movies/tv Cartoon Network UK censors lesbian dance scene in Steven Universe

[Guest]

Except I wasn't even trying to win anything as you believe. You can continue believing that, he doesn't have to answer if he chose not to, it's more of a courtesy if he did rather. 

 

I don't care about the legalization of marijuana because I do not use it. In any logical sense it makes no sense unless there was some kind of ulterior motive towards it but if I did argue for the legalization of it and act so strongly it would make no sense there is nothing for me there. Tell me why would him being gay or not be irrelevant? If we sit and say that is irrelevant than why is he so passionate about it? Is he debating just for the giggles?

 

Is wanting every person on this planet to be treated equally and fairly not enough of a motive? Is it that difficult to understand that you could want the better treatment of other people that are not yourself without getting something in return?

[Clarity 3,094]

Key Sharkz is right. People don't necessarily have to be in the LGBT community in order to care about issues which negatively affect it. There's a concept called allying, after all.

 

 

 

I don't care about the legalization of marijuana because I do not use it. In any logical sense it makes no sense unless there was some kind of ulterior motive towards it but if I did argue for the legalization of it and act so strongly it would make no sense there is nothing for me there. Tell me why would him being gay or not be irrelevant? If we sit and say that is irrelevant than why is he so passionate about it? Is he debating just for the giggles?

 

 

And why are you so interested in why he's "so passionate" about it? Why does that even matter to you?   The only explanation that I can think of is that the idea of straight people agreeing with the absurdity of this censorship is making you uncomfortable, because what you're implying right now is basically "only gay people would think this is stupid." Not the case here, as you can see 

[cuteycindyhoney 13,285]

There was an episode of Kim Possible that had a fight scene between Kim and Shego edited in the "So the Drama" movie when it appeared as episodes on TV. the claim is that it was done for time. Basically, it was because they were both dressed in rather sexy gowns at the time, and it looked like a sexy catfight. Also to tone down the rather over the top violence...In my opinion.

 

Personally, I love the times Shego calls Kim Princess. I think that hints at an underlying interest. Shego could have basically killed Kim at any time, but never did.

[Aladdin Mane 17]

It is not a "lesbian dance scene". There is no kiss shown in any version of the scene despite those who claim they kiss. All I see is a somewhat suggestive dance that may have been censored on that account regardless of the people involved. That said, there is no LGBT issue here. But there is a basic issue of screwing with the creator's vision. Not cool.

And there is no concept called "allying". We don't need to invent more unnecessary terms for things. Minding what may negatively impact any given group or people is simply caring about human rights and equality, a thing people have done for decades. Despite the modern adoration for restricting and reducing and just utterly stupefying our own language, not everything in the whole world needs reducing to a silly little slang word. And stop having "feels". They're called emotions. ...This post has gone off-track. /petpeeverant

Edited January 12, 2016 by Aladdin Mane

[cider float 2,537]

Key Sharkz is right. People don't necessarily have to be in the LGBT community in order to care about issues which negatively affect it. There's a concept called allying, after all.

 

 

 

 

 

And why are you so interested in why he's "so passionate" about it? Why does that even matter to you?   The only explanation that I can think of is that the idea of straight people agreeing with the absurdity of this censorship is making you uncomfortable, because what you're implying right now is basically "only gay people would think this is stupid." Not the case here, as you can see 

Because I've seen this alot but there's been no clarification for it. It's a mystery.

[Dark Qiviut 22,221]

 

 

All I see is a somewhat suggestive dance that may have been censored on that account regardless of the people involved.

And, as I said earlier, scenes as "suggestive" as Rose and Pearl's dance aren't censored. So, no, it won't be censored if it it was a heterosexual dance. You're wrong by believing otherwise.

 

 

 

And there is no concept called "allying". We don't need to invent more stupid terms for things. Minding what may negatively impact any given group or people is simply caring about human rights and equality, a thing people have done for decades. Despite the modern adoration for restricting and reducing and just utterly stupefying our own language, not everything needs reducing to a silly little slang word. And stop having "feels". They're called emotions.

