DC toys - relaunching superhero as "openly gay"

[Gloriousgeorge]

Really?

FFS - that is taking things way too far IMO.

(and, no, before anyone suggests it - I don't have an issue with anyone's personal preference).

I do have issues with this tho.

Double standard ? Quite possibly.

........ hands discussion to the floor for debate ......

P.S. I'm not suggesting gay people are "feared" now. X-men was launched in 1960s. Thank goodness things have changed. Though sometimes on the internet I realise they haben't. Section 28 - if we pretend they don't exist, maybe they'll go away. What an embarissing way we failed some of our children andthe legacy of it (now repealed) still being seen in our schools.

Frederick Wertham's 1954 book 'Seduction of the Innocent' led to a massive Comic Books censorship drive in the USA. From Wiki:

"Many of his other conjectures, particularly about hidden sexual themes (e.g. images of female nudity concealed in drawings or Batman and Robin as gay partners), met with derision within the comics industry. Wertham's claim that Wonder Woman had a bondage subtext was somewhat better documented, as her creator William Moulton Marston had admitted as much; however, Wertham also claimed Wonder Woman's strength and independence made her a lesbian[2] Wertham also claimed that Superman was both un-American and a fascist."

"Early complete editions of Seduction of the Innocent often sell for high figures among book and comic book collectors.[citation needed]

"It is worth noting that, prior to its publication, Wertham was not an anti-comic crusader, nor did he likely mean for the book to generate the public reaction it did. In Seduction of the Innocent, he puts forth several arguable progressive positions that are sometimes lost in his 'boogeyman'-like depiction, e.g. by Scott McCloud in Understanding Comics. For example, Wertham expressed a concern for the impact of impossibly-proportioned female characters on girl readers or on the advertisements of violent and harmful toys. Primarily, Wertham assigned the blame to parents, not the industry nor the creators, in his book, and even his anxiety over Batman's and Robin's perceived homosexual subtexts was aimed at the welfare of a child introduced to that sort of family unit, not on some a priori immorality or sinfulness to such a lifestyle.[3] Will Brooker also points out in Batman Unmasked: Analyzing a Cultural Icon that Wertham's notorious reading of Batman and Robin as a homosexual couple was not of his own invention, but was suggested to him by homosexual males whom he interviewed.[4]"

They should create a special gay one called Gayman who uses his special gay powers to fight crime:

Gayman will have the power to turn anybody gay merely by touching them. (Lots of straight people believe all gay people have this power already and will back away from them in case they get turned gay themselves.)

He will have the power of looking FABULOUS at all times.

He will have the power to summon Sir Ian McKellen for extra support during fights.

Gayman has a special Gaymobile to travel around in. A large sequined bus called Priscilla. (Jet powered of course)

His sidekick is called Twink Boy.

I'm assuming it's Batman. Look up "Camp" in a dictionary and it will mention the 60s TV Batman series!

It's definitely not Batman, it's a minor DC character's storyline and has nothing to do with toys. It's just a publicity stunt and although I do welcome diversity it is unlikely to have any impact on children playing with superhero toys.
My DH works for both DC and Marvel.

No, no, don't say it's just a publicity stunt. I want to think that someone out there at DC has actually put some thought into the positive social implications of this move.

bandersnatch I agree with you. I remember when Fireman Sam and even Bob the builder were exactly that. I saw an episode where Elvis Criddlington was obviously trying to flirt with Penny whatever her name is and where Wendy's sister had a crush on Bob who was all too obviously interested in Wendy herself. Let kids be kids, at least for a couple of years!

Umm MooBaa don't expect to recognise the character when you hear it, (iconic to real fans possibly, household name no) unless you are a massive comic geek- unfortunately I'm married to one.

And Mr and Mrs Bentley are blatantly depicted as a married couple. Tsk.

I bet the PR team in charge of the next Batman movie are furious about this. :D

Its really not going to be Batman.

BC, I'm finding it very difficult to think of any children's tv show, film or book that shows adult characters but makes no reference whatsoever to adult romantic relationships.

"Why can't Spiderman just come back at the end of a hard days crim-bashing and have his dinner served by a nice young man called Jeffery?"

I am sure he can. It is his right to have dinner served by whomever he chooses.

I am pretty sure that Barbie is anything but straight! the things she used to get up to in my house - especially with Princess Leia! I also know that my brother's action man used to quite like a light saber up his bottom - not sure what that means..

UnMember I was talking about superheroes with my nephew and their different powers. I made the huge faux pas of asking what Flash Gordon's superpower was. I have never seen such a withering look eminate from a six year old as he informed me, his voice filled with contempt and dismay, that Flash Gordon didn't have superpowers because he isn't a superhero. So it can't be him!

"Well George Clooney did once play Batman..."

May have been said but marvel already have an openly gay superhero and the character is marrying his boyfriend soon. Don't see what the big deal is.

Why is there an assumption that it will be one of the male superheros?

Possibly Balamory, SeaHouses. Although I think they featured a wedding in one of their umpty-billion episodes. And there are children in it so some implication of conception at some point.

Interestingly Balamory is also the only programme for small children I can think of that features without comment two people of the same sex living together (the nature of their relationship is never discussed and they could be relatives, friends, or romantic partners -- but even the act of living in the same house doesn't seem to have been done anywhere else).

If it comes to that, DC already have two, I think -- Apollo and the Midnighter are under the DC banner.

Panda, I think because (a) DC already have a mainstream, moderately high-profile, lesbian character so wouldn't be making this much fuss about writing a minor female character as gay and (b) they don't have all that many women so it's statistically more likely to be a man.

Good points Casey and I've just seen the quote from the DC rep referring to a he!

I thought Wonder Woman was gay? Didn't she come from an ancient greek island where they were only women and had relationships with each other? If not, I have NO idea what I watched!

I don't get the fuss tbh. Why make a big deal out of whether he's gay or straight? I agree with the poster who said you never hear of anyone being described as openly straight!

If society is to accept homosexuality as the norm along with hetrosexuality (and of course it should) then why highlight it at all? I'm obviously missing something.

"If not, I have NO idea what I watched!"

Porn?

Balamory is all about diversity though. There is definitely something a bit deviant about PC Plum.

Shudders at the thought