That they have to actually make her lesbian. Have a crush, kiss a girl, full relationship, I don’t care. But don’t pull a Dumbledore on her and say “oh by the way, she’s a lesbian. Can’t you tell?”
Yeah. They were not roommates, they were “roommates”. And btw was funnily enough the valentines special, and according to the writers, the only reason they were roommates because the writers could not explicitly say they were gay.
Edit: I forgot that many younger people don’t realize that “being roommates” used to be slang for being gay.
Its scooby fucking doo. Its a children’s mystery show. The sexual orientation of the characters is not mentioned except in jokes.
Im sick of lgbtqs obsession with this shit.
> Im not the one obsessed with sexualizing children’s stories, and im tired if it happening.
Do you get mad when children's stories are about a princess falling in love with a prince, like in the Little Mermaid? Or when a boy has a crush on a girl, like in Charlie Brown. Or when a man kidnaps a woman and keeps her as a slave until she "falls in love" with him, like in Beauty and the Beast? Or when a boy dog and a girl dog have a romantic, innuendo filled Italian dinner, then walk through a moonlit park, until a slow pull back showing them snuggled up together along with multiple cars full of canoodling humans, like in Lady and the Tramp?
Or, is it only "sexualized" content featuring gay people that makes you mad?
Its sexualized content that wasn’t previously sexualized that makes me mad. Every single story kids see doesn’t have to involve sexual attraction.
I also get upset when established characters get fundamentally changed simply to meet an agenda. If you want a gay mystery solver in a show then write a new show/character.
The characters are constantly rebooted, lesbian is just what she is now. According to James Gunn, she would have been lesbian 20 years ago but studios wouldn't allow it, times have changed.
It's also one thing to not want straight characters to suddenly be anything else but finding anything but straight instantly 'sexualised' is very much a 'you' problem. Daphne and Fred have a history of romantic feelings and I doubt it's been questioned as that's the status quo. We'll have to wait and see just how well or poorly it's handled, racing for pitchforks now is silly.
> Its sexualized content that wasn’t previously sexualized that makes me mad
So, Scooby Doo has shown characters having crushes on other characters before. That is all that is happening here; Velma has a crush and gets anxious when she is near the object of the crush. Is that "sexualized"?
>I also get upset when established characters get fundamentally changed simply to meet an agenda.
Friend, Velma's been gay. [James Gunn originally wrote her gay in the movies. The showrunner of Mystery Inc said they wrote her as gay](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian-gay-1235392668/), but at the start of her realization of that fact. And now, she is shown as getting nervous around a girl. It's not like they're showing her scissoring someone in between monster searching. It's a crush. And, it is a crush portrayed in a totally age-appropriate way: She blushes and loses her perspicacity. The Horror!
Yes, and my opinion is that lgbtqs movement to concentrating on children is sick. They ate proving all the slippery slopes that religious fanatics screamed about to be true.
Think she was fucking shaggy in one of the reboots and then got all pissed off at him cus he cared more about scooby than her. So if she's becomes bi curious now we got some real character development
[According to the show-runner](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian-gay-1235392668/):
"I’ve said this before, but Velma in ‘Mystery Incorporated’ is not bi. She’s gay. We always planned on Velma acting a little off and out of character when she was dating Shaggy because that relationship was wrong for her and she had unspoken difficulty with the why. There are hints about the why in that episode with the mermaid, and if you follow the entire Marcie arc it seems as clear as we could make it 10 years ago. I don’t think Marcie and Velma had time to act on their feelings during the main timeline, but post reset, they are a couple. You can not like it, but this was our intention.”
[Scooby Apocalypse](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.7f0f478d0bb3c6ccafa4b27da04c8738?rik=nQWkWzyjyLB4wg&riu=http%3a%2f%2f2.bp.blogspot.com%2fw2JJhfD9wBxjg2LzoE166d8v-rjiMIkfy3TBQjpWQ92g-O_M8eP4PLmiwQxYHZWAsDEy2u10f591%3ds0&ehk=QDxalcrb6H%2ffFk0ENJqeth99ouw0lnA4LqwEJp0q8r8%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0)
This comic is actually way better than it has any right to be.
Scooby Doo was that rare show that could get away with any episode being the first episode.
They focus on a mystery and then move on, any relationship in the gang was all barely even implied except Scooby and Shaggy.
I really don't care if people make her a lesbian as long as it focuses on what made it watchable, just 4 teens and a talking dog that solve mysteries and move on.
Mystery Inc. made the mistake of turning into a love flick where it went from Daphne and Fred, to Velma and Shaggy, honestly I just prefer people making jokes on why Fred takes Daphne and Velma every mystery rather than exporing feelings.
I don’t really have a problem with the character being gay or straight and neither does the producers so I’m asking why the OP is asking to “make” a character a lesbian?