1. "Allying" does exist, and it's been used for several years now. LGBT allies exist worldwide, and a lot of them are on this forum. You're looking at one of them here. The LGBT community needs allies because sometimes their own voice isn't enough. You need others to help support them, tell them you're not alone, and increase their awareness.
2. To expand the vocabulary, even including slang, doesn't "stupefy" the language. The English language is great because it's so versatile.

[Aladdin Mane 17]

 

And, as I said earlier, scenes as "suggestive" as Rose and Pearl's dance aren't censored. So, no, it won't be censored if it it was a heterosexual dance. You're wrong by believing otherwise.

 

 

 

1. "Allying" does exist, and it's been used for several years now. LGBT allies exist worldwide, and a lot of them are on this forum. You're looking at one of them here. The LGBT community needs allies because sometimes their own voice isn't enough. You need others to help support them, tell them you're not alone, and increase their awareness.
2. To expand the vocabulary, even including slang, doesn't "stupefy" the language. The English language is great because it's so versatile.

 

Suggestiveness is a variable concept and thus subjective to whoever was in charge of the scene edit. So unless you have the scene editor in the room with you to verify, no, I'm not.

 

And 2 is wrong. Unnecessarily squishing everything into the most miniscule bites of words possible is the exact opposite of expansion. Caring about equality and possessing empathy is "allying", every act that bothers another (deliberately malicious or not) is "trolling", every conceivable state of emotion is "feels" and all positive states of being are "doubleplusgood". And as I said, this was but an off-track ramble. It holds no place being further discussed here.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Aladdin Mane

[Dark Qiviut 22,221]

 

 

Suggestiveness is a variable concept and thus subjective to whoever was in charge of the scene edit. So unless you have the scene editor in the room with you to verify, no, I'm not.

People who watched SU in the UK confirmed the censorship, and there are uncensored scenes as "suggestive" as the dance, but was heterosexual. Heck, at the end of the clip, Rose and Greg kissed each other on the mouth.

 

CN UK claims it's to "localize" it to kids. Uh…no. The U-rating allows cuddling and kissing, and Rose and Pearl's dance isn't close to being inappropriate in any way. Secondly, to "localize" media through censorship is jargon for "you're not important."

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

CN UK claims it's to "localize" it to kids. Uh…no. The U-rating allows cuddling and kissing, and Rose and Pearl's dance isn't close to being inappropriate in any way. Secondly, to "localize" media through censorship is jargon for "you're not important."

That sort of sounds like they should be slammed into everyones face in every show on TV. Give it a rest gay couples are featured on many TV shows already like Modern Family.

[A Black Circle 1,585]

Unsurprising but disappointing.

[Dark Qiviut 22,221]

That sort of sounds like they should be slammed into everyones face in every show on TV. Give it a rest gay couples are featured on many TV shows already like Modern Family.

They actually don't. Gay couples are poorly represented in on-air commercials. Homophobic and transphobic parents and organizations constantly battle to ban children's books featuring trans* people and same-sex couples. In child-friendly media, homosexuality is either unrepresented or so subtle, creators must confirm it through an external source. Steven Universe is one such show where homosexuality isn't subtle whatsoever.

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

They actually don't. Gay couples are poorly represented in on-air commercials. Homophobic and transphobic parents and organizations constantly battle to ban children's books featuring trans* people and same-sex couples. In child-friendly media, homosexuality is either unrepresented or so subtle, creators must confirm it through an external source. Steven Universe is one such show where homosexuality isn't subtle whatsoever.

What about Wells Fargo and Chobani? Those are two large companies and they featured lesbians on their commercials. Probably for the controversy of doing so to get more business but all the more profits right?

Edited January 12, 2016 by Rainbow Dashe

[Dark Qiviut 22,221]

What about Wells Fargo and Chobani? Those are two large companies and they featured lesbians on their commercials. Probably for the controversy of doing so to get more business but all the more profits right?

