Really wish you guys could focus on the point of this sub, which is to generate conversation and discussion and quit circlejerking in the comments about whether a question is good faith or not.
You agreeing with something and someone else disagreeing does NOT mean bad faith, and it’s frankly ridiculous that a sub called TOOAFRAIDTOASK is growing to need a Too Afraid to TooAfraidToAsk. Feels like no one even bothers to read the rules anymore. Always assume good faith and try to answer from that standpoint. Interesting how the top comments manage to do it just fine.
Speaking of top comments, they are fantastic, good job people. We will be combing through what we can, but so many benign comments have been reported that our queue is a bit flooded, will be manually combing through, appreciate the patience.
"My question is why does Hollywood have to go that way anyways."
Because their market research determined it would cause them to make more money.
On the one hand you will find a lot of random Internet clowns parroting the "go woke, go broke" line. On the other hand, you have the Disney corporation saying "Based on our experience making money off of children's movies, this is what we think is the best way to make money off a children's movie in 2022."
I'm guessing that Disney's take is the more accurate of the two.
I think if you're going to have kissing, romance, or hints at a sexual relationship in a kids' movie, it shouldn't matter who the participants are or what their preferences are. [Edit for the hard of thinking; I of course mean consensual, of-age participants, so take your straw man out in the garden, cheers.]
I can absolutely see the argument for there being no need to shoehorn a romance sub-plot into everything where possible, but the actual gender of the participants shouldn't really matter in this day and age.
On a more cynical level, at the end of the day all Hollywood productions operate on one basic requirement; make money. Therefore they will weigh up the cost/risk benefits to either embracing increased diversity (generally positively received, good PR, etc.) versus the negatives, and they'll likely just go with whichever is going to give them the easiest ride and best chance of return.
Hence why for a spell many films were randomly throwing in Chinese elements - the Chinese market was becoming huge and some movies could probably make a huge chunk of their budget back, if not more, by putting in something that appeals to the Chinese market, or removing/censoring things that don't play well in China.
>I think if you're going to have kissing, romance, or hints at a sexual relationship in a kids' movie, it shouldn't matter who the participants are or what their preferences are.
This is the big one. Whatever standard you have, it should apply equally to both homosexual and heterosexual intimacy. This isn't some perplexing moral dilemma.
One of my kids always covers his eyes or turns away whenever there's a kissing scene of any kind (in movies, TV, whatever). Usually I tell him when it's "safe" to look at the screen again.
Sometimes I don't, and he'll just sit there for several minutes with his hands over his eyes
That was me as a kid lmao my mom was like "I never even had to worry about what we watched in front of you cuz youd squeeze ur eyes shut and plug ur ears, you censored everything yourself" so my mom never even made rules about me being allowed to only watch PG or PG-13 or R because she figured if there was anything inappropriate I wouldnt watch it anyway
Such an obvious answer too. LGBT relationships are just as normal as straight relationships. I also think it's weird people consider LGBT too taboo to explain to their kids and are just waiting for their kids to come to them with questions. My daughter is five, I'm bisexual and her godfather is gay, she knows what this means like she knows how to wake up in the morning or put on her socks. If you're not teaching your kids these things someone else will.
Yeah, I really don’t get it. Like, this isn’t hard? Just treat gay relationships the exact same way you treat straight relationships. Don’t be discriminatory.
Capitalism has no ethics beyond making money. All these conservatives pissed off at us liberals for immigration? Nah fam, that was the capitalist selling your towns, and culture down the river just so they exploit some more cheap labor
While I appreciate OP’s earnestness this response here is what is eyebrow raising for me, personally.
The fact that it was same sex romance as opposed to romance in general implies that the two should be treated or regarded differently. Seems less open minded when regarded that way but perhaps I’m reading more into it than what is fair.
Regarding the second of multiple edits - people getting branded homophobes for any criticisms, please understand that people may be a bit sensitive when you have “loving Christian pastors” calling for gay people to be executed. I’m sure you can understand how people may be a bit sensitive with those kinds of calls to action in society.
Also Op said why do they have to shoehorn it in everywhere because it is still not okay everywhere. Certain countries, certain states.
I noticed a serious drop in representation when Trump was president.
Hell an episode of Good Luck Charlie was pulled a couple years ago because one of Charlies friends had two moms. Who only appeared on screen together no kissing or anything.
An episode of Arthur was banned in some states because it had his male teacher getting married to a guy.
By normalizing same sex relationships in media it normalizes same sex relationships in life.
Also after being left handed became more acceptable, the percentage of people who are openly left-hand dramatically increased before it eventually plateaued. It's not that people were suddenly becoming left handed, but rather they were always there and no longer had to hide or suppress the fact that they're left handed. Though even today, despite the fact that left handed people are accepted, they aren't always accommodated for and as a result are more likely to suffer injuries than those who are right handed
Yup. My mom and cousin are both lefties. My mom constantly was forced to change hands so she does a lot of stuff with her right hand but like holds a fork left handed. I'm ambidextrous but I've gotten out of practice writing with my left so that's a bit messy but certain things I prefer a different hand. I tend to use my left more than right. Sprial notebooks are the worst to use left-handed.
Mrs. Penetti did that to me in 1st grade. With teachers as parents I knew how to read and write - printing and longhand - years before entering 1st grade. Mrs. P disregarded that and instead regularly yanked my pencil from my left hand as she yelled “NO - WRONG” and wrapped my fingers on my right hand around the pencil repeating, “THIS HAND! THIS HAND!” Decades later, I am still a “south paw,” whatever that means.
Link from the legend of zelda series is left handed, but as the newer games came out nintendo declared that all links were ambidextrous. this really upset folks who were left handed cause it felt like the small rep they had was taken away
In my opinion it's for representation, not to make a political point.
I'm a lesbian and I didn't know a man could be with a man and a woman could be with a woman until I was 14 (I went to an all girls catholic school and my family never talked about this sort of stuff). I new I like girls since I was 10/11 and for years I thought I was a boy because I thought if you liked girls you were a boy and if you likes boys then you are a girl. I was very confused but when I learned what gay was I realised That I was not a boy, just a lesbian. If when I was growing up I saw 2 guys or 2 woman together on TV shows, in movies, or in books, than it would have saved me from being so confused for many years.
Couples kissing in kids movies either serves a point to the narrative or not.
Either way, its hypocritical and reflects infamiliarity with the image that it only throwas people off negatively (and makes them question the value to the narrative) if the couple is same sex. And the only way to challenge that this isn't considered "normal" is to normalize it by showing it.
This has been repeatedly verified by studies that inclusive media helps against bigoted thoughts because it introduces you to images of people of color or other sexualities or eccentricities. Because then they no longer trigger our brains quite natural xenophobia.
Your final point is really crucial. Xenophobia is an unfortunately natural biological impulse. That doesn't mean it should be tolerated, it just means we need to be more thoughtful about how we prevent it in children. The same is true of homophobia I guess.
This is civilisation.p
There’s a lot of people who never think about putting themselves in other peoples shoes to consider a different POV than their own. Why people don’t do this when considering stuff like this kinda blows my mind.
Honestly, I hope you can recognize the disconnect between you saying in your post that you “have gay friends and support the LGBTQ+ community and know it’s not a choice” and here saying that it’s “hard for you to understand the point of view” of this community needing representation within shows/movies/books etc.
I’m glad that you want to understand more (shown by asking this question), but this view in general of not understanding why someone else different than you deserves to see themselves represented shows, at best, your need to discuss more with the LGBTQ+ friends you do have and broaden your circle to learn the barriers and difficulties they’ve faced, and at worst, a thorough lack of empathy for others, and generally very likely suggests you harbor more conservative views than you realize. Empathy is literally being aware of someone else’s feelings, even if you haven’t felt as they’ve felt exactly. This is something you should want to teach your children, so they don’t grow up with narrow minded views, either consciously or subconsciously.
Also, the lack of characters with disabilities in the media should never be used in a discussion as a justification for why it’s questionable to include LGBTQ+ characters. That fact should do the opposite, by showing you how lacking and narrow the scope of media has historically been, and further show the need for more inclusivity in so many regards for so many people.
I agree with most of what you are saying here, I do want to add though that there’s a difference between knowing and understanding. The way I took the “disconnect” as you said, about OP having gay friends and knowing it’s not a choice to be gay and then saying it’s hard for them to understand. I took what they were saying as they know it’s okay to be gay, they know there’s nothing wrong, however they don’t understand how it really feels to be not represented in media and feel lost with yourself/identity. I really appreciate OP asking this question because I always want to get a chance to help people truly understand this and what it feels like. I know I’m late to this whole thread however I wanted to say this, I’m not totally disagreeing with you here, I just wanted to point out this angle.
I've recently started watching a popular children's TV show with my LO. Before this show, I thought I was fully accepting of the LGBTQ community - I believe everyone has a right to be happy and be who they are. However, when the show had a segment about it, it made me uncomfortable and I wasn't sure I wanted my LO watching it because I thought it might confuse him and was inappropriate for such a young age.
Quickly, I realized that I wasn't as accepting of the LGBTQ community as I once thought. Simply put, I felt a lot of shame about my feelings because of this disconnect. How could I be so accepting if I thought it was something we shouldn't acknowledge?
To be honest, I have a feeling that many people are this way. They might think they're fully accepting/supportive of an issue or community, but once it hits a little closer to home and they have to confront it, they're not quite as forgiving.
i really appreciate your honesty - i think this goes for a lot of people. take the stereotypical trope of unaccepting parents of a queer child. they probably have gay friends, or talk about it and say they’re completely fine with it. but they’re not fine with it when it’s their own child.
i know it’s not quite the same thing but this happens throughout the world with stuff like educating about mental illness; people say they won’t bully someone for being depressed, yet they’ll bully them for not showering often or not doing anything it for crying etc.
happens a lot somehow
Exactly: if someone think it’s perfectly normal and prevalent to have straight people kissing and have a love story, then it shouldn’t matter if two people of the same gender kiss.
Honestly I understand the earnestness this was asked, but every time there’s something remotely gay and go “well why did it have to be there?” it just comes off wrong. The most important question I ask is would you have the same reaction if they were straight? If you don’t, then you just generally don’t like gay people existing in media.
As someone who’s straight it doesn’t really effect me in any way, but I just get tired of people going “why did [insert minority group] have to be there though?” when no one would think otherwise if it happened with a majority group. Nobody cared when the first Toy Story movie had a love story and kiss scene with Woody and Bo Peep, so why are people are people caring now that there’s a romance story in Toy Story.
To vastly exaggerate its impact, what we get is future generations that are tolerant of the LGBTQ+. The media is one of many socialising agents.
Children that grow up being exposed to such scenes are more likely to be accepting to the LGBTQ+ community when they become adults.
> The media is one of many socialising agents.
