ULTIMATE TRUTH! How do CBR posters feel about Iceman being gay?

[Star_Jammer]

So, your assessment is that a "No Gays At Marvel" policy with the possible exception of what may be gay men trying to rape one of our A-listers is "walking on eggshells"?

No, the insinuation that everyone who is offended is somehow important is "walking on eggshells".

What you want to discuss only works if I want to entertain Shooter's nonsense. I don't.

I think what cranger and I are trying to get to the bottom of, however, is how much of...this...is "Shooter's nonsense"?

Sure, he didn't allow gays in Marvel comics; that was pretty much because of the CCA (which seemed, for a good while, to be necessary for business). How much anti-homosexuality beyond that Shooter possessed is merely speculation, to which we've only been provided the Hulk example.

An example that Shooter admitted might have been a mistake.

[Kieran_Frost]

No, the insinuation that everyone who is offended is somehow important is "walking on eggshells".

Pretty much all of the regular LGBT posters (I can think of) who regular discuss LGBT issues at Marvel on CBR find Shooter's scene offensive. Maybe one doesn't (though off the top of my head I can't think who). Not that you care what actual LGBT think, but I thought I'd throw it out in-case

Sure, he didn't allow gays in Marvel comics; that was pretty much because of the CCA (which seemed, for a good while, to be necessary for business). How much anti-homosexuality beyond that Shooter possessed is merely speculation, to which we've only been provided the Hulk example.

What examples can you give that imply it isn't??? We've provided one for the "yey" column, if you can't provide anything for the "nay"; it does seem a fair assumption (based on what we have) to draw a conclusion. I agree context is key, so what pro-LGBT context can you shed on Shooter?

[Star_Jammer]

Pretty much all of the regular LGBT posters (I can think of) who regular discuss LGBT issues at Marvel on CBR find Shooter's scene offensive. Maybe one doesn't (though off the top of my head I can't think who). Not that you care what actual LGBT think, but I thought I'd throw it out in-case

I'm gay. So:

1. Did you forget? Because we've had this line of discussion multiple times.

or

2. Are you acussing me of not "actually" being gay? (and should I be offended?)

And citation needed for "pretty much all".

What examples can you give that imply it isn't??? We've provided one for the "yey" column, if you can't provide anything for the "nay"; it does seem a fair assumption (based on what we have) to draw a conclusion. I agree context is key, so what pro-LGBT context can you shed on Shooter?

The fact that Shooter considered telling the story a possible mistake, a point you keep neglecting to honor by selectively quoting what I post.

[Kieran_Frost]

I'm gay. So:
1. Did you forget? Because we've had this line of discussion multiple times.
or
2. Are you acussing me of not "actually" being gay?

I wasn't counting you in my statement, no.

The fact that Shooter considered telling the story a possible mistake, a point you keep neglecting to honor by selectively quoting what I post.

If that's your only example... lol! A non-apology comment, "possible mistake" is not even admitting a mistake. If your example is: Shooter cares so little about the views and comments of LGBT people that he won't even properly own up and apologies for his story and say "maybe" it was wrong (which also means he thinks "maybe" it wasn't wrong)... if that is ALL you can muster in the "nay" column...

... I rest my case, frankly.

[Star_Jammer]

I wasn't counting you in my statement, no.

Quite unfair of you, then.

If that's your only example... lol!

Kind of funny, hrm? We each only have one example!

A non-apology comment, "possible mistake" is not even admitting a mistake. If your example is: Shooter cares so little about the views and comments of LGBT people that he won't even properly own up and apologies for his story and say "maybe" it was wrong (which also means he thinks "maybe" it wasn't wrong)... if that is ALL you can muster in the "nay" column...

... I rest my case, frankly.

Who does he have to apologize to? Who deserves one? The nameless few? The possible multitudes? Why do we live in an age where a writer is expected to apologize for a work of art that may have offended "some people"?

If you read this, and keyword search ""Dear Larry", you'll find Shooter received two negative letters in response to the Hulk #23, which he wrote personal replies to.

[Kieran_Frost]

Quite unfair of you, then.

I'd say very fair indeed, personally.

Kind of funny, hrm? We each only have one example!

My example of Shooter has "issues" with homosexuality is him being EiC when they had "No Gays at Marvel" policy yet he breaks that policy to write two gay characters as rapists. Your "example" of Shooter NOT having "issues" with homosexuality is he later said his story might (and by implication might not) have been offensive.

LOL!!! The fact you even think your example balances out mine is laughable. "Might" have been offensive is not an example of Shooter being pro-LGBT. Back to the drawing board with you, young squire...

Who does he have to apologize to? Who deserves one? The nameless few? The possible multitudes? Why do we live in an age where a writer is expected to apologize for a work of art that may have offended "some people"?

