Why not have Wonder Woman date a female superhero?

[Koriand'r]

And that's why all comic book characters should be straight? Because if you make one of them gay or bisexual, it overwhelms the story? A great excuse for keeping gay characters out - thanks, we needed one of those!

No I'm saying it's cheap and easy and overdone. If you really want progression make Batman bisexual, but that won't happen because the stakes are too high for him. That's why side characters like Iceman get outed, while Wolverine gets to stay a macho male wish fulfillment fantasy. An airbrushed vision of lipstick lesbians is even easier to digest. So stamp the label on Wonder Woman (who already has a massive gay following) and there's nothing to lose except the prominence of her ideals, but everything to gain from the added titillation.

[Jim Kelly]

I think it's vaguely offensive to suggest "giving" a straight character to an established gay character and expecting that will make the gay community happy. Like you're doing them some kind of favour.

The argument has been that people are born gay or bisexual--it's not something you choose and you can't make someone gay anymore than you can make them straight. What queer folk want is more of their own stories--their lived experiences--reflected in the fiction. These kind of scenarios--where characters willy-nilly switch their orientation--don't do that and they don't really seem sympathetic. They just seem like exploitation.

I doubt that William Moulton Marston wanted Diana to be a Lesbian. It makes sense to me that most Amazons are Lesbians, but Marston was trying to make a philosophical point and he was using Diana and Steve to do that. So Steve represents the traditional, patriarchal male. Along comes Diana and she converts him to her way of thinking. He submits to her loving discipline. While this is kinky, it's also a philosophy that Marston deeply believed in. By showing the philosophical change in Steve, he's showing traditioal America that it can change and adopt the feminist philosophy that he advocates. Lots of women also submitted to Diana in those comics, but their submission wasn't as meaningful as Steve's. He had much further to go in changing his mindset--and yet he did.

[Vanguard-01]

I think it's vaguely offensive to suggest "giving" a straight character to an established gay character and expecting that will make the gay community happy. Like you're doing them some kind of favour.

The argument has been that people are born gay or bisexual--it's not something you choose and you can't make someone gay anymore than you can make them straight. What queer folk want is more of their own stories--their lived experiences--reflected in the fiction. These kind of scenarios--where characters willy-nilly switch their orientation--don't do that and they don't really seem sympathetic. They just seem like exploitation.

I doubt that William Moulton Marston wanted Diana to be a Lesbian. It makes sense to me that most Amazons are Lesbians, but Marston was trying to make a philosophical point and he was using Diana and Steve to do that. So Steve represents the traditional, patriarchal male. Along comes Diana and she converts him to her way of thinking. He submits to her loving discipline. While this is kinky, it's also a philosophy that Marston deeply believed in. By showing the philosophical change in Steve, he's showing traditioal America that it can change and adopt the feminist philosophy that he advocates. Lots of women also submitted to Diana in those comics, but their submission wasn't as meaningful as Steve's. He had much further to go in changing his mindset--and yet he did.

Except in this case, Diana isn't being "given" to the gay community. She was, to all intents and purposes, always intended to be one of them. It was a logical progression of Marston's own beliefs and the subtext of the original run.

Also? No one's saying Diana is, or should be, a lesbian. She's bisexual. She likes men and women alike. Heck, some have made a good argument that "pansexual" may be the better term for her. She falls in love with people. Not sexes.

[Koriand'r]

Except in this case, Diana isn't being "given" to the gay community. She was, to all intents and purposes, always intended to be one of them. It was a logical progression of Marston's own beliefs and the subtext of the original run.

Also? No one's saying Diana is, or should be, a lesbian. She's bisexual. She likes men and women alike. Heck, some have made a good argument that "pansexual" may be the better term for her. She falls in love with people. Not sexes.

She wasn't always intended to be gay, for reasons Jim Kelly already outlined.

[Vanguard-01]

She wasn't always intended to be gay, for reasons Jim Kelly already outlined.

Once again? Didn't say "gay." I said "bisexual/pansexual."

