the thread poll, Star_Jammer???

I did just now!

[t hedge coke]

What prizes do we win for knowing exactly what sexual orientation another person is?

Anything from the second or third shelf down. Top shelf is for five in a row in thirty seconds.

The problem with the idea that sexuality should only be self-defined is that people aren't making clinical choices, they're often making political choices. I'm sorry, no matter how much you go "I'm straight," if you're checking out the same sex as you, or sleeping with someone of the same gender, you're pretty gay. If you're self-defining as straight or gay, but you're attracted to both sexes, you're some level of bisexual. Restricting sexuality only to self-description leads to a lot of closeting and bearding and BSing. (When it comes to gender, though... I don't think anyone's got a perfect answer. Mostly because gender's just something we generalize to keep a society going.)

[Star_Jammer]

Anything from the second or third shelf down. Top shelf is for five in a row in thirty seconds.

The problem with the idea that sexuality should only be self-defined is that people aren't making clinical choices, they're often making political choices. I'm sorry, no matter how much you go "I'm straight," if you're checking out the same sex as you, or sleeping with someone of the same gender, you're pretty gay. If you're self-defining as straight or gay, but you're attracted to both sexes, you're some level of bisexual. Restricting sexuality only to self-description leads to a lot of closeting and bearding and BSing. (When it comes to gender, though... I don't think anyone's got a perfect answer. Mostly because gender's just something we generalize to keep a society going.)

I don't wholly disagree. But they are personal choices, that no one else can make for them, regardless. So why do other people need to define it for them?

And the opposite, to me, reeks of tabloid-esque "OMG, Guess Whoooooo's Gaaaaay!" trash magazines.

So I'm all for just minding my own darn business.

This:

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/37266919.jpg

...works for my stance just as well.

[t hedge coke]

I don't wholly disagree. But they are personal choices, that no one else can make for them, regardless. So why do other people need to define it for them?

And the opposite, to me, reeks of tabloid-esque "OMG, Guess Whoooooo's Gaaaaay!" trash magazines.

So I'm all for just minding my own darn business.

This:

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/37266919.jpg

...works for my stance just as well.

Because erasure of homosexuality and bisexuality are real social phenomena. And, biological, psychological, and sociological studies that benefit from things like clinical categories and methods of categorization are also both real and important. Allowing the former to be aided by, and the latter impeded by social stigmas or even personal comfort is bad for everyone.

When, and how openly someone discusses their sexuality is their business, but putting names to behaviors and sexual interests can't be left to "what they're comfortable saying," any more than "We're all Africans" is acceptable statement from a white American about a lack of diversity on a judging panel, or we let people call lungs, "upper air kidneys."

Calling a lung a lung is not a moral judgment. "Homosexual," "heterosexual," and "bisexual" are not moral indictments. It's not even as specious as "it's a choice" or "born this way," both of which get thrown around continually.

[Kieran_Frost]

Okay! My wee sausages; this is REALLY not what this thread is here to discuss. I've already had one thread closed this week by posters tangenting the point of the thread away. I won't let that happen here. This thread is here to appreciate Marvel LGBT characters NOT analyse sexuality. The LGBT Community thread is a far better place for this discussion. Please be respectful and take this debate there. Thank you

[Reality]

Because erasure of homosexuality and bisexuality are real social phenomena. And, biological, psychological, and sociological studies that benefit from things like clinical categories and methods of categorization are also both real and important. Allowing the former to be aided by, and the latter impeded by social stigmas or even personal comfort is bad for everyone.

When, and how openly someone discusses their sexuality is their business, but putting names to behaviors and sexual interests can't be left to "what they're comfortable saying," any more than "We're all Africans" is acceptable statement from a white American about a lack of diversity on a judging panel, or we let people call lungs, "upper air kidneys."

Calling a lung a lung is not a moral judgment. "Homosexual," "heterosexual," and "bisexual" are not moral indictments. It's not even as specious as "it's a choice" or "born this way," both of which get thrown around continually.

Exactly.

Okay! My wee sausages; this is REALLY not what this thread is here to discuss. I've already had one thread closed this week by posters tangenting the point of the thread away. I won't let that happen here. This thread is here to appreciate Marvel LGBT characters NOT analyse sexuality. The LGBT Community thread is a far better place for this discussion. Please be respectful and take this debate there. Thank you

Could you get a moderator to move the posts over? That's a thing, right?

[adustyspectacle]

Okay so... anybody have reading guides for specific characters? I'm looking especially for Iceman's---preferably somewhere at the point he got outed? (Or sometime before that, but not too far away).

Cullen Bloodstone seems a bit interesting too, but as far as I can research he's only been in two series so it wouldn't be hard to look for where to start reading (unlike Iceman <_<).

Really, I think a character reading guide for LGBT characters would be awesome. It'd be exteremely helpful for a comic newbie like me. u~u