Those two are some exceptions. You still don't have that much positive LGBT representation in commercials. It looks like we're seeing more on the rise, including Campbell's, Kohl's, and Reno Jewelers. But more needs to be done.

[Guest]

That sort of sounds like they should be slammed into everyones face in every show on TV. Give it a rest gay couples are featured on many TV shows already like Modern Family.

 

The issue is that the creators wanted this scene. This was their vision for the show. It's what they decided they wanted to do. It's not a matter of "slamming it in people's faces" it's that this was the original intent of the show. The problem is not that we are not showing gay couples regularly, the problem is there are few examples of gay romance on TV and people are acting like because we have a handful that should be all we should have. The second problem is that changing the show is destroying what the creators originally wanted for the sake of keeping bigotry alive.

 

Literally there was no reason to censor the creator's vision because it would not affect the ratings at all, and did not need to be censored. The only reason it was censored was because CN UK didn't want to offend bigoted parents. Then everyone turns around and goes "oh we just have to ease them into it slowly", when frankly: we do not. Gay people have existed for over 12,000 years. How much longer do people need to accept they are going to continue to exist? How much longer must we censor freedom of expression and freedom of speech to protect the precious psychs of people who fear human progress? How much longer will people be allowed to use "MY RELIGION SAYS THIS" to censor things that they don't want people to see? How much longer are we going to continue to coddle these people to accept that people should be treated equally? Because I personally feel 12,000 years is enough adjusting time. I don't really give a damn what your religion is because it's not mine and it should not govern me or anyone else.

 

I am a part of the LGBT community, as is my wife and let me just say as someone who is a part of the community: we are kind of tired of this apologetic approach of giving people "more time to adjust." They don't need time to adjust, they need to accept reality and stop resisting it. I'm kind of tired of being treated like a second class citizen because people aren't "ready" to accept change.

 

Literally half the arguments against homosexuality if you replace the word "gays" with "blacks" or even "jews" you start to see how familiar they sound.

 

"Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry."

"Blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry whites."

 

"Gays are an abomination."

"Jews are an abomination."

 

"Gays are unnatural."

"Blacks being with whites is unnatural."

 

It's all the exact same crap in a different candy wrapper, folks. No on is asking for gays to be featured in every single ad or TV show, we're asking for people to stop freaking out the few times they do pop up and not to try and censor them because you don't agree with being gay. I don't agree with half of the relationships I see in TV shows but I don't call the network and tell them to censor them.

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

How much longer must we censor freedom of expression and freedom of speech to protect the precious psychs of people who fear human progress?

Since humanity began the point of relationship was to procreate. Progress as a species requires procreating or the species goes extinct, so not procreating is against the species, or to say slightly inhumane.

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

Since humanity began the point of relationship was to procreate. Progress as a species requires procreating or the species goes extinct, so not procreating is against the species, or to say slightly inhumane.

Are you seriously saying this shit? Not only is this an insult to gay people, it's also an insult against people who don't want to or are able to have kids.

[Obsolete 681]

Since humanity began the point of relationship was to procreate. Progress as a species requires procreating or the species goes extinct, so not procreating is against the species, or to say slightly inhumane.

 

Actually, the point of sexual intercourse is procreation, and that can occur independently of a relationship (and vice versa). I'd say the species is populous enough at this point as to be unaffected by the few who choose to partake in relationships without the end goal of making babies. To say it is inhumane is quite a bizarre leap of logic.

[Ponies4Bronies 394]

Actually, the point of sexual intercourse is procreation, and that can occur independently of a relationship (and vice versa). I'd say the species is populous enough at this point as to be unaffected by the few who choose to partake in relationships without the end goal of making babies. To say it is inhumane is quite a bizarre leap of logic.

Your right, I can agree it is a bizarre leap of logic...

Are you seriously saying this shit? Not only is this an insult to gay people, it's also an insult against people who don't want to or are able to have kids.