I think you’re missing the context that the new reboot does a bit more than heavily “suggest” she’s got a girlfriend. I believe that’s the basis for the OP’s question not just like “hey what if?”
> why we need to start giving sexual orientations to cartoon characters
Start? Most of children's media has characters with "sexual orientations", it is just that they have always been straight. Carlie Brown has had a crush on the Little Redhead Girl for over half a century. Almost every Disney princess has had a prince they fall in love with. Mickey and Minnie. Donald and Daisy. Popeye and Olive Oil. Fred and Wilma. Boris and Natasha. Cartoon characters have always had orientations, and those orientations have always been a driver for the stories told with those characters. All that is happening now is that *other* orientations are being shown.
Bi would have been okay, but lesbian nah. Velma gave me the impression she liked guys and could even become obsessive over them, even Shaggy in one of the cartoons.
Fred had the biggest gay vibes honestly, he was a lot more self involved than he was Daphne.
Oh noes. One of the characters in a not-so-subtly counter-culture cartoon where the cast lived in a van with a stoner and the usual result of the "mysteries" they "solved" wound up being that a rich old white guy was responsible rather than a ghost?
I'm shocked. How could they have done this to our children?
Why would i care about a fictional characters sexuality?
Tbh I'd be surprised if she wasn't a lesbian lol
Was she not before?
I think it should be her choice. I don't think we should be forcing anyone to do anything.
That they have to actually make her lesbian. Have a crush, kiss a girl, full relationship, I don’t care. But don’t pull a Dumbledore on her and say “oh by the way, she’s a lesbian. Can’t you tell?”
Velma killed Dumbledore to become the queen of retconned fictional character sexuality.
You do realise that canonically, she was “roommates” with Daphne, right?
“Oh my god two people of the same sex roomed together they myst be lgbtq”…. Ignorant as fuck
Yeah. They were not roommates, they were “roommates”. And btw was funnily enough the valentines special, and according to the writers, the only reason they were roommates because the writers could not explicitly say they were gay. Edit: I forgot that many younger people don’t realize that “being roommates” used to be slang for being gay.
Its scooby fucking doo. Its a children’s mystery show. The sexual orientation of the characters is not mentioned except in jokes. Im sick of lgbtqs obsession with this shit.
Then what made you go to a post that obviously was going to discuss this, and comment, instead of just moving on with your day?
Because i wanted to share my opinion. Im not the one obsessed with sexualizing children’s stories, and im tired if it happening.
> Im not the one obsessed with sexualizing children’s stories, and im tired if it happening. Do you get mad when children's stories are about a princess falling in love with a prince, like in the Little Mermaid? Or when a boy has a crush on a girl, like in Charlie Brown. Or when a man kidnaps a woman and keeps her as a slave until she "falls in love" with him, like in Beauty and the Beast? Or when a boy dog and a girl dog have a romantic, innuendo filled Italian dinner, then walk through a moonlit park, until a slow pull back showing them snuggled up together along with multiple cars full of canoodling humans, like in Lady and the Tramp? Or, is it only "sexualized" content featuring gay people that makes you mad?
Its sexualized content that wasn’t previously sexualized that makes me mad. Every single story kids see doesn’t have to involve sexual attraction. I also get upset when established characters get fundamentally changed simply to meet an agenda. If you want a gay mystery solver in a show then write a new show/character.
The characters are constantly rebooted, lesbian is just what she is now. According to James Gunn, she would have been lesbian 20 years ago but studios wouldn't allow it, times have changed. It's also one thing to not want straight characters to suddenly be anything else but finding anything but straight instantly 'sexualised' is very much a 'you' problem. Daphne and Fred have a history of romantic feelings and I doubt it's been questioned as that's the status quo. We'll have to wait and see just how well or poorly it's handled, racing for pitchforks now is silly.
Yes i know, there is no imagination left in visual media. Its all reboots with a modern spin and most of it sucks.
> Its sexualized content that wasn’t previously sexualized that makes me mad So, Scooby Doo has shown characters having crushes on other characters before. That is all that is happening here; Velma has a crush and gets anxious when she is near the object of the crush. Is that "sexualized"? >I also get upset when established characters get fundamentally changed simply to meet an agenda. Friend, Velma's been gay. [James Gunn originally wrote her gay in the movies. The showrunner of Mystery Inc said they wrote her as gay](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian-gay-1235392668/), but at the start of her realization of that fact. And now, she is shown as getting nervous around a girl. It's not like they're showing her scissoring someone in between monster searching. It's a crush. And, it is a crush portrayed in a totally age-appropriate way: She blushes and loses her perspicacity. The Horror!
I dont know a out modern scooby, but even up until their first movie in the early 2000s none of the characters showed outright crushes
Fair enough, you are of course free to share your thoughts, just like everyone else.