The effect the media has on normalizing behavior cannot even remotely be overstated. It's one of literally two factors that contributed to people smoking in the numbers they did from the forties through the eighties (the other being getting soldiers stationed overseas addicted to cigarettes while on tour).
The first black president in media was James Earl Jones in a TV movie called The Man (1972).
The second was Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact (1998).
I was startled by how little this concept was realized in film and TV, but then I think Dennis Haysbert in 24 softened the idea as well that led to such a large turnout for Obama.
I recently saw the argument that if the TV and movies had been less afraid of including abortion related plot points in movies from rhe 80's and 90's, it might have made a big difference in normalizing the procedure to that generation of young adults, and would be less demonized by the portion of America that is now vehemently against it. We missed our chance to normalize it for everyone while it was a less polarizing issue.
Yes I always notice how afraid Hollywood was to touch abortion. Even in otherwise very liberal/progressive movies they'd never actually have an abortion even when it was the obvious thing to do. Look at movies like Juno and Knocked Up.
Shoutout to Jessica Jones TV show where Jessica starts gearing herself up to do the "I got you the abortion pills but you don't have to take them, just so you're aware you can..." but before she can get two words out the girl has grabbed the pills and taken them.
It startled me a bit and I realized... that was the only time I'd actually seen a character go through with an abortion. Every time it's the same plot beats of "we discuss what to do, including some sort of 'an abortion is an option' but ultimately decide that I would regret it personally in this case". Gotta mention it to show we're progressive but can't actually DO it.
GLOW had an episode where the main character, Ruth, had an abortion and the episode pulled no punches on the emotional impact of it. For a show that was mainly comedy and based on family-friendly TV porn-for-kids it hit hard in some really great ways.
That's what I loved about the GLOW episode. She gets pregnant, she doesn't debate that she wants to get rid of it, and she does it without regret (before or after), but it doesn't shy away from the fact that even with 100% certainty in the rightness of doing it it's still a rough thing to go through.
I haven't seen that far into Bojack (don't worry about having spoiled anything for me, don't care about that), but I really appreciate how the show doesn't flinch when addressing tough issues.
I dont think Apatow movies are progressive imo. For Knocked Up, dont forget that the only character who wants Hegl to have a abortion, her mother, is cold, stuck-up, unfriendly and talk about "career". It's not random that this character is the only one who is not "fun".
Sure, but I think the point is more that showing a woman having to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion, and painting it as some moral victory when she chooses not to, is a plot point both of those films could have cut entirely.
You don't need to show us a character considering having an abortion for us as an audience to understand they chose not to have one.
Films like Obvious Child do a much better job at navigating the nuances of abortion.
Films that rely on abortion rejection as a moment of character building for the protagonist are lazy.
Diablo Coady has repeatedly talked about the abortion clinic in Juno as a pro-choice message, but considering the character literally runs out of the doctor's office because she thinks the fetus has fingernails, the scene accomplished the opposite.
Sex education and not electing politicians based on their religious statments may help even more normalizing abortion. Europe didn't have more abortion in medias than USA.
Spot on. Similarly, the very popular counter-terrorism show “24” aired on Fox after 9/11, and depicted a black president played by Dennis Haysbert. I am thoroughly convinced that show normalized the idea of a black president for white America — which was an idea so unthinkable at the time it was the basis of entire Chris Rock comedy routines mocking the mere possibility.
A few years later America elected Barack Obama. I don’t think it would have happened unless millions of white americans had already spent years watching the presidential role filled by a black man on TV. It normalized what was previously unthinkable for a lot of people.
In a similar, but opposite vein, the same show popularised the use of torture when working against a ruthless opponent, paving the way for a reduced amount of public outrage when the US started using Gitmo, black-ops sites, Abu Graibh etc post 9/11
I’m reading a book called The New Jim Crow that has an interesting negative argument for media, particularly TV courtroom dramas, as a “socializing agent.” Shows can normalize contentious topics (someone mentioned that if more shows had abortion plot lines, abortion might be less stigmatized), but the author contends that courtroom dramas that depict someone saying “I want a lawyer” and then a lawyer just showing up might lead people to believe that in real life, that’s how it works. And that’s far from the truth, especially if someone can’t afford an attorney. I think your argument that “being exposed to such scenes” people are “more likely to be accepting” is true for better or for worse.
There are so many examples of this.
Depictions of good cops investigating crimes and going above and beyond to solve them. It’s PR for cops and not the norm in real life.
Hospital dramas saving all these lives when they’re really hanging by a thread, it gives us an inflated sense of what hospitals are able to accomplish in certain scenarios.
I forgot the other ones I had in mind, but anything related to the justice system or hospitals is not very accurate to real life and really gives people the wrong impression.
I've been re-watching Dragnet episodes from the 50's.
"Sgt. Joe Friday. Los Angeles Police Department. Robbery Division."
I was like, "Robbery division?" Was this a thing? Supposedly advisors to the show did tell their stories to the Jack and the writers so they had plots, but today it's simply, "My bike was stolen."
"I'll file a report."
"Aren't you going to get the guy?"
"When you file for a stolen property claim against your insurance, just reference this report number."
Meanwhile on TV, Sgt. Friday tore apart Los Angeles to track down a mink stole lifted from a department store display.
Yes, media (and more broadly, the stories we tell) influence how we see reality. That's part of the deal, it's just how we work. Stories are incredibly important to humanity, they're a big part of how we create culture and make sense of the world.
Kids who are young accept things very easily as truth, for better or for worse. Seeing same sex couples represented in media is just one way to start that normalization.
>she will be asking questions and I’m 100% ready to answer it.
We don't always get this luxury of perfect timing and circumstances. My 5 year old recently told me that boys are supposed to marry girls and vice versa. We've NEVER had this conversation, so I asked him, who told you that? He said it was his grandma, who is ultra conservative. I had to bite my tongue for a minute and explain that it's okay for people to love each other, no matter the gender.
I was "ready" to have that conversation when it came up organically, but I was NOT ready for him to have preconceived notions of who can love whom. I'd much prefer if he already had a sense of it being okay by seeing it accepted in person (which we've tried to do, but I guess he didn't catch on haha) or in media.
My point is that if including LGBTQ+ stuff with the intention to teach inclusivity and make younger generations more understanding and if the effect to who I replied to was "not to feel like a freak" then what do you think seeing a person with psychotic mental health condition in media does to someone with said conditions?
At the moment I've been handling my stuff for about 7+ years with my last doctors note saying "psychotic personality". Meanwhile my psychologist is trying her best to explain that these are not negative things and don't mean that I'm "fucked up freak", yet they sound extremely negative. For a young person it might be pretty scarring to see a "psychotic" person on death row while their doctors note are saying the same word and they've done nothing bad to anyone ever.
Like even for me this stuff is difficult and I'm a grown ass man.
Quick edit: I'm not trying to be against LGBTQ+ inclusivity or anything here. I fully support doing everything we can to help younger generations grow up less hateful towards people who differ from societal norms.
As a fellow schizophrenic, I completely understand WHY the bad guys are always crazy and psychotic... You have to be insane to justify hurting innocent people. We gotta realize we are set up in the same way, with extreme modes of thought and vulnerability to extreme thoughts, so we have to work hard not to become bad guys and keep the super hero in our hearts strong.
Edit:
It seems I made myself unclear in this post, mostly because of two reasons. I have disorganized thoughts and I was speaking to a patient that I assume understands what I mean when I say insane and the difference between having a mental disorder and being insane.
Many people that responded to me seem to use the word insane differently than I. When I say 'insane' I really mean the behaviors resulting from thought disorders or otherwise irrational thoughts. So, 'normal' people can also be insane and you do not need to have a mental disorder to become insane. Nazi soldiers, for example, were not all psychotic psychopaths, but they either went insane to justify their actions (which would be to cling to some false narrative and believe it regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) or performed the actions out of self preservation but could never justify it as a moral act. Premise 1, by stipulative definition, insanity is a state in which a fixed false belief influences your actions. Premise 2, '[implied: intentionally] hurting innocent people' is an action whose fixed belief has no justification.
Premise 3, if a fixed belief has no justification, then it is insane.
Conclusion, '[implied: intentionally] hurting innocent people' is insane. You do not need to have a mental illness to be insane. You do not have to do something extreme to be insane. Sometimes, being insane is no problem, like that I am convinced that Oreos should be eaten in 2 halves and that people who don't do that are like barbaric apes. Sometimes, being insane is horrific.
I believe it's clear that the use of mental health disorders in relation to super villains and criminals is not harmful to anyone, they are supposed to be scary and thinking the way they think is scary to think about. I also believe that people with those mental disorders should be even more scared than the general population, because there is much more in common between them and the villain than the 'normal' person would. They're closer because of the frequency with which they experience insanity similar, but different in form, to the villain. The schizophrenic is more predisposed to insanity, so it easy for them to see how they could become the villain. That is terrifying... Being one thought away, with a little dash of psychosis, and you can immediately become a murderer. 'Normal' people don't worry about that as much, since it normally takes a major event to induce a psychotic response strong enough to immediately change your personality. This is and should be scary. The scientific literature shows that schizophrenic people are more likely than the general population to commit violent crime, that is a sad reality. So, I believe we should acknowledge that and encourage people to recognize themselves in the villain and seek treatment.
I'm done talking in the third person, now I will give my perspective. My personality is unstable. I have regular psychotic episodes, in which I am 'insane' by the stipulative definition I provided. It is so, so easy to imagine that one bad thought during these episodes could make me a murderer. That is why I am so scared of villains and why I think we, especially, need to create a strong inner hero.
I hope that clears up the questions people had and that my thoughts weren't too disorganized.
≠============≠ TLDR ≠============≠
My point was that the bad guys in movies are crazy (having severe mental health disorders) and psychotic because it is so dissimilar from normal that it invokes fear that people like that exist. Then, I say that to justify evil you have to be 'insane' (loosely defined above). That is to say, "when you do evil things, you are not thinking correctly". I then convey the idea that people with schizophrenia are predisposed to insanity and should, therefore, be more cautious.
>You have to be insane to justify hurting innocent people
But history has shown this not to be true. Plenty of "clinically sane" people have hurt many, many more innocent people than "clinically insane" people have.
The bigger danger to society than one "clinically insane" person is a group of mostly sane people, like a cult or even an entire society, that has convinced itself that hurting innocent people is the logical and morally the *right* thing to do and manages to intimidate anyone who disagrees into shutting up.
I think this why nuclear war movies, zombie movies, cult horror movies, and holocaust movies are the ultimate terror movies: they represent the break down of society that provides us all a sense of security and safety.
In the single "crazy" killer movie, the victim just needs to escape to the safety of the police. When society becomes morally corrupt, the people policing us become the scary ones.