It sounded wrong, what I was trying to say was procreate in the true way i.e. typical sexual activity to fertilize and get pregnant. I did not take into consideration test tube babies and surrogates who birth your child for you, because thats not the way...but it works for some I guess.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Rainbow Dashe

[Dawning Demon 950]

Wrong. That's exactly what CN UK said. They claimed Rose and Pearl romantically dancing was "inappropriate for children" and violated the U-rating.

 

CN UK's statement to Pink News is as follows:

 

"Localization" is PR jargon for "you don't deserve recognition." This has been a major problem in media dating back to DiC, 4Kids, and Saban. CN UK is doing it here.

 

Secondly, the U-rating does allow this type of content, including kissing and cuddling. Nothing in the UK's TV content guidelines suggests romantic dancing violates the rating. Heterosexual content as "lewd" as Pearl and Rose's dance wasn't censored. CN UK is lying to the public, and you're falling for it.

 

Both of you are objectively wrong. True ignorance is actually believing CN UK has a reason to censor this scene, downplaying the offense and implications, and trying to listen to a side that has doesn't deserve support in the first place. By implicating that same-sex couples and people of minority genders and sexualities don't deserve recognition to "protect the kids," they're pandering to the lowest-common denominator, whether they received complaints or not. CN UK is hurting every single child worldwide — especially in the UK — by defending their homophobia. Nobody has given any valid reasons to defend it.

 

I don't watch South Park and don't give a damn about it. The one big difference is South Park bashes bigotry, not support it. Often, they know what they're doing; CN UK doesn't.

 

Damn right the censoring is oppression. Pay attention to the implications. CN UK suggests that gay people shouldn't exist "to protect kids." Unfortunate implications exist, and they're huge here.

You like to "assume" a lot I'm not falling for anything because I don't agree with what CN has done to the scene, but your points come across as bitching and moaning more then anything else, If CN was so "homophobic" like you point them out to be then surely they wouldn't air Steven Universe at all like countries in the Middle East don't.

 

I live in the UK and laws against discrimination are very strict, Sexism, Racism and Homophobia are taken very seriously and that is taken note in large media companies, like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and BskyB including CN UK.

 

As that statement reads: "Be assured that as a channel and network we celebrate diversity – evident across many of our shows and characters".

 

Your passing it off as that CN UK are evil and that they are trying to oppress the gay community which itself is BULLSHIT.

 

Personally I don't think their is anything wrong with that scene but obviously they do as a professional diverse company I don't think its because they are hell bent on oppressing homosexuality from children.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Dawning Demon

[Guest]

You like to "assume" a lot I'm not falling for anything because I don't agree with what CN has done to the scene, but your points come across as bitching and moaning more then anything else, If CN was so "homophobic" like you point them out to be then surely they wouldn't air Steven Universe at all like countries in the Middle East don't.

 

I live in the UK and laws against discrimination are very strict, Sexism, Racism and Homophobia are taken very seriously and that is taken note in large media companies, like the BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and BskyB including CN UK.

 

As that statement reads: "Be assured that as a channel and network we celebrate diversity – evident across many of our shows and characters".

 

Your passing it off as that CN UK are evil and that they are trying to oppress the gay community which itself is BULLSHIT.

 

Personally I don't think their is anything wrong with that scene but obviously they do but as a professional diverse company I don't think its because they are hell bent on oppressing homosexuality from children.

 

The censorship definitely was a mistake and a big lapse in judgement on their part. However I don't think just saying "we celebrate diversity" truly means anything, it's a very PR canned response. I mean do I think CN UK are completely bigoted and evil? Probably not. However I do think the few responsible for this decision might possibly be bigoted and definitely should not be permitted to do it again.

 

I mean it's very likely that this was the choice of a few people who are just stupid and then when it got to the news Cartoon Network decided "crap if we admit we screwed up that might look bad" not realizing that trying to stand by the choice would look worse, but they were just trying to damage control and did a crappy job.