He doesn't have to apologies for his grossly offensive story if he doesn't want to (and it seems he doesn't want to). A writer can stand back and let their work speak for itself, rather than having to constantly "explain" it. Agreed. And... when letting the work speak for itself... it speaks volumes.

Times have changed, the world has changed if Shooter only wants that story to do the talking, then conclusions we shall draw

[numberthirty]

Why do we live in an age where a writer is expected to apologize for a work of art that may have offended "some people"?

When it comes to Shooter, this doesn't jibe. He is not being judged based solely on his art. The guy(even if we will give him the benefit of the doubt) was EIC during a period where there was a "No Gays At Marvel" policy.

So yes, that guy should consider how that scene looks when you put it into the context of his tenure as EIC.

[Star_Jammer]

I'd say very fair indeed, personally.

Selective; not fair.

My example of Shooter has "issues" with homosexuality is him being EiC when they had "No Gays at Marvel" policy yet he breaks that policy to write two gay characters as rapists. Your "example" of Shooter NOT having "issues" with homosexuality is he later said his story might (and by implication might not) have been offensive.

The bolded is a point I was making earlier; the pure irony that people in this thread are assuming that the characters were meant to be gay.

And he didn't say the story "might be offensive". He clearly stated he meant for it to be offensive; to rapists. He did, however, say that it might have been a mistake to write it.

LOL!!! The fact you even think your example balances out mine is laughable. "Might" have been offensive is not an example of Shooter being pro-LGBT. Back to the drawing board with you, young squire...

I'm not arguing Shooter was "pro-gay", though. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was mostly indifferent, yet carried his own negative stereotypes (I mean, he's obviously not a LGBT rights activists; let's not even try to play down that road). I'm arguing about how much of the "anti-gay" was because of Shooter and not the CCA. Try, please?

However, in the way the world works, there isn't always a "pro" and "anti" side. As stated, there can be indifference, which should strike extremely well in your mind, considering the current results of your poll.

He doesn't have to apologies for his grossly offensive story if he doesn't want to (and it seems he doesn't want to). A writer can stand back and let their work speak for itself, rather than having to constantly "explain" it. Agreed. And... when letting the work speak for itself... it speaks volumes.

Times have changed, the world has changed.

It's only "grossly offensive" if you assume the perpetrators were meant to be gay. Which I'm going to point out the irony of here, once again...

[Kieran_Frost]

Selective; not fair.

I don't feel I cheated any LGBT poster by my statement.

And he didn't say the story "might be offensive". He clearly stated he meant for it to be offensive; to rapists. He did, however, say that it might have been a mistake to write it.

Which also means he said he thinks his story might NOT have been a mistake to write. So... again, it's a no-nothing comment; worth near nothing.

I'm not arguing Shooter was "pro-gay", though. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was mostly indifferent, yet carried his own negative stereotypes (I mean, he's obviously not a LGBT rights activists; let's not even try to play down that road). I'm arguing about how much of the "anti-gay" was because of Shooter and not the CCA. Try, please?

I don't see the evidence to imply he's indifferent. I see evidence to imply he certainly has views which he expressed when he put pen to paper. I see no evidence of this "indifference" to gay characters. Actively discounting them ("No Gays at Marvel") is not indifference. Breaking that rule one time to write them as rapists (i.e. if there is one time we should break this rule it should be to write THIS story about the dangers of gay rape, gays soooooo terrifying Hulk is soooooooooo scared he can't even Hulk up). That... is not indifference.

The only time he seems indifferent is when it comes to his apologies When it comes to gay characters I see no evidence for indifference.

However, in the way the world works, there isn't always a "pro" and "anti" side. As stated, there can be indifference, which should strike extremely well in your mind, considering the current results of your poll.

You mention the poll; so you have seen it... strange you haven't voted...
(235)

[numberthirty]

I'm arguing about how much of the "anti-gay" was because of Shooter and not the CCA. Try, please?

It's only "grossly offensive" if you assume the perpetrators were meant to be gay. Which I'm going to point out the irony of here, once again...

First part, the problem is there isn't much of an argument. If you have seen articles/interviews that I haven't where Shooter has said that the "No Gays At Marvel" policy was a mistake, I would be interested in reading them.

Otherwise, we have creators who have said it was Shooter saying it. Not Shooter saying "Hey, the CCA is setting the policy for now."

As for the bold, what is there in that issue that points to them being heterosexual?

[Star_Jammer]

Which also means he said he thinks his story might NOT have been a mistake to write. So... again, it's a no-nothing comment; worth near nothing.

So you prefer a blanket apology to an indiscriminate crowd, who may or may not exist in significant number?

Sheesh. At least one of these is honest, and it's not the blanket apology.

Did you miss the part about Shooter writing personally to two negative letters he received about the story?