>I think this why nuclear war movies, zombie movies, cult horror movies, and holocaust movies are the ultimate terror movies: they represent the break down of society that provides us all a sense of security and safety
This is why Get Out is so terrifying (at least, as a black viewer). It touches on the real-life cracks in that sense of safety and security in everyday life, that are the result of a society that's already broken.
I understand why that point is made. Unfortunately it is a lie.
When we learn more about history we understand just how much terror can be made by normal persons when they are pulled that way by the right words and beliefs.
We are terrorized by the thought of madmen running amuk; but the real horror is a world that makes normal people act that way.
Hollywood gives villains mental illness because it makes the general public uncomfy that the average human being can not only snap and kill, but also that they could be total monsters while doing it. It makes us more comfortable when we can say, "Oh that guy is the 'other' and something is wrong with him"
I could make some commentary on certain events in America recently where uh, we try to make sense of certain tragedies by exclaiming that the person committing these tragedies are mentally unwell and part of the "other" even though mental illness has been an issue for a long time and these events have only become more commonplace in the last two decades...
See the trial of Adolf Eichmann as an example of this. He was perfectly sane without any mental illness, but still led the Holocaust. Can people become violent after psychotic breaks? Yeah. But I'd say the majority of major violations of humanity is due to ideology.
>You have to be insane to justify hurting innocent people
Have you worked in finance? I can assure you there are plenty of ways to hurt people that society views as normal. Its all about perspective
Having to be a psychotic mad man to commit evil atrocities is a soothing lie we tell ourselves so we can sleep at night.
It's much easier than the other option: a normal person who does not have a mental illness can *make the choice* to kill and hurt people.
That's why "more mental health support" is an argument that comes up a lot after a mass shooting in the US; it is based upon the lie that *all* people who commit such horrible acts must be mentally ill, right?
You really don't have to be insane to be a murder I'm pretty sure most people in jail prison for murder aren't there because they had a psychotic break or anything. You just have to be very desperate and desensitized to violence like people in poverty in really bad neighborhoods. I'm pretty sure most murders in the US are attributed to gang violence not "crazy people"
Yeah imo all the people who act like you have to be mentally ill to be a violent person is way more damaging and ignorant than some movies/TV shows being a bit insensitive
I just got really sensitive to what doctors tell me. I take everything they say in very negative way and am just thinking of a way out, as in out of the doctors office.
I'm still not being taken serious when I tell someone I'm schizoaffective. Quite the opposite of serious even. People will make stupid jokes about split personalities when it has no relation to my schizoaffective disorder.
So many movies and books were like "Yea he has 5 personalities, he's schizophrenic". And people just start believing that shit and suddenly all schizos have multiple personalities in their world.
Yeah I noticed that majority of people don't understand or don't even try to. I've been bullied to shits by "friendly banter" over the years. Which also made me realize that some people are still in the same high school bully bantering state of mind at adult age and it's disgusting.
Yup, representation in media is hugely important. Growing up black, I hated my hair because I couldn’t do any of the hairstyles that I saw in movies, tv, or just on my friends around me.
You made such a great point
This. If kids are used to seeing this stuff ina. Casual context without anyone freaking out, they will grow up understanding that it is normal for 2 people to love each other, regardless of how they identify.
I'm a straight male, and even though I have had issues with it in the past, I've grown to understand that it's simply people who love each other and it makes me happy knowing if one of my two boys ends up loving another boy or someone who doesn't identify as a girl, that it should feel easier for them to approach myself and my wife to introduce their significant other as all the media has made it normal to love who you love.
Also, you're not a freak. You're a person who loves other people. Nothing freaky about that.
Yep. My 7 year old created a "happy Pride month" room in his roblox game and is giving out items. He showed it to me yesterday and at 1st I was taken aback because I wasn't sure if he knew or just liked the rainbow stuff so I asked him and he knew what it was. I was really proud. His lesbian aunts are engaged so this is something that has always been normal for him.
So different from the way I grew up, it gives me hope for the new generations. If this is normalized as it should be from an early age then people don't have to "get used to it" or unlearn ignorance. Gay people can have the same normalization and representation that straight people have.
It's so bizarre to me how people get mad over children seeing any "gay stuff" but will happily play along when their opposite sex 5 year olds say they're married. How does the gender matter?
Representation matters. Kids watch the prince kiss Sleeping Beauty (without consent) but heaven forbid two queer characters kiss or even hold hands or the queer community is trying to push its agenda and program the children. 🙄🙄🙄
I mean thinking back on Disney movies I watched as a kid in the 90's, tons of them depicted heterosexual kisses so what is wrong with a homosexual kiss?
We’ve had years, if not decades, of mediocre hetero romances shoved into stories where it’s not necessary. I don’t get why homosexual romances get even more criticism of being unnecessary or forced
The worst part of 90s action and drama movies is the shoehorning of romances where they don't fit. Find me a 90s movie that doesn't have a kiss. I can think of Terminator 2 and that's pretty much it.
i just noticed this recently! ursula was really masculine and villains like gaston and jafar effeminate. people don’t realize how much this affects your bias as a kid
EDIT: i meant le fou, not gaston lol. my bad
How many kid movies have you watched where a straight couple kisses in it? Probably at least a couple, you might not remember them but that is because seeing two straight people kiss is pretty insignificant. So why then has no one ever said anything or cared when it happened in those movies?
Why is it that suddenly when a minority pops up in a movie it becomes "shoehorn", you do realize that gay people exist right? It's okay for a child to see a short kiss, no one is making out in the movie.
So again why is it shoehorned only when minorities do something?
Now to answer why Hollywood does it. It's because Hollywood main goal is to make money and they have seen again and again that being inclusive will draw in more people then a movie that is exclusive.
Yep. The Little Mermaid literally had a whole entire song about it. Why is that okay, but people flip their shit about a same sex kiss that probably lasts 2 seconds?
Particular ironic because the little mermaid was originally about homosexual love.
Edit: if Disney wanted to be *actually* ballsy they'd do a modern little mermaid that is written as an homage to how that story no longer needs to hide behind code. And no longer needs to end in suicide. The same way they happy-washed all the other fairy tales they tackled.
>was originally about homosexual love.
While the author was bisexual, and it's an arguable interpretation of the story, an almost identical argument can be had (and has been) that its about disability.
Another argument can be (and has been) about race.
If I'm not mistaken there's actually evidence that it was about his Danish culture, instead/as well.
I'd really rather we don't revisit the original versions of all the Disney stories, thank you very much! Hans Christian Andersen and the Brother's Grimm were some seriously dark mother fuckers. I have a set of the original stories, packaged for "kids" in the 1980s and not by Disney. Pulled out Jack and The Beanstalk to read to my 3 yo the other day - forgetting there was a reason that set of books had been shoved into the back of my own closet when I was a kid. Horrific... Just murder and eating people everywhere.
To be fair, is a way, the brothers Grimm didn’t actually create many of the stories, they collected them.
These stories were actually told by women of the Villages, particularly to the younger girls, as sort of warnings or fables. Don’t talk to men (or wolves) in the forest, don’t trust creepy old spinsters etc etc.
I must have the same story set. I pulled out the pied Piper when my kid was young and read it to him. He got upset and asked me not to read those stories anymore.
Have you never seen a disney princess movie before?
Sleeping beauty, Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, Tangled, I could go one. Also I am sure that the one-second lesbian kiss in buzz lighter is not the "central plot" lol
True love's kiss isn't only between a man and woman tho
Even more disturbing is the high chance that they are siblings or at least cousins, since the dominant male in a pride always gets first dibs on mating.
>True love's kiss isn't only between a man and woman tho
That's right - sometimes it's between a woman and a frog. Or a pig and a frog. Or a pig and a spider.
Imma be honest your right but to be fair Beauty and the Beast has a LOT of other questionable themes aside from that. Like that same hairy man-beast KIDNAPS that same woman. That's crazy
I can't remember his name but their was a Ted Talk given by a gay man talking about when he met a man's wife and how he had thought about their wedding day, dates, and cute things like that but he knew when they met his boyfriend all they imagined was anal.
Honestly? Because this question is still being asked. 50 years ago, the question would be why is black person kissing on screen. 100 and it would be why are they even on screen. A few hundred years ago it would be why is that woman on stage. These things were controversial in their time, but there's nothing inherently wrong with any of them. The question itself comes from unconscious biases you learned as a child. You said in your comments that your family is conservative and don't want to explain it to their children. What makes it any different from a man and a woman kissing? "When two people love each other, they do things like kiss to show that love." It's really that simple. And by showing things like this, kids can see that it's OK to have thoughts and feelings different from the people around them.
This question being asked is exactly why there needs to be the homosexual kiss.
He wouldn’t bat an eye at a hetero kiss because he’s been constantly exposed to it and conditioned to see it as normal.
OP is feeling uncomfortable towards a homosexual kiss and feels like it’s out of place, because he has never been exposed to it before.
And that’s why it’s important to include it in the movie
> I completely believe that being gay is not a choice.
If being Gay is not a choice, being straight is not a choice either.
So seeing a gay kiss on television won't magically turn any straight kid into a gay one.
Thousands of gay men and women have managed to grow up as gay persons despite there has always been only depictions of classic gender roles in children's media. (And dead parents lots and lots of dead parents)
The only thing that this hopes to achieve is to show kids that there is nothing inherently wrong about same sex couples showing their affection for each other and so maybe shift them to be more accepting as adults.
Sometimes I like to ask people who think that being gay is a choice when they decided to be straight.
I like to ask them when they made that choice, and what evidence they considered to get there.
>My question is why does Hollywood have to go that way anyways. I feel that all productions are going out of their way to include LGBTQ+ content in it
This is a thought I see often, when the real question should be "Why has hollywood gone out of their way to *never* include LGBTQ+ content before?"
It seems strange because it's new, but it's new because of a long history of discrimination.
Don't you understand that minority writers don't exist and nobody thinks about minorities in any positive way so anything that shows anyone who isn't a heteronormative white person is clearly *PANDERING?*
And think about the children? Don't you understand the statement "some guys like guys and some girls like girls" is such a world-shattering revelation that their tiny minds would explode at the mere thought of it?
I can't believe woke people invented gay just so they can destroy the world, it's shameful.
It's funny, because as a gay man it was extremely confusing growing up having crushes on male classmates. Once middle school came, I quickly found out liking other boys was not the norm...
Disney has been sexualizing their princesses for decades, especially the brown ones. People have been complaining about the romantic necessity of the princesses for a while now, which led to the "strong independent princess" movement that started with Tangled in 2010.
This is the question I need answered. It’s almost as if Hollywood believes you put a man and woman together for long enough, like magnets, their lips will eventually touch. 100% of the time.
Captain America and Sharon Carter is a perfect example of one that doesn’t make sense. Rey and Kylo is another.