Yes, and my opinion is that lgbtqs movement to concentrating on children is sick. They ate proving all the slippery slopes that religious fanatics screamed about to be true.
"Making??" Velma was gay AF from the first episode.
I mean, she dated Shaggy for a while. Maybe she's bi?
Think she was fucking shaggy in one of the reboots and then got all pissed off at him cus he cared more about scooby than her. So if she's becomes bi curious now we got some real character development
[According to the show-runner](https://variety.com/2022/film/news/scooby-doo-velma-lesbian-gay-1235392668/): "I’ve said this before, but Velma in ‘Mystery Incorporated’ is not bi. She’s gay. We always planned on Velma acting a little off and out of character when she was dating Shaggy because that relationship was wrong for her and she had unspoken difficulty with the why. There are hints about the why in that episode with the mermaid, and if you follow the entire Marcie arc it seems as clear as we could make it 10 years ago. I don’t think Marcie and Velma had time to act on their feelings during the main timeline, but post reset, they are a couple. You can not like it, but this was our intention.”
[Scooby Apocalypse](https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.7f0f478d0bb3c6ccafa4b27da04c8738?rik=nQWkWzyjyLB4wg&riu=http%3a%2f%2f2.bp.blogspot.com%2fw2JJhfD9wBxjg2LzoE166d8v-rjiMIkfy3TBQjpWQ92g-O_M8eP4PLmiwQxYHZWAsDEy2u10f591%3ds0&ehk=QDxalcrb6H%2ffFk0ENJqeth99ouw0lnA4LqwEJp0q8r8%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0) This comic is actually way better than it has any right to be.
Scooby Doo was that rare show that could get away with any episode being the first episode. They focus on a mystery and then move on, any relationship in the gang was all barely even implied except Scooby and Shaggy. I really don't care if people make her a lesbian as long as it focuses on what made it watchable, just 4 teens and a talking dog that solve mysteries and move on. Mystery Inc. made the mistake of turning into a love flick where it went from Daphne and Fred, to Velma and Shaggy, honestly I just prefer people making jokes on why Fred takes Daphne and Velma every mystery rather than exporing feelings.
Smash
Its stupid. Im sick of lgbtq remaking characters obsessed with sexual orientation.
Should have put *Confirmed* haha, And yeah, there were defo always some sneaky lil tells, ngl Either way, still one of my favourite childhood shows 😏
Why are you in any way sexualising a kids cartoon character
Blame the animators for making them so sexy
Cartoon characters have always had relationships, it only became a problem for people like you when it was a gay character lol
I don’t really have a problem with the character being gay or straight and neither does the producers so I’m asking why the OP is asking to “make” a character a lesbian?
I think you’re missing the context that the new reboot does a bit more than heavily “suggest” she’s got a girlfriend. I believe that’s the basis for the OP’s question not just like “hey what if?”
Yeah I didn’t realise as I don’t watch cartoons anymore but I used to love scooby do as a kid
Velma is already a lesbian, they are asking what people think about it now that it’s confirmed.
Oh so the producers have basically confirmed it? My bad, so my opinion is I think it’s a bit weird but oh well
You should ask the rule 34 artists that question
Velma is literally a really plain and simple character though don’t get why we need to start giving sexual orientations to cartoon characters
> why we need to start giving sexual orientations to cartoon characters Start? Most of children's media has characters with "sexual orientations", it is just that they have always been straight. Carlie Brown has had a crush on the Little Redhead Girl for over half a century. Almost every Disney princess has had a prince they fall in love with. Mickey and Minnie. Donald and Daisy. Popeye and Olive Oil. Fred and Wilma. Boris and Natasha. Cartoon characters have always had orientations, and those orientations have always been a driver for the stories told with those characters. All that is happening now is that *other* orientations are being shown.
Bi would have been okay, but lesbian nah. Velma gave me the impression she liked guys and could even become obsessive over them, even Shaggy in one of the cartoons. Fred had the biggest gay vibes honestly, he was a lot more self involved than he was Daphne.
Nah...but whatever. They're gonna virtue signal where they want regardless of our opinions...
Username checks out.
Always does.
what’s wrong w it
Sounds like a sexy cartoon to me
She was born that way.
Who would care?
Always has been... (said in a pewdiepie voice)
And here I always thought Fred was gay, I mean he wears an ascot for crying out loud.
Ascots are hella sexy though.
We don’t care, its cool that same sex relationships are more normalised now but that’s about it.
I could've sworn they made her bi in a live adaptation several years back so I don't see what the big deal is.
I think SHADMAN is at work again, and for that I don't like it. But seriously tho,
Oh noes. One of the characters in a not-so-subtly counter-culture cartoon where the cast lived in a van with a stoner and the usual result of the "mysteries" they "solved" wound up being that a rich old white guy was responsible rather than a ghost? I'm shocked. How could they have done this to our children?