I don't see the evidence to imply he's indifferent. I see evidence to imply he certainly has views which he expressed when he put pen to paper. I see no evidence of this "indifference" to gay characters. Actively discounting them ("No Gays at Marvel") is not indifference. Breaking that rule one time to write them as rapists (i.e. if there is one time we should break this rule it should be to write THIS story about the dangers of gay rape, gays soooooo terrifying Hulk is soooooooooo scared he can't even Hulk up). That... is not indifference.

And I don't see any evidence that he's explicitly anti-LGBT. I certainly don't want to accuse him of such without stronger evidence, but I guess that doesn't make sense or something?

I see evidence that he was adhering to CCA regulations which, as has been stated, were a necessary business model. Again, we are arguing over Shooter's personal opinions outside of the CCA. Outside.

And again, he only broke the rule if we assume the would-be rapists were homosexual. They could very well have been heterosexual. That you're ignoring the irony of this is pretty funny.

You mention the poll; so you have seen it... strange you haven't voted...
(235)

An appropriate reflection of my opinion on the matter is not properly optioned in the poll, mostly because it's one sided.

First part, the problem is there isn't much of an argument. If you have seen articles/interviews that I haven't where Shooter has said that the "No Gays At Marvel" policy was a mistake, I would be interested in reading them.

I...I didn't say this?

Otherwise, we have creators who have said it was Shooter saying it. Not Shooter saying "Hey, the CCA is setting the policy for now."

Well, sure, Shooter was saying it. The writers didn't deal directly with the CCA. Unless you have evidence otherwise?

As for the bold, what is there in that issue that points to them being heterosexual?

What evidence is there that they are homosexual? Just because they raped a man? Used condescending terms like "sweetie"?

[numberthirty]

That's the thing...

You say "Look at the other side of the coin."
I say "Fine. Let's see it."
We flip it over, and there's nothing there.

When you've got something, I'm all ears. Otherwise, what exactly is your side of the discussion? A big "Uh, maybe?"?

[cranger]

First part, the problem is there isn't much of an argument. If you have seen articles/interviews that I haven't where Shooter has said that the "No Gays At Marvel" policy was a mistake, I would be interested in reading them.

Otherwise, we have creators who have said it was Shooter saying it. Not Shooter saying "Hey, the CCA is setting the policy for now."

As for the bold, what is there in that issue that points to them being heterosexual?

So far it seems you have nothing except an essay you found on Google Books that provides no basis for the claim other than a citation to what I am assuming to be a transcript from some panels that cannot be found anymore and maybe a paragraph from some 'wiki' page with no source? Not very convincing that Marvel would have had even one more single gay character during that time.

[numberthirty]

Not very convincing that Marvel would have had even one more single gay character during that time.

On the "X-Men" sub-forum no less.

as far back as 1981, chris claremont had intended to reveal nightcrawler to be the son of mystique and destiny; with mystique taking on a male form for the conception. this was hinted at many times in the early 80’s, most notably in uncanny x-men #177 (1983) when mystique refuses to kill a robotic replica of nightcrawler during her training.

however, this concept was never allowed to come to fruition and azazel the demon lord was written to be nightcrawler’s father. indeed, it took marvel over ten years to openly state that mystique and destiny were in fact lovers.

because of marvel (and the CCA)’s “no LGBT characters” rule being in force at the time, writer chris claremont was forced to skirt around their relationship, using terms like “beloved friend” to imply a deeper connection. other examples of this include the domestic life they lead whilst raising rogue and how the shadow king refers to destiny as mystique’s “leman” (an archaic word for lover) in uncanny #265 (1990). the extent of mystique’s mourning when destiny dies also implies that the nature of their relationship was more than friendship.

the policy that prohibited the “outing” of this relationship was enforced by then-editor-in-chief jim shooter. it would be all too simple to chalk shooter’s reluctance to allow the relationship to be acknowledged down to homophobia, but i think there’s a lot more to it than that.

i think the main reason that shooter wanted to steer clear of LGBT characters in comics is his previous experience with portraying similar issues. in addition to being editor-in-chief, shooter also wrote for the company. back in those days marvel would regularly side-step CCA regulations by publishing stories in magazines, which were not subject to CCA rule. shooter’s story, “a very personal hell”, from the hulk! #23 (1980) chronicled bruce banner, on the run for some hulk-related crimes, stopping over at a YMCA. during his stay he is accosted and almost raped by two men:

http://hello-dean-moriarty.tumblr.co...rvel-ten-years

[ZNOP]

On the "X-Men" sub-forum no less.



http://hello-dean-moriarty.tumblr.co...rvel-ten-years

Whenever the topic of Raven, Irene, and Kurt comes up I keep asking myself -- If Mystique's mutation allowed for her to alter (assuming that Raven was a female prior to the activation of her X-Gene) her entire bio-genetic structure (at will) into that of a fully functional male -- how the hell did Irene get Mystique pregnant?