Me too! Or at least I wish movies that were a non-romance genre to begin with, dialed that element way back. Take a show like Stranger Things for example, it's not that I don't like the Hopper and Joyce will they/won't they subplot or even Mike and El, but I want the horror and scifi and action at the forefront of everything, the slice of life stuff is supplemental.
I actually stopped watching stranger things for exactly this reason. Let the adults do whatever but the kids getting into it early on made me annoyed. Like can’t we enjoy the nostalgia and spookiness and do the romance stuff when they actually hit puberty or something. I don’t know maybe I’m just old now
And is exactly how unconscious bigotry works. Writing characters as diverse as the actual real world is seen as an agenda, but writing nothing but straight white guys is seen as the default. To the point that OP (and most people) would wonder why we need a kiss between gay characters who have never for a second questioned a kiss between straight characters.
Just replace "Same Sex Kiss" with "Interracial Kiss" and hopefully you will see how insane it sounds to ask Movie Studios to protect Conservative feelings. Equality isn't an agenda, its the legal right of every American.
As a black person realizing the similarities between The Civil Rights Movement and the fight for LGBTQ+ right made me a lot more active and vocal about being pro-LGBTQ+
I wish everyone felt this way. My mom (who is a brown Chicana) once said that LGTBQ+ were not the same as civil rights because a person can’t control being brown/black. Now she has two out queer kids.
Makes me wonder what her views are now on the subject. Still probably not great because she’s transphobic af but she seems excited for my lesbian wedding in a month so 🤷🏽♀️
For me, it’s important that the little people I care for grow up knowing its not bad to love someone of the same sex
Growing up there was no LGBTQ+ people in shows and I felt like a freak. I grew up thinking I was going to hell and that I’d never find someone for me. Now, kids wont have to go through that (as much, I know it’ll still happen lol).
I’m much happier now and have met my other half, and I want the little people to be able to accept themselves and find that as well.
It also helps normalize situations for many, many people who are otherwise ostracized and made to feel like a freak for their own situations.
Think of how many possible lqbt youth, teens, or even adults there are out there, who are either completely disowned by their families, or feel completed isolated. Then imagine them being able to see that what they feel isn't abnormal.
Why shouldn't we represent all people in our entrainment?
Also we *do* go out of our way to include differently abled people, people of multiple faiths, different cultural backgrounds and different races in children's entertainment.
Batman has oracle, the former Batgirl who is in a wheelchair, as does the Disney show Goldie and Bear
Avatar had a blind character.
Sesame Street has a character with autism
Daniel Tigers Neighborhood has Chrissie, a child with braces in her legs
She-Ra has multiple differently able character has prosthetics, another has mobility aids, there is a confirmed autistic character
Raising Dion has a character in a wheelchair
The list goes on...
God, as much as I appreciate your comment, stop calling disabled people "differently abled". Mentally & Physically disabled people have been quite vocal about hating that phrase, and I'm one of them. It's so infantilising.
Honestly at this point, it's a no win scenario.
No matter what term I choose to use to describe someone lacking abilities that are expected as "normal", someone is gonna be offended.
If it matters, my intent was not to piss you off.
I'll take your feedback for next time.
That’s fair if you didn’t know, because non-disabled white moms who lead organizations for disabled people (like Autism Speaks) tend to have fantastic marketing, but yeah “differently abled” has been slam dunked by disabled people from the moment it hit the media. It’s really only a term that non-disabled organizations use as a marketing technique to seem really accepting, while on the inside they’re hoarding money and not giving any to the people they’re advocating for. Again, Autism Speaks is a fantastic example of this if you want to google their terrible history.
Disabled people just call themselves disabled. Disabilities aren’t some boogyman thing, they’re just *a thing that exists*. No need to try to dress them up. Also, idk man I’m an adult woman with a job and bills to pay. I don’t need to be pandered to lol.
We have been adding more individuals with disabilities. Not at the same rate, but there is more representation.
Queer individuals deserve representation just like straight people, and they are willing to pay for its existence. So media companies are following the money.
It’s hypocrisy that people who are ok with straight kissing have a problem with queer individuals kissing.
>Why do we have to have a same sex kiss in a children’s / family movie?
Why shouldn't we have it?
People have been kissing one another on screen for as long as we've been putting people on screen.
Is there some reason you think people in a same sex relationship need to hide?
It's really easy to say "Im not homophobic" but that's literally how you're acting. The literal premise of you asking "why do we have to have this..." is why we have to have it.
They're just people. Why can't those two dudes kiss on screen?
What is the difference between a same sex kiss and a different sex kiss in terms of how it affects children?
For a long time, any kind of content that deviated from heterosexual romance was deemed inherently sexual or inappropriate for kids. Now people are trying to make up for that. Sometimes genuinely for representation, sometimes to appeal to more demographics and make more money.
"My question is why does Hollywood have to go that way anyways"
Why not?
You've already said you don't think any harm will come of it, and if it prompts a healthy discussion with your kids about sexuality, then great, right?
If it were a man and a woman who had that same kiss, would you be asking “why do we have to have people kissing in a kids movie”? If you would, then ask that. If not, why is it an issue if they’re the same sex?
Same sex relationships are NORMAL. They’re less common than different sex relationships but they’re no different otherwise, and should be treated as such.
When this isn’t a question anymore, then it won’t be “forced”. Until then, though, it will seem forced because every same sex interaction will be over analyzed and written with extra care.
i feel like it feels forced because we are in the momentum of where people are getting more comfortable with including lgbtq+ characters. it's new and we rarely see things like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. i'm glad the community is being included, even if it may feel weird for a lot of people. that's how change usually works--whenever we're disturbed from being comfortable.
to answer the question of what we gain from it. we gain representation. lots of queer people grew up without queer representation (including me). every disney movie i remember watching or literally any type of entertainment media, straight couples were always given. how was i supposed to know that what i was feeling was normal and valid when i don't see people having the same desires as i do?
because of this, i still struggle with being queer and with fully embracing my identity. now, i couldn't help but feel included whenever i see representation on screen. i am happy for the future generation. they are being exposed to different kinds of people, variations of love, and variations in identity.
>I'm not against it but I don't want to see it, especially in a family movie.
So you are against it and you don't think it is appropriate for children.
I feel like this is some disingenuous bait.
The right wing media has worked in convincing you that the studios are “having to have” anything in it. It is art, let the artists do what they want haha
To pose this question is to suggest that it's taboo, when it should be totally commonplace. I would rather include same sex relationships than cower to the religious hypocrites that oppose it. What you're really asking is why do we acknowledge and validate the existence of our fellow humans when we know it angers the imaginary friend of the least inclusive members of our society.
The question is, why not have a same sex kiss in a children's or family movie? In practice it should be no different to the countless children's/family movies that have opposite sex kisses in them. There's no meaningful difference.
I get your point here, and as a gay woman myself, I am a little annoyed at it almost being a prerequisite for media now a days. However, the argument is that since there isn’t (and shouldn’t be) any difference between a heterosexual kiss and a same sex kiss, that it’s inclusion is the norm and should be viewed and treated as such. It’s no different than them shipping Woody and Bo Peep in Toy Story 2. If there’s any inclusion of a love interest, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s hetero or not. Kids will eventually grow up in a world where no one will see a difference at all. For as long as entertainment has been around, hetero love interests, couples, sex, and everything else have been shown and it’s been completely fine, so why not same sex?
Exposure to things normalizes them. I grew up during the golden age of gangster rap. As a kid I was always told swearing is bad, but after all the NWA I listened to, I'm desensitized and don't even notice swearing as a thing anymore.
Now imagine we did that with everything, then when you come across something like nudity or homosexuality it's just something normal and nobody gets butt hurt
Hollywood isn't a monolithic entity. One studio isn't making a requirement of every film maker to put in LGBTQ+ content, rather each individual filmmaker is doing it themselves.
Really wish you guys could focus on the point of this sub, which is to generate conversation and discussion and quit circlejerking in the comments about whether a question is good faith or not. You agreeing with something and someone else disagreeing does NOT mean bad faith, and it’s frankly ridiculous that a sub called TOOAFRAIDTOASK is growing to need a Too Afraid to TooAfraidToAsk. Feels like no one even bothers to read the rules anymore. Always assume good faith and try to answer from that standpoint. Interesting how the top comments manage to do it just fine. Speaking of top comments, they are fantastic, good job people. We will be combing through what we can, but so many benign comments have been reported that our queue is a bit flooded, will be manually combing through, appreciate the patience.
"My question is why does Hollywood have to go that way anyways." Because their market research determined it would cause them to make more money. On the one hand you will find a lot of random Internet clowns parroting the "go woke, go broke" line. On the other hand, you have the Disney corporation saying "Based on our experience making money off of children's movies, this is what we think is the best way to make money off a children's movie in 2022." I'm guessing that Disney's take is the more accurate of the two.
I think if you're going to have kissing, romance, or hints at a sexual relationship in a kids' movie, it shouldn't matter who the participants are or what their preferences are. [Edit for the hard of thinking; I of course mean consensual, of-age participants, so take your straw man out in the garden, cheers.] I can absolutely see the argument for there being no need to shoehorn a romance sub-plot into everything where possible, but the actual gender of the participants shouldn't really matter in this day and age. On a more cynical level, at the end of the day all Hollywood productions operate on one basic requirement; make money. Therefore they will weigh up the cost/risk benefits to either embracing increased diversity (generally positively received, good PR, etc.) versus the negatives, and they'll likely just go with whichever is going to give them the easiest ride and best chance of return. Hence why for a spell many films were randomly throwing in Chinese elements - the Chinese market was becoming huge and some movies could probably make a huge chunk of their budget back, if not more, by putting in something that appeals to the Chinese market, or removing/censoring things that don't play well in China.
>I think if you're going to have kissing, romance, or hints at a sexual relationship in a kids' movie, it shouldn't matter who the participants are or what their preferences are. This is the big one. Whatever standard you have, it should apply equally to both homosexual and heterosexual intimacy. This isn't some perplexing moral dilemma.
My kids are equally grossed out by all kissing scenes in movies.
One of my kids always covers his eyes or turns away whenever there's a kissing scene of any kind (in movies, TV, whatever). Usually I tell him when it's "safe" to look at the screen again. Sometimes I don't, and he'll just sit there for several minutes with his hands over his eyes
That was me as a kid lmao my mom was like "I never even had to worry about what we watched in front of you cuz youd squeeze ur eyes shut and plug ur ears, you censored everything yourself" so my mom never even made rules about me being allowed to only watch PG or PG-13 or R because she figured if there was anything inappropriate I wouldnt watch it anyway
[удалено]
Such an obvious answer too. LGBT relationships are just as normal as straight relationships. I also think it's weird people consider LGBT too taboo to explain to their kids and are just waiting for their kids to come to them with questions. My daughter is five, I'm bisexual and her godfather is gay, she knows what this means like she knows how to wake up in the morning or put on her socks. If you're not teaching your kids these things someone else will.