1.) Diana was raised in a society that believes in love in all its forms.
2.) Diana was raised around women who engaged in sexual relations with each other. Stands to reason she would develop a willingness to do the same.
3.) Diana's fundamental defining trait is that she loves EVERYONE. Saying that she is open to expressing love, in all possible forms, with literally anyone is the core of her character.
4.) Marston could not portray Diana as anything other than heterosexual because he would've been lynched if he'd tried it.

[Koriand'r]

Once again? Didn't say "gay." I said "bisexual/pansexual."

1.) Diana was raised in a society that believes in love in all its forms.
2.) Diana was raised around women who engaged in sexual relations with each other. Stands to reason she would develop a willingness to do the same.
3.) Diana's fundamental defining trait is that she loves EVERYONE. Saying that she is open to expressing love, in all possible forms, with literally anyone is the core of her character.
4.) Marston could not portray Diana as anything other than heterosexual because he would've been lynched if he'd tried it.

Using qualifiers like "stands to reason" and "for all intents and purposes" doesn't rewrite history. Marston's abilities as a writer are being underestimated. The same way people recognized the bondage subtext, is the same way people would have recognized more flagrant homosexual subtext, if he'd wanted it in there. I think he didn't because he knew it would be a distraction.

[Darrin Kelley]

But introduce a gay character? "Why are you throwing it in our face??!?"

I'm on the side of letting the creation stay as the creator intended. I am not against gay characters.

I'm against sexual exploitation. Using a character's sexuality as a point to sell books. Rather than allowing the sum total of the character to do that.

Sexuality is only a small part of what a character is. It shouldn't be their defining trait. If it is: Then the work as a whole is diminished and becomes easily forgotten.

I'm against exploitation, tokenism, and using a character as a poster child. Handling the subject matter badly doesn't help with acceptance of gay people. It treats them as if they are part of a freak show. Which is anything but promoting acceptance.

As a writer, myself. I work my hardest to create memorable multidimensional characters. And the idea of having said characters remembered for only a single aspect of who they are I find horrifying. I would take it as a personal failure on my part as a writer to communicate what said characters were all about.

Marston created a well made multidimensional character. She does not deserve to be eroded and diminished to the point of only being remembered for a single aspect. She's more than that. She means more to the culture of the United States and the world than that.

[brettc1]

I am totally good with Steve a Trevor being bisexual.

Totally.

[Charmed]

I would love to see Wonder Woman date another female character rather than a female superhero. Though I can't see DC ever letting it happen in print (I could see it happening on television, as it's a far more inclusive media than comics and film), so for all those who fear that she will be tokenized, exploited, and that this is offensive to us gays...rest assured it won't happen.

[Colossus1980]

It would be great for WW to have a brand new love interest. Hopefully Rucka can be daring and introduce another love interest in WW's life, be it male or female, hero or civilian. Just please no Steve Trevor.

[Doctor Bifrost]

No I'm saying it's cheap and easy and overdone. If you really want progression make Batman bisexual, but that won't happen because the stakes are too high for him. That's why side characters like Iceman get outed, while Wolverine gets to stay a macho male wish fulfillment fantasy. An airbrushed vision of lipstick lesbians is even easier to digest. So stamp the label on Wonder Woman (who already has a massive gay following) and there's nothing to lose except the prominence of her ideals, but everything to gain from the added titillation.

Making Wonder Woman, in many ways the archetypal female superhero, bisexual is something that has been discussed for decades but never done in the comics - in some cases, in seems, because the editors and/or publishers shut it down. It is quite specific, and it is not cheap, easy, or overdone. Personally, I think her milieu, symbolism, history, and her creator's life story make it sensible, albeit not inevitable. (I think he would have made her bisexual if he could.)

None of this applies to Batman at all. That would be just for shock value.

And I have no impression that Rucka is approaching it in a shocking or titillating fashion. The fact that there may be a segment of the population who would see it that way is not a reason not to do it.

Batwoman is a lipstick lesbian ("not that there's anything wrong with that"). She was basically created that way. Diana is an Amazon warrior, and even if she was bi or gay that would not make her a lipstick lesbian. If some people (you included) decide to see her that way, that's your choice.

[Doctor Bifrost]

I doubt that William Moulton Marston wanted Diana to be a Lesbian.