 

I think there is a big possibility this is just a couple people at CN UK who were bigoted and made this call that hopefully are being scolded heavily and won't do it again and their PR department being very crap at their jobs for damage controlling. Considering that the show even airs there at all, I am lead to believe it's a possibility, but I will not excuse the stunt completely and I definitely will not take lightly to this becoming a repeating thing from them. Honestly they should just show the original episode from now on and hope everyone forgets their stupid mistake and hopefully learn not to do something like this again.

[Dawning Demon 950]

The censorship definitely was a mistake and a big lapse in judgement on their part. However I don't think just saying "we celebrate diversity" truly means anything, it's a very PR canned response. I mean do I think CN UK are completely bigoted and evil? Probably not. However I do think the few responsible for this decision might possibly be bigoted and definitely should not be permitted to do it again.

 

I mean it's very likely that this was the choice of a few people who are just stupid and then when it got to the news Cartoon Network decided "crap if we admit we screwed up that might look bad" not realizing that trying to stand by the choice would look worse, but they were just trying to damage control and did a crappy job.

 

I think there is a big possibility this is just a couple people at CN UK who were bigoted and made this call that hopefully are being scolded heavily and won't do it again and their PR department being very crap at their jobs for damage controlling. Considering that the show even airs there at all, I am lead to believe it's a possibility, but I will not excuse the stunt completely and I definitely will not take lightly to this becoming a repeating thing from them. Honestly they should just show the original episode from now on and hope everyone forgets their stupid mistake and hopefully learn not to do something like this again.

The staff at CN UK were pretty idiotic by removing that scene but it wasn't a message of gay oppression.

[Obsolete 681]

It might help to draw a distinction between homophobic actions stemming from ignorance versus homophobic actions stemming from genuine malice. I don't think anyone is claiming that CN UK is evil, but they are acting on the erroneous premise that depictions of homosexual behavior of any kind are inappropriate for children -- a shortsighted notion, and one with sordid roots.

 

This kind of thing is damaging, whether CN UK intended it or not, and it should be challenged.

[Guest]

The staff at CN UK were pretty idiotic by removing that scene but it wasn't a message of gay oppression.

I am saying it is a possibility that it may have been an anti-gay action but not necessarily by the whole network and it may have just been a really stupid bad judgement call as well. I am entertaining the idea that either is possible.

[Dawning Demon 950]

I am saying it is a possibility that it may have been an anti-gay action but not necessarily by the whole network and it may have just been a really stupid bad judgement call as well. I am entertaining the idea that either is possible.

The thread should sum up that CN UK made a homophobic decision that's all I can think of. xD

[Dark Qiviut 22,221]

but your points come across as bitching and moaning more then anything else,

Wrong. If I was "bitching and moaning," then I'd be like Trump whining about Starbucks's so-called "War on Christmas." I'm criticizing. I'm complaining. I'm angry. Our anger is completely valid, because there are serious implications in their actions and inaction in response to heated criticism. Swiping our anger at CN UK aside as "bitching and moaning" is an assumption.

 

If CN was so "homophobic" like you point them out to be then surely they wouldn't air Steven Universe at all like countries in the Middle East don't.

What's going on with SU in the Middle East is irrelevant here, and CN US didn't censor this scene for themselves or other western nations. CN UK chose to censor it while CN US left all of We Need to Talk intact.

 

As that statement reads: "Be assured that as a channel and network we celebrate diversity – evident across many of our shows and characters".

You're taking contrived PR bullshit at face value. That statement is to cover its stalk in case it receives future accusations.

 

Not all oppression is based on pure evil. A lot of it is based on ignorance. Clearly, CN UK was very ignorant when they censored it out of a hurtful belief. Yet, rather than admit wrongdoing, they used the "localization" copout and lied to the public. Homophobia based on ignorance is still homophobia, and it still hurts. Their PR statement is an admission of homophobia regardless of intent.

 

Now, will they do it again? Will CN UK air episodes like We Need to Talk uncensored next time? We don't know. Hopefully, this outrage keeps the entire company — namely CN UK — in check so it never happens again.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Dark Qiviut