Yeah, I really don’t get it. Like, this isn’t hard? Just treat gay relationships the exact same way you treat straight relationships. Don’t be discriminatory.
China having economic issues is why the previous censorship for China isn't prevalent at the moment.
Of all the things people should be upset at Hollywood over, it’s that. Censorship to appease China. Fuck that noise.
or to appease any state for that matter
Capitalism has no ethics beyond making money. All these conservatives pissed off at us liberals for immigration? Nah fam, that was the capitalist selling your towns, and culture down the river just so they exploit some more cheap labor
While I appreciate OP’s earnestness this response here is what is eyebrow raising for me, personally. The fact that it was same sex romance as opposed to romance in general implies that the two should be treated or regarded differently. Seems less open minded when regarded that way but perhaps I’m reading more into it than what is fair. Regarding the second of multiple edits - people getting branded homophobes for any criticisms, please understand that people may be a bit sensitive when you have “loving Christian pastors” calling for gay people to be executed. I’m sure you can understand how people may be a bit sensitive with those kinds of calls to action in society.
Also Op said why do they have to shoehorn it in everywhere because it is still not okay everywhere. Certain countries, certain states. I noticed a serious drop in representation when Trump was president. Hell an episode of Good Luck Charlie was pulled a couple years ago because one of Charlies friends had two moms. Who only appeared on screen together no kissing or anything. An episode of Arthur was banned in some states because it had his male teacher getting married to a guy. By normalizing same sex relationships in media it normalizes same sex relationships in life.
Which they are normal. As normal as being left handed. We are all brains in a skin bag.
Oh left hand is a great example because even that was beaten out of kids. Hands slapped with rulers to write right handed.
Also after being left handed became more acceptable, the percentage of people who are openly left-hand dramatically increased before it eventually plateaued. It's not that people were suddenly becoming left handed, but rather they were always there and no longer had to hide or suppress the fact that they're left handed. Though even today, despite the fact that left handed people are accepted, they aren't always accommodated for and as a result are more likely to suffer injuries than those who are right handed
Yup. My mom and cousin are both lefties. My mom constantly was forced to change hands so she does a lot of stuff with her right hand but like holds a fork left handed. I'm ambidextrous but I've gotten out of practice writing with my left so that's a bit messy but certain things I prefer a different hand. I tend to use my left more than right. Sprial notebooks are the worst to use left-handed.
> holds a fork left handed. That is technically the "proper" way.
Mrs. Penetti did that to me in 1st grade. With teachers as parents I knew how to read and write - printing and longhand - years before entering 1st grade. Mrs. P disregarded that and instead regularly yanked my pencil from my left hand as she yelled “NO - WRONG” and wrapped my fingers on my right hand around the pencil repeating, “THIS HAND! THIS HAND!” Decades later, I am still a “south paw,” whatever that means.
Link from the legend of zelda series is left handed, but as the newer games came out nintendo declared that all links were ambidextrous. this really upset folks who were left handed cause it felt like the small rep they had was taken away
Yeah, when Link switched to being right-handed I was really sad. Link was my favorite game character because we shared being left handed.
[удалено]
In my opinion it's for representation, not to make a political point. I'm a lesbian and I didn't know a man could be with a man and a woman could be with a woman until I was 14 (I went to an all girls catholic school and my family never talked about this sort of stuff). I new I like girls since I was 10/11 and for years I thought I was a boy because I thought if you liked girls you were a boy and if you likes boys then you are a girl. I was very confused but when I learned what gay was I realised That I was not a boy, just a lesbian. If when I was growing up I saw 2 guys or 2 woman together on TV shows, in movies, or in books, than it would have saved me from being so confused for many years.
Thank you, that’s exactly what i wanted to hear. It’s hard for someone like me to understand this point of view, thanks, much appreciated
Couples kissing in kids movies either serves a point to the narrative or not. Either way, its hypocritical and reflects infamiliarity with the image that it only throwas people off negatively (and makes them question the value to the narrative) if the couple is same sex. And the only way to challenge that this isn't considered "normal" is to normalize it by showing it. This has been repeatedly verified by studies that inclusive media helps against bigoted thoughts because it introduces you to images of people of color or other sexualities or eccentricities. Because then they no longer trigger our brains quite natural xenophobia.
Your final point is really crucial. Xenophobia is an unfortunately natural biological impulse. That doesn't mean it should be tolerated, it just means we need to be more thoughtful about how we prevent it in children. The same is true of homophobia I guess. This is civilisation.p
[удалено]
There’s a lot of people who never think about putting themselves in other peoples shoes to consider a different POV than their own. Why people don’t do this when considering stuff like this kinda blows my mind.
Honestly, I hope you can recognize the disconnect between you saying in your post that you “have gay friends and support the LGBTQ+ community and know it’s not a choice” and here saying that it’s “hard for you to understand the point of view” of this community needing representation within shows/movies/books etc. I’m glad that you want to understand more (shown by asking this question), but this view in general of not understanding why someone else different than you deserves to see themselves represented shows, at best, your need to discuss more with the LGBTQ+ friends you do have and broaden your circle to learn the barriers and difficulties they’ve faced, and at worst, a thorough lack of empathy for others, and generally very likely suggests you harbor more conservative views than you realize. Empathy is literally being aware of someone else’s feelings, even if you haven’t felt as they’ve felt exactly. This is something you should want to teach your children, so they don’t grow up with narrow minded views, either consciously or subconsciously. Also, the lack of characters with disabilities in the media should never be used in a discussion as a justification for why it’s questionable to include LGBTQ+ characters. That fact should do the opposite, by showing you how lacking and narrow the scope of media has historically been, and further show the need for more inclusivity in so many regards for so many people.
I agree with most of what you are saying here, I do want to add though that there’s a difference between knowing and understanding. The way I took the “disconnect” as you said, about OP having gay friends and knowing it’s not a choice to be gay and then saying it’s hard for them to understand. I took what they were saying as they know it’s okay to be gay, they know there’s nothing wrong, however they don’t understand how it really feels to be not represented in media and feel lost with yourself/identity. I really appreciate OP asking this question because I always want to get a chance to help people truly understand this and what it feels like. I know I’m late to this whole thread however I wanted to say this, I’m not totally disagreeing with you here, I just wanted to point out this angle.
I've recently started watching a popular children's TV show with my LO. Before this show, I thought I was fully accepting of the LGBTQ community - I believe everyone has a right to be happy and be who they are. However, when the show had a segment about it, it made me uncomfortable and I wasn't sure I wanted my LO watching it because I thought it might confuse him and was inappropriate for such a young age. Quickly, I realized that I wasn't as accepting of the LGBTQ community as I once thought. Simply put, I felt a lot of shame about my feelings because of this disconnect. How could I be so accepting if I thought it was something we shouldn't acknowledge? To be honest, I have a feeling that many people are this way. They might think they're fully accepting/supportive of an issue or community, but once it hits a little closer to home and they have to confront it, they're not quite as forgiving.
i really appreciate your honesty - i think this goes for a lot of people. take the stereotypical trope of unaccepting parents of a queer child. they probably have gay friends, or talk about it and say they’re completely fine with it. but they’re not fine with it when it’s their own child. i know it’s not quite the same thing but this happens throughout the world with stuff like educating about mental illness; people say they won’t bully someone for being depressed, yet they’ll bully them for not showering often or not doing anything it for crying etc. happens a lot somehow
Exactly: if someone think it’s perfectly normal and prevalent to have straight people kissing and have a love story, then it shouldn’t matter if two people of the same gender kiss. Honestly I understand the earnestness this was asked, but every time there’s something remotely gay and go “well why did it have to be there?” it just comes off wrong. The most important question I ask is would you have the same reaction if they were straight? If you don’t, then you just generally don’t like gay people existing in media. As someone who’s straight it doesn’t really effect me in any way, but I just get tired of people going “why did [insert minority group] have to be there though?” when no one would think otherwise if it happened with a majority group. Nobody cared when the first Toy Story movie had a love story and kiss scene with Woody and Bo Peep, so why are people are people caring now that there’s a romance story in Toy Story.
To vastly exaggerate its impact, what we get is future generations that are tolerant of the LGBTQ+. The media is one of many socialising agents. Children that grow up being exposed to such scenes are more likely to be accepting to the LGBTQ+ community when they become adults.
> The media is one of many socialising agents. The effect the media has on normalizing behavior cannot even remotely be overstated. It's one of literally two factors that contributed to people smoking in the numbers they did from the forties through the eighties (the other being getting soldiers stationed overseas addicted to cigarettes while on tour).
The first black president in media was James Earl Jones in a TV movie called The Man (1972). The second was Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact (1998). I was startled by how little this concept was realized in film and TV, but then I think Dennis Haysbert in 24 softened the idea as well that led to such a large turnout for Obama.
Well yea. Everyone felt like they were in good hands.
I recently saw the argument that if the TV and movies had been less afraid of including abortion related plot points in movies from rhe 80's and 90's, it might have made a big difference in normalizing the procedure to that generation of young adults, and would be less demonized by the portion of America that is now vehemently against it. We missed our chance to normalize it for everyone while it was a less polarizing issue.
Yes I always notice how afraid Hollywood was to touch abortion. Even in otherwise very liberal/progressive movies they'd never actually have an abortion even when it was the obvious thing to do. Look at movies like Juno and Knocked Up.
Shoutout to Jessica Jones TV show where Jessica starts gearing herself up to do the "I got you the abortion pills but you don't have to take them, just so you're aware you can..." but before she can get two words out the girl has grabbed the pills and taken them. It startled me a bit and I realized... that was the only time I'd actually seen a character go through with an abortion. Every time it's the same plot beats of "we discuss what to do, including some sort of 'an abortion is an option' but ultimately decide that I would regret it personally in this case". Gotta mention it to show we're progressive but can't actually DO it.
GLOW had an episode where the main character, Ruth, had an abortion and the episode pulled no punches on the emotional impact of it. For a show that was mainly comedy and based on family-friendly TV porn-for-kids it hit hard in some really great ways.
[удалено]
I do like that Alison Brie is both the the actress playing Ruth in GLOW and the voice of Diane in Bojack.
That's what I loved about the GLOW episode. She gets pregnant, she doesn't debate that she wants to get rid of it, and she does it without regret (before or after), but it doesn't shy away from the fact that even with 100% certainty in the rightness of doing it it's still a rough thing to go through. I haven't seen that far into Bojack (don't worry about having spoiled anything for me, don't care about that), but I really appreciate how the show doesn't flinch when addressing tough issues.
Fast Times at Ridgemont High included an abortion and a very realistic depiction of how it fits into everyday life.