I also doubt that Marston wanted Diana to be a lesbian. I do not, however, doubt that he would have made her bisexual if that had been possible. This in no way contradicts the whole Steve Trevor/male/female/submission trope you refer to. Marston himself was, to a large extent, dominated by the two women in his life - who were bisexuals. (As far as I've been able to ascertain.)

[Doctor Bifrost]

I'm on the side of letting the creation stay as the creator intended. I am not against gay characters.

I'm against sexual exploitation. Using a character's sexuality as a point to sell books. Rather than allowing the sum total of the character to do that.

Sexuality is only a small part of what a character is. It shouldn't be their defining trait. If it is: Then the work as a whole is diminished and becomes easily forgotten.

I'm against exploitation, tokenism, and using a character as a poster child. Handling the subject matter badly doesn't help with acceptance of gay people. It treats them as if they are part of a freak show. Which is anything but promoting acceptance.

As a writer, myself. I work my hardest to create memorable multidimensional characters. And the idea of having said characters remembered for only a single aspect of who they are I find horrifying. I would take it as a personal failure on my part as a writer to communicate what said characters were all about.

Marston created a well made multidimensional character. She does not deserve to be eroded and diminished to the point of only being remembered for a single aspect. She's more than that. She means more to the culture of the United States and the world than that.

My goodness, what a pack of assumptions are built into this argument. The primary one being that, if Diana is revealed to be bisexual, it would be exploitation, tokenism, using the character as a poster child, and it would be badly handled. And the only thing anybody would ever think about her, or remember about her. All this without a single story by Rucka in which her bisexuality is mentioned!

I think Rucka said, or thought: "You know, I'm writing Diana now. And it always made sense to me that she was bi. And in the past, we couldn't include that in the stories due to quite extreme homophobia/biphobia/heterosexism." (The status quo has a political agenda too, you know. Sometimes a quite pernicious one.) "But now finally we have the freedom to do so, so I think I'll give it a try."

And I don't think there's anything wrong with that at all.

The assumption that "all those yahoos out there - not us! - will only see this as titillating and be incapable of seeing her as multidimensional once her (non-straight) sexual orientation is mentioned" limits the writer's options in order to pander to, or cower before, the presumed heterosexism of the readers. That's the reason we hardly ever had gay characters before ("the readers aren't sophisticated enough to handle it!"), and it's not really a good reason.

Anyway, your main concern seems to be that this will mess up Wonder Woman and her principles. But doesn't that apply to any character? Wouldn't specifying their (non-straight) sexual orientation, taking away what you called the "compelling mysteriousness," be equally distracting for other characters as well - the only thing people will remember about them? (Although presumably this simply doesn't matter so much for a non-iconic character; let them be seen as one-dimensional because they're gay.) It seems like a really good reason to never have any gay/bi characters, since that's such a shocking and titillating distraction from their story.

[Doctor Bifrost]

It would be great for WW to have a brand new love interest. Hopefully Rucka can be daring and introduce another love interest in WW's life, be it male or female, hero or civilian. Just please no Steve Trevor.

There's nothing wrong with Steve Trevor that good writing can't fix. And I think we're getting that.

[Koriand'r]

Making Wonder Woman, in many ways the archetypal female superhero, bisexual is something that has been discussed for decades but never done in the comics - in some cases, in seems, because the editors and/or publishers shut it down. It is quite specific, and it is not cheap, easy, or overdone. Personally, I think her milieu, symbolism, history, and her creator's life story make it sensible, albeit not inevitable. (I think he would have made her bisexual if he could.)

None of this applies to Batman at all. That would be just for shock value.

And I have no impression that Rucka is approaching it in a shocking or titillating fashion. The fact that there may be a segment of the population who would see it that way is not a reason not to do it.

Batwoman is a lipstick lesbian ("not that there's anything wrong with that"). She was basically created that way. Diana is an Amazon warrior, and even if she was bi or gay that would not make her a lipstick lesbian. If some people (you included) decide to see her that way, that's your choice.

I'll see it as a continuation of Wonder Woman slowly morphing into Xena and I'm not a fan of Xena I'm a fan of Wonder Woman.