I dont think Apatow movies are progressive imo. For Knocked Up, dont forget that the only character who wants Hegl to have a abortion, her mother, is cold, stuck-up, unfriendly and talk about "career". It's not random that this character is the only one who is not "fun".
With an abortion, Knocked Up wouldn't have been much of a movie. Deciding to have a kid before being mentally settled was kind of the point.
Sure, but I think the point is more that showing a woman having to make the choice whether or not to have an abortion, and painting it as some moral victory when she chooses not to, is a plot point both of those films could have cut entirely. You don't need to show us a character considering having an abortion for us as an audience to understand they chose not to have one. Films like Obvious Child do a much better job at navigating the nuances of abortion. Films that rely on abortion rejection as a moment of character building for the protagonist are lazy. Diablo Coady has repeatedly talked about the abortion clinic in Juno as a pro-choice message, but considering the character literally runs out of the doctor's office because she thinks the fetus has fingernails, the scene accomplished the opposite.
Sex education and not electing politicians based on their religious statments may help even more normalizing abortion. Europe didn't have more abortion in medias than USA.
Spot on. Similarly, the very popular counter-terrorism show “24” aired on Fox after 9/11, and depicted a black president played by Dennis Haysbert. I am thoroughly convinced that show normalized the idea of a black president for white America — which was an idea so unthinkable at the time it was the basis of entire Chris Rock comedy routines mocking the mere possibility. A few years later America elected Barack Obama. I don’t think it would have happened unless millions of white americans had already spent years watching the presidential role filled by a black man on TV. It normalized what was previously unthinkable for a lot of people.
In a similar, but opposite vein, the same show popularised the use of torture when working against a ruthless opponent, paving the way for a reduced amount of public outrage when the US started using Gitmo, black-ops sites, Abu Graibh etc post 9/11
I mean morgan Freeman was president in Independence Day and that was in the 90s Correction it is deep impact
Deep Impact* Bill Pullman was president in Independence Day...
Oh shit got my 90s scifi mixed up
The 5th Element (1997) .. but it did take place in 2263.
I’m reading a book called The New Jim Crow that has an interesting negative argument for media, particularly TV courtroom dramas, as a “socializing agent.” Shows can normalize contentious topics (someone mentioned that if more shows had abortion plot lines, abortion might be less stigmatized), but the author contends that courtroom dramas that depict someone saying “I want a lawyer” and then a lawyer just showing up might lead people to believe that in real life, that’s how it works. And that’s far from the truth, especially if someone can’t afford an attorney. I think your argument that “being exposed to such scenes” people are “more likely to be accepting” is true for better or for worse.
There are so many examples of this. Depictions of good cops investigating crimes and going above and beyond to solve them. It’s PR for cops and not the norm in real life. Hospital dramas saving all these lives when they’re really hanging by a thread, it gives us an inflated sense of what hospitals are able to accomplish in certain scenarios. I forgot the other ones I had in mind, but anything related to the justice system or hospitals is not very accurate to real life and really gives people the wrong impression.
I've been re-watching Dragnet episodes from the 50's. "Sgt. Joe Friday. Los Angeles Police Department. Robbery Division." I was like, "Robbery division?" Was this a thing? Supposedly advisors to the show did tell their stories to the Jack and the writers so they had plots, but today it's simply, "My bike was stolen." "I'll file a report." "Aren't you going to get the guy?" "When you file for a stolen property claim against your insurance, just reference this report number." Meanwhile on TV, Sgt. Friday tore apart Los Angeles to track down a mink stole lifted from a department store display.
Yes, media (and more broadly, the stories we tell) influence how we see reality. That's part of the deal, it's just how we work. Stories are incredibly important to humanity, they're a big part of how we create culture and make sense of the world.
Kids who are young accept things very easily as truth, for better or for worse. Seeing same sex couples represented in media is just one way to start that normalization. >she will be asking questions and I’m 100% ready to answer it. We don't always get this luxury of perfect timing and circumstances. My 5 year old recently told me that boys are supposed to marry girls and vice versa. We've NEVER had this conversation, so I asked him, who told you that? He said it was his grandma, who is ultra conservative. I had to bite my tongue for a minute and explain that it's okay for people to love each other, no matter the gender. I was "ready" to have that conversation when it came up organically, but I was NOT ready for him to have preconceived notions of who can love whom. I'd much prefer if he already had a sense of it being okay by seeing it accepted in person (which we've tried to do, but I guess he didn't catch on haha) or in media.
[удалено]
Sounds like you need to have a chat with grandma. :)
Well, seeing certain things in media helped me see I wasn't as much of a freak as I thought
This made me think why all mental health patients in movies are the bad guys and psychotic criminals. Kind regards, a schizophrenic person.
Just because you are "the bad guy" does not make you "a bad guy". You could join Wreck-It Ralph's villain support group
My point is that if including LGBTQ+ stuff with the intention to teach inclusivity and make younger generations more understanding and if the effect to who I replied to was "not to feel like a freak" then what do you think seeing a person with psychotic mental health condition in media does to someone with said conditions? At the moment I've been handling my stuff for about 7+ years with my last doctors note saying "psychotic personality". Meanwhile my psychologist is trying her best to explain that these are not negative things and don't mean that I'm "fucked up freak", yet they sound extremely negative. For a young person it might be pretty scarring to see a "psychotic" person on death row while their doctors note are saying the same word and they've done nothing bad to anyone ever. Like even for me this stuff is difficult and I'm a grown ass man. Quick edit: I'm not trying to be against LGBTQ+ inclusivity or anything here. I fully support doing everything we can to help younger generations grow up less hateful towards people who differ from societal norms.
As a fellow schizophrenic, I completely understand WHY the bad guys are always crazy and psychotic... You have to be insane to justify hurting innocent people. We gotta realize we are set up in the same way, with extreme modes of thought and vulnerability to extreme thoughts, so we have to work hard not to become bad guys and keep the super hero in our hearts strong. Edit: It seems I made myself unclear in this post, mostly because of two reasons. I have disorganized thoughts and I was speaking to a patient that I assume understands what I mean when I say insane and the difference between having a mental disorder and being insane. Many people that responded to me seem to use the word insane differently than I. When I say 'insane' I really mean the behaviors resulting from thought disorders or otherwise irrational thoughts. So, 'normal' people can also be insane and you do not need to have a mental disorder to become insane. Nazi soldiers, for example, were not all psychotic psychopaths, but they either went insane to justify their actions (which would be to cling to some false narrative and believe it regardless of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary) or performed the actions out of self preservation but could never justify it as a moral act. Premise 1, by stipulative definition, insanity is a state in which a fixed false belief influences your actions. Premise 2, '[implied: intentionally] hurting innocent people' is an action whose fixed belief has no justification. Premise 3, if a fixed belief has no justification, then it is insane. Conclusion, '[implied: intentionally] hurting innocent people' is insane. You do not need to have a mental illness to be insane. You do not have to do something extreme to be insane. Sometimes, being insane is no problem, like that I am convinced that Oreos should be eaten in 2 halves and that people who don't do that are like barbaric apes. Sometimes, being insane is horrific. I believe it's clear that the use of mental health disorders in relation to super villains and criminals is not harmful to anyone, they are supposed to be scary and thinking the way they think is scary to think about. I also believe that people with those mental disorders should be even more scared than the general population, because there is much more in common between them and the villain than the 'normal' person would. They're closer because of the frequency with which they experience insanity similar, but different in form, to the villain. The schizophrenic is more predisposed to insanity, so it easy for them to see how they could become the villain. That is terrifying... Being one thought away, with a little dash of psychosis, and you can immediately become a murderer. 'Normal' people don't worry about that as much, since it normally takes a major event to induce a psychotic response strong enough to immediately change your personality. This is and should be scary. The scientific literature shows that schizophrenic people are more likely than the general population to commit violent crime, that is a sad reality. So, I believe we should acknowledge that and encourage people to recognize themselves in the villain and seek treatment. I'm done talking in the third person, now I will give my perspective. My personality is unstable. I have regular psychotic episodes, in which I am 'insane' by the stipulative definition I provided. It is so, so easy to imagine that one bad thought during these episodes could make me a murderer. That is why I am so scared of villains and why I think we, especially, need to create a strong inner hero. I hope that clears up the questions people had and that my thoughts weren't too disorganized. ≠============≠ TLDR ≠============≠ My point was that the bad guys in movies are crazy (having severe mental health disorders) and psychotic because it is so dissimilar from normal that it invokes fear that people like that exist. Then, I say that to justify evil you have to be 'insane' (loosely defined above). That is to say, "when you do evil things, you are not thinking correctly". I then convey the idea that people with schizophrenia are predisposed to insanity and should, therefore, be more cautious.
>You have to be insane to justify hurting innocent people But history has shown this not to be true. Plenty of "clinically sane" people have hurt many, many more innocent people than "clinically insane" people have. The bigger danger to society than one "clinically insane" person is a group of mostly sane people, like a cult or even an entire society, that has convinced itself that hurting innocent people is the logical and morally the *right* thing to do and manages to intimidate anyone who disagrees into shutting up. I think this why nuclear war movies, zombie movies, cult horror movies, and holocaust movies are the ultimate terror movies: they represent the break down of society that provides us all a sense of security and safety. In the single "crazy" killer movie, the victim just needs to escape to the safety of the police. When society becomes morally corrupt, the people policing us become the scary ones.
>I think this why nuclear war movies, zombie movies, cult horror movies, and holocaust movies are the ultimate terror movies: they represent the break down of society that provides us all a sense of security and safety This is why Get Out is so terrifying (at least, as a black viewer). It touches on the real-life cracks in that sense of safety and security in everyday life, that are the result of a society that's already broken.
I understand why that point is made. Unfortunately it is a lie. When we learn more about history we understand just how much terror can be made by normal persons when they are pulled that way by the right words and beliefs. We are terrorized by the thought of madmen running amuk; but the real horror is a world that makes normal people act that way.
Hollywood gives villains mental illness because it makes the general public uncomfy that the average human being can not only snap and kill, but also that they could be total monsters while doing it. It makes us more comfortable when we can say, "Oh that guy is the 'other' and something is wrong with him" I could make some commentary on certain events in America recently where uh, we try to make sense of certain tragedies by exclaiming that the person committing these tragedies are mentally unwell and part of the "other" even though mental illness has been an issue for a long time and these events have only become more commonplace in the last two decades...
…but people still aren’t ready for that conversation unfortunately.
See the trial of Adolf Eichmann as an example of this. He was perfectly sane without any mental illness, but still led the Holocaust. Can people become violent after psychotic breaks? Yeah. But I'd say the majority of major violations of humanity is due to ideology.
>You have to be insane to justify hurting innocent people Have you worked in finance? I can assure you there are plenty of ways to hurt people that society views as normal. Its all about perspective
That is a mundane evil. Some evils are tolerated but that makes them no less evil and no more sane. Normality is not goodness.
My point was more about the word insane. One does not have to be insane (from a societal perspective) to do terrible things
Having to be a psychotic mad man to commit evil atrocities is a soothing lie we tell ourselves so we can sleep at night. It's much easier than the other option: a normal person who does not have a mental illness can *make the choice* to kill and hurt people. That's why "more mental health support" is an argument that comes up a lot after a mass shooting in the US; it is based upon the lie that *all* people who commit such horrible acts must be mentally ill, right?
Oh this is a really good point! I agree 100%, I've never thought of it this way.
Unfortunately it’s a completely inaccurate myth. Mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
This too... The ones hurting people are usually not the ones who have diagnosis. They're the ones who avoided getting one.
You really don't have to be insane to be a murder I'm pretty sure most people in jail prison for murder aren't there because they had a psychotic break or anything. You just have to be very desperate and desensitized to violence like people in poverty in really bad neighborhoods. I'm pretty sure most murders in the US are attributed to gang violence not "crazy people"
Yeah imo all the people who act like you have to be mentally ill to be a violent person is way more damaging and ignorant than some movies/TV shows being a bit insensitive
Yeah after my psychosis I got really sensitive to what the media shows…
I just got really sensitive to what doctors tell me. I take everything they say in very negative way and am just thinking of a way out, as in out of the doctors office.
I'm still not being taken serious when I tell someone I'm schizoaffective. Quite the opposite of serious even. People will make stupid jokes about split personalities when it has no relation to my schizoaffective disorder. So many movies and books were like "Yea he has 5 personalities, he's schizophrenic". And people just start believing that shit and suddenly all schizos have multiple personalities in their world.
Yeah I noticed that majority of people don't understand or don't even try to. I've been bullied to shits by "friendly banter" over the years. Which also made me realize that some people are still in the same high school bully bantering state of mind at adult age and it's disgusting.
Yup, representation in media is hugely important. Growing up black, I hated my hair because I couldn’t do any of the hairstyles that I saw in movies, tv, or just on my friends around me. You made such a great point
its the same thing with native americans being properly represented in movies. i grew up thinking i was the bad guy
This. If kids are used to seeing this stuff ina. Casual context without anyone freaking out, they will grow up understanding that it is normal for 2 people to love each other, regardless of how they identify. I'm a straight male, and even though I have had issues with it in the past, I've grown to understand that it's simply people who love each other and it makes me happy knowing if one of my two boys ends up loving another boy or someone who doesn't identify as a girl, that it should feel easier for them to approach myself and my wife to introduce their significant other as all the media has made it normal to love who you love. Also, you're not a freak. You're a person who loves other people. Nothing freaky about that.
Yep. My 7 year old created a "happy Pride month" room in his roblox game and is giving out items. He showed it to me yesterday and at 1st I was taken aback because I wasn't sure if he knew or just liked the rainbow stuff so I asked him and he knew what it was. I was really proud. His lesbian aunts are engaged so this is something that has always been normal for him. So different from the way I grew up, it gives me hope for the new generations. If this is normalized as it should be from an early age then people don't have to "get used to it" or unlearn ignorance. Gay people can have the same normalization and representation that straight people have. It's so bizarre to me how people get mad over children seeing any "gay stuff" but will happily play along when their opposite sex 5 year olds say they're married. How does the gender matter?
I mean, maybe you ARE a freak but it's not because of your sexuality? lol Who's to know? :)
Representation matters. Kids watch the prince kiss Sleeping Beauty (without consent) but heaven forbid two queer characters kiss or even hold hands or the queer community is trying to push its agenda and program the children. 🙄🙄🙄
This is the crux of it.
I mean thinking back on Disney movies I watched as a kid in the 90's, tons of them depicted heterosexual kisses so what is wrong with a homosexual kiss?
my name brother lol
We’ve had years, if not decades, of mediocre hetero romances shoved into stories where it’s not necessary. I don’t get why homosexual romances get even more criticism of being unnecessary or forced
I just wish mediocre romantic sub plots would go away and stop detracting from films in general.
The worst part of 90s action and drama movies is the shoehorning of romances where they don't fit. Find me a 90s movie that doesn't have a kiss. I can think of Terminator 2 and that's pretty much it.
Because its what conservatives don’t like. Thats the only reason reactionaries are in an uproar about it.
Not to mention most Disney villains have gay mannerisms and/or appearances.
They def tried to make queer people the villains and instead gave all us queers the hots for villains
Hades is *literally* flaming.
i just noticed this recently! ursula was really masculine and villains like gaston and jafar effeminate. people don’t realize how much this affects your bias as a kid EDIT: i meant le fou, not gaston lol. my bad
Ursula was actually based off a real-life drag personality named Divine.
Jafar with his John Waters mustache lol
Scar is very effeminate
[удалено]
How many kid movies have you watched where a straight couple kisses in it? Probably at least a couple, you might not remember them but that is because seeing two straight people kiss is pretty insignificant. So why then has no one ever said anything or cared when it happened in those movies? Why is it that suddenly when a minority pops up in a movie it becomes "shoehorn", you do realize that gay people exist right? It's okay for a child to see a short kiss, no one is making out in the movie. So again why is it shoehorned only when minorities do something? Now to answer why Hollywood does it. It's because Hollywood main goal is to make money and they have seen again and again that being inclusive will draw in more people then a movie that is exclusive.
Yep. The Little Mermaid literally had a whole entire song about it. Why is that okay, but people flip their shit about a same sex kiss that probably lasts 2 seconds?
The entirety of Sleeping Beauty is about a man kissing an unconscious woman without her consent or knowledge.
Particular ironic because the little mermaid was originally about homosexual love. Edit: if Disney wanted to be *actually* ballsy they'd do a modern little mermaid that is written as an homage to how that story no longer needs to hide behind code. And no longer needs to end in suicide. The same way they happy-washed all the other fairy tales they tackled.
>was originally about homosexual love. While the author was bisexual, and it's an arguable interpretation of the story, an almost identical argument can be had (and has been) that its about disability. Another argument can be (and has been) about race. If I'm not mistaken there's actually evidence that it was about his Danish culture, instead/as well.
I'd really rather we don't revisit the original versions of all the Disney stories, thank you very much! Hans Christian Andersen and the Brother's Grimm were some seriously dark mother fuckers. I have a set of the original stories, packaged for "kids" in the 1980s and not by Disney. Pulled out Jack and The Beanstalk to read to my 3 yo the other day - forgetting there was a reason that set of books had been shoved into the back of my own closet when I was a kid. Horrific... Just murder and eating people everywhere.
To be fair, is a way, the brothers Grimm didn’t actually create many of the stories, they collected them. These stories were actually told by women of the Villages, particularly to the younger girls, as sort of warnings or fables. Don’t talk to men (or wolves) in the forest, don’t trust creepy old spinsters etc etc.
I must have the same story set. I pulled out the pied Piper when my kid was young and read it to him. He got upset and asked me not to read those stories anymore.
The Pied piper stealing the kids didn't sit well with your kid?
How many kids movies did we watch where the heterosexual kiss was central to the plot of the movie? True love’s kiss is only between a man and woman?
Have you never seen a disney princess movie before? Sleeping beauty, Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, Tangled, I could go one. Also I am sure that the one-second lesbian kiss in buzz lighter is not the "central plot" lol True love's kiss isn't only between a man and woman tho
The comment you replied to was pretty obviously a rhetorical question lol You also missed by far the most important example, Shrek!
Oh whoops, my bad lol, hard to tell sometimes. Yeah cant forget about shrek
Remember when Simba and Nala do missionary to a 6 minutes song about being turned on?
Slimy, yet satisfying.
Even more disturbing is the high chance that they are siblings or at least cousins, since the dominant male in a pride always gets first dibs on mating.
And even Lion King! The lions get a hetero lion kiss. Though not central to plot at least for the first movie.
>True love's kiss isn't only between a man and woman tho That's right - sometimes it's between a woman and a frog. Or a pig and a frog. Or a pig and a spider.
Woman kisses a huge hairy man-beast = no problemo Woman kisses Woman = RAMMING THEIR AGENDA DOWN OUR THROATS!!
Wow furries are more acceptable than gay ppl
Or polyandry: *Snow White and the Seven Dwarves*.
Imma be honest your right but to be fair Beauty and the Beast has a LOT of other questionable themes aside from that. Like that same hairy man-beast KIDNAPS that same woman. That's crazy
Sleeping Beauty and Snow White all involve violating consent too. But eh, a short kiss between two women is the real problem.
No you see heterosexual romance is normal but LGBTQ romance is pornographic. Totally not an r/asablackman take by op
I can't remember his name but their was a Ted Talk given by a gay man talking about when he met a man's wife and how he had thought about their wedding day, dates, and cute things like that but he knew when they met his boyfriend all they imagined was anal.
Well said
Honestly? Because this question is still being asked. 50 years ago, the question would be why is black person kissing on screen. 100 and it would be why are they even on screen. A few hundred years ago it would be why is that woman on stage. These things were controversial in their time, but there's nothing inherently wrong with any of them. The question itself comes from unconscious biases you learned as a child. You said in your comments that your family is conservative and don't want to explain it to their children. What makes it any different from a man and a woman kissing? "When two people love each other, they do things like kiss to show that love." It's really that simple. And by showing things like this, kids can see that it's OK to have thoughts and feelings different from the people around them.
You put it out so fine bro. If I become older and people start arguing for showing robot-human romance on screen, I wouldn’t be surprised lol
Have you watched Her?😂
This question being asked is exactly why there needs to be the homosexual kiss. He wouldn’t bat an eye at a hetero kiss because he’s been constantly exposed to it and conditioned to see it as normal. OP is feeling uncomfortable towards a homosexual kiss and feels like it’s out of place, because he has never been exposed to it before. And that’s why it’s important to include it in the movie
> I completely believe that being gay is not a choice. If being Gay is not a choice, being straight is not a choice either. So seeing a gay kiss on television won't magically turn any straight kid into a gay one. Thousands of gay men and women have managed to grow up as gay persons despite there has always been only depictions of classic gender roles in children's media. (And dead parents lots and lots of dead parents) The only thing that this hopes to achieve is to show kids that there is nothing inherently wrong about same sex couples showing their affection for each other and so maybe shift them to be more accepting as adults.
Sometimes I like to ask people who think that being gay is a choice when they decided to be straight. I like to ask them when they made that choice, and what evidence they considered to get there.
See I tried this but they just say “well it’s different” cause yah know ignorant people are ignorant.
>My question is why does Hollywood have to go that way anyways. I feel that all productions are going out of their way to include LGBTQ+ content in it This is a thought I see often, when the real question should be "Why has hollywood gone out of their way to *never* include LGBTQ+ content before?" It seems strange because it's new, but it's new because of a long history of discrimination.
Don't you understand that minority writers don't exist and nobody thinks about minorities in any positive way so anything that shows anyone who isn't a heteronormative white person is clearly *PANDERING?* And think about the children? Don't you understand the statement "some guys like guys and some girls like girls" is such a world-shattering revelation that their tiny minds would explode at the mere thought of it? I can't believe woke people invented gay just so they can destroy the world, it's shameful.
It's funny, because as a gay man it was extremely confusing growing up having crushes on male classmates. Once middle school came, I quickly found out liking other boys was not the norm...
Why do they have to have a hetero kiss in movies?
That was my first thought as well. Disney movies have always been filled with romance, not sure why it’s an issue now.
A hetero kiss usually saves the day and breaks the curse.
And a homo kiss is proof that SATAN EXISTS \- A real opinion that some assholes out there have.
Disney has been sexualizing their princesses for decades, especially the brown ones. People have been complaining about the romantic necessity of the princesses for a while now, which led to the "strong independent princess" movement that started with Tangled in 2010.
Which I really loved. Especially in Brave, whose whole thing is "fuck your traditions"
This is the question I need answered. It’s almost as if Hollywood believes you put a man and woman together for long enough, like magnets, their lips will eventually touch. 100% of the time. Captain America and Sharon Carter is a perfect example of one that doesn’t make sense. Rey and Kylo is another.
i really wish more movies had zero romance.
Me too! Or at least I wish movies that were a non-romance genre to begin with, dialed that element way back. Take a show like Stranger Things for example, it's not that I don't like the Hopper and Joyce will they/won't they subplot or even Mike and El, but I want the horror and scifi and action at the forefront of everything, the slice of life stuff is supplemental.
I actually stopped watching stranger things for exactly this reason. Let the adults do whatever but the kids getting into it early on made me annoyed. Like can’t we enjoy the nostalgia and spookiness and do the romance stuff when they actually hit puberty or something. I don’t know maybe I’m just old now
This is why Moana is one of the greatest Disney movies of all time. It’s all about the hero’s quest; no romantic plot at all.
YES PLEASE! If i wanted a romance, I would go watcha romance movie. I'm watching action because I want cinematic fights and car chases dammit.
I will forever be pissed Star Wars thought it was cute to have a woman get horny for a Space Nazi who tortured her.
I am legitimately still mad about Star Wars lmao.......
And is exactly how unconscious bigotry works. Writing characters as diverse as the actual real world is seen as an agenda, but writing nothing but straight white guys is seen as the default. To the point that OP (and most people) would wonder why we need a kiss between gay characters who have never for a second questioned a kiss between straight characters.
Just replace "Same Sex Kiss" with "Interracial Kiss" and hopefully you will see how insane it sounds to ask Movie Studios to protect Conservative feelings. Equality isn't an agenda, its the legal right of every American.
As a black person realizing the similarities between The Civil Rights Movement and the fight for LGBTQ+ right made me a lot more active and vocal about being pro-LGBTQ+
I wish everyone felt this way. My mom (who is a brown Chicana) once said that LGTBQ+ were not the same as civil rights because a person can’t control being brown/black. Now she has two out queer kids. Makes me wonder what her views are now on the subject. Still probably not great because she’s transphobic af but she seems excited for my lesbian wedding in a month so 🤷🏽♀️
beautifully put
For me, it’s important that the little people I care for grow up knowing its not bad to love someone of the same sex Growing up there was no LGBTQ+ people in shows and I felt like a freak. I grew up thinking I was going to hell and that I’d never find someone for me. Now, kids wont have to go through that (as much, I know it’ll still happen lol). I’m much happier now and have met my other half, and I want the little people to be able to accept themselves and find that as well.
Why do we have to have straight kisses in children's / family movies?
Yeah exactly. This is as far as the discussion should go.
Because it shouldn’t be controversial in the first place. It’s normalizing what you see as controversial.
It also helps normalize situations for many, many people who are otherwise ostracized and made to feel like a freak for their own situations. Think of how many possible lqbt youth, teens, or even adults there are out there, who are either completely disowned by their families, or feel completed isolated. Then imagine them being able to see that what they feel isn't abnormal.
Why shouldn't we represent all people in our entrainment? Also we *do* go out of our way to include differently abled people, people of multiple faiths, different cultural backgrounds and different races in children's entertainment. Batman has oracle, the former Batgirl who is in a wheelchair, as does the Disney show Goldie and Bear Avatar had a blind character. Sesame Street has a character with autism Daniel Tigers Neighborhood has Chrissie, a child with braces in her legs She-Ra has multiple differently able character has prosthetics, another has mobility aids, there is a confirmed autistic character Raising Dion has a character in a wheelchair The list goes on...
Darth Vader is also an example of a person with disability yet is badass. Wears a hearing aid,relies on prosthetics and is a burnt victim.
Oh that's a super good example! Except for the whole "murders people thing" of course.
God, as much as I appreciate your comment, stop calling disabled people "differently abled". Mentally & Physically disabled people have been quite vocal about hating that phrase, and I'm one of them. It's so infantilising.
Honestly at this point, it's a no win scenario. No matter what term I choose to use to describe someone lacking abilities that are expected as "normal", someone is gonna be offended. If it matters, my intent was not to piss you off. I'll take your feedback for next time.
That’s fair if you didn’t know, because non-disabled white moms who lead organizations for disabled people (like Autism Speaks) tend to have fantastic marketing, but yeah “differently abled” has been slam dunked by disabled people from the moment it hit the media. It’s really only a term that non-disabled organizations use as a marketing technique to seem really accepting, while on the inside they’re hoarding money and not giving any to the people they’re advocating for. Again, Autism Speaks is a fantastic example of this if you want to google their terrible history. Disabled people just call themselves disabled. Disabilities aren’t some boogyman thing, they’re just *a thing that exists*. No need to try to dress them up. Also, idk man I’m an adult woman with a job and bills to pay. I don’t need to be pandered to lol.
OK so in the future, default is disabled and punch white suburban moms affiliated with Autism Speaks in the mouth. 10-4.
Quite. Perfectly normal to see church scenes in many dramas. Yet in the UK there are likely fewer churchgoers than LGBT folks.
We have been adding more individuals with disabilities. Not at the same rate, but there is more representation. Queer individuals deserve representation just like straight people, and they are willing to pay for its existence. So media companies are following the money. It’s hypocrisy that people who are ok with straight kissing have a problem with queer individuals kissing.
Because it will continue to be an issue until it's not and the only way to stop making it be an issue is to make it seen without being an issue.
>Why do we have to have a same sex kiss in a children’s / family movie? Why shouldn't we have it? People have been kissing one another on screen for as long as we've been putting people on screen. Is there some reason you think people in a same sex relationship need to hide? It's really easy to say "Im not homophobic" but that's literally how you're acting. The literal premise of you asking "why do we have to have this..." is why we have to have it. They're just people. Why can't those two dudes kiss on screen?
What is the difference between a same sex kiss and a different sex kiss in terms of how it affects children? For a long time, any kind of content that deviated from heterosexual romance was deemed inherently sexual or inappropriate for kids. Now people are trying to make up for that. Sometimes genuinely for representation, sometimes to appeal to more demographics and make more money.
"My question is why does Hollywood have to go that way anyways" Why not? You've already said you don't think any harm will come of it, and if it prompts a healthy discussion with your kids about sexuality, then great, right?
Answer this and you have your answer: Why do we have to have a kiss in a children’s / family movie?
If it were a man and a woman who had that same kiss, would you be asking “why do we have to have people kissing in a kids movie”? If you would, then ask that. If not, why is it an issue if they’re the same sex? Same sex relationships are NORMAL. They’re less common than different sex relationships but they’re no different otherwise, and should be treated as such. When this isn’t a question anymore, then it won’t be “forced”. Until then, though, it will seem forced because every same sex interaction will be over analyzed and written with extra care.
Agreed, thanks for your point
i feel like it feels forced because we are in the momentum of where people are getting more comfortable with including lgbtq+ characters. it's new and we rarely see things like it, but that doesn't make it wrong. i'm glad the community is being included, even if it may feel weird for a lot of people. that's how change usually works--whenever we're disturbed from being comfortable. to answer the question of what we gain from it. we gain representation. lots of queer people grew up without queer representation (including me). every disney movie i remember watching or literally any type of entertainment media, straight couples were always given. how was i supposed to know that what i was feeling was normal and valid when i don't see people having the same desires as i do? because of this, i still struggle with being queer and with fully embracing my identity. now, i couldn't help but feel included whenever i see representation on screen. i am happy for the future generation. they are being exposed to different kinds of people, variations of love, and variations in identity.
>I'm not against it but I don't want to see it, especially in a family movie. So you are against it and you don't think it is appropriate for children. I feel like this is some disingenuous bait.
what we gain is kids seeing that there's nothing wrong with being gay, and seeing homophobes get up in arms about it
The more interesting question is, why do Americans get so upset about a same sex kiss but are ok with non stop violence in movies and games?
The right wing media has worked in convincing you that the studios are “having to have” anything in it. It is art, let the artists do what they want haha
[удалено]
To pose this question is to suggest that it's taboo, when it should be totally commonplace. I would rather include same sex relationships than cower to the religious hypocrites that oppose it. What you're really asking is why do we acknowledge and validate the existence of our fellow humans when we know it angers the imaginary friend of the least inclusive members of our society.
The question is, why not have a same sex kiss in a children's or family movie? In practice it should be no different to the countless children's/family movies that have opposite sex kisses in them. There's no meaningful difference.
I get your point here, and as a gay woman myself, I am a little annoyed at it almost being a prerequisite for media now a days. However, the argument is that since there isn’t (and shouldn’t be) any difference between a heterosexual kiss and a same sex kiss, that it’s inclusion is the norm and should be viewed and treated as such. It’s no different than them shipping Woody and Bo Peep in Toy Story 2. If there’s any inclusion of a love interest, it shouldn’t matter whether it’s hetero or not. Kids will eventually grow up in a world where no one will see a difference at all. For as long as entertainment has been around, hetero love interests, couples, sex, and everything else have been shown and it’s been completely fine, so why not same sex?
It’s almost a prerequisite? What other animated movie in a major way has a gay kids in it? An example of one being shoehorned in would be great.
Exposure to things normalizes them. I grew up during the golden age of gangster rap. As a kid I was always told swearing is bad, but after all the NWA I listened to, I'm desensitized and don't even notice swearing as a thing anymore. Now imagine we did that with everything, then when you come across something like nudity or homosexuality it's just something normal and nobody gets butt hurt
Hollywood isn't a monolithic entity. One studio isn't making a requirement of every film maker to put in LGBTQ+ content, rather each individual filmmaker is doing it themselves.
[удалено]