Scootaloo has lesbian aunts.

[AlbaTross 1,586]

On 2017-10-13 at 4:53 AM, VG_Addict said:

An upcoming book features Scootaloo living with her Aunt Holiday and Aunt Lofty, who are a lesbian couple. Vogel confirmed that they're a couple.

 

https://www.equestriadaily.com/2017/10/scootaloos-lesbian-aunt-confirmed-by.html

What do you think about this? Do you think they could appear in the show?

This is an interesting discussion, but I have taken the liberty of moving it to comics and books as it is about elements in a book that I fully intend to read at some point, but is not currently in the show.  

[ShootingStar159 2,155]

2 hours ago, Jeric said:

I have children. Well, teenagers. My only response to the argument you pose is to invoke this cultural beauty. 

I've seen looks from people with children when my daughter would hold hands with her girlfriend. I like to think that through the support of my teen, and her actions, has helped people face this this conversation. As parent, I have long been aware that one should never count on a fixed time table on when certain conversations need to occur. To suggest otherwise ignores a reality that most people do not understand -- the world does not revolve around them. Nor can they control their environment or social elements that their child will experience. 

I have no idea why you included the comic, while I love some Calvin and Hobbes, it doesn’t really have anything to do with what we are talking about.

I also am confused by your response. You say it should be done subtle enough so no one is offended. I say I agree, it should be subtle. Are we agreeing or not?

Edited October 15, 2017 by ShootingStar159

[Moon Knight 2]

Jeric, I have some respect for you. You seem pretty smart. But you just ignored the entire point of his post, cutting out the middle, where he says that the researcher who did the study you cited is not trustworthy or reliable, at all. Then threw in some opinion on the study. He, and forgive me if you're female, then brought a totally logical example, in that looking and getting aroused to MLP porn doesn't make you a zoophile.

 

Then you posted a comic strip when he/she made a very logical, understandable, and agreeable point that 1. 7-8 year olds, the target demographic of this show, don't care about gay, straight, etc. They sti believe the other gender is yucky and have cooties.

 

They also said that Hasbro shouldn't get to tell our kids about stuff like this. It's up to the childs guardian to choose that.

 

and teenagers do not equal small children, so I don't see why you brought that up. We're talking about television for little kids showing them things their guardians should be telling them when THEY believe that the child is ready, yes? I all in all don't understand what you meant about your kid. There are times when kids are ready nd when they aren't, and it SHOULD be up to the parent or guardian. Let me take a leaf from you book and say that to suggest otherwise ignores a reality that most people do not understand --- the world does not revolve around them. The media should not be telling our children about these things. The enviroment won't tell them. Most people are extremely subtle about being gay. Not to mention there are very, very few LGBT people, very few. It is up to me, as my niece's legal guardian to tell her about these things when I believe she's ready, and it is up to Star or yourself to tell your kids when you believe that they're ready. Not Hasbro, a fucking toy company. And not anyone else.

 

 

Apologies for any typos and/or grammatical errors, I'm using a very trashy phone. My thoughts may be a bit jumbled, but I believe I got my point across.

Edited October 15, 2017 by Moon Knight

[Jeric 46,850]

1 hour ago, ShootingStar159 said:

I have no idea why you included the comic, while I love some Calvin and Hobbes, it doesn’t really have anything to do with what we are talking about.

58 minutes ago, Moon Knight said:

Then you posted a comic strip when he/she made a very logical, understandable, and agreeable point that 1. 7-8 year olds, the target demographic of this show, don't care about gay, straight, etc. They sti believe the other gender is yucky and have cooties.

That strip and following comment were in response to this:

I don’t have children, so, you know, perspectives, but I would want to wait to expose and confront my kids on issues like this until I think they are old enough to think for themselves.

the strip is titled, Illusion of Control. I really shouldn't need to go further than that, but ... I'll play reductionist. 

Parent - "I should be able to control when and how I have a conversation with my kids over things." Changes TV station that has animated gay characters."

Reality - While on errands, child with mother sees two gay men holding hands. 

I hope that clears up the purpose of the strip's inclusion, as well as my referencing my own kids. The point remains valid. Parents have limited control, and that perception that they do have control is an illusion. 

I would like any gay undertones or symbolism to be subtle in FiM, as I prefer nuance in my storytelling. I don't need a show to hit me over the head with a message. Ironic ... as I applied that same thing in this thread ... but had to forgo nuance to draft a roadmap. Keep up next time. 

[ShootingStar159 2,155]

26 minutes ago, Jeric said:

That strip and following comment were in response to this:

I don’t have children, so, you know, perspectives, but I would want to wait to expose and confront my kids on issues like this until I think they are old enough to think for themselves.

the strip is titled, Illusion of Control. I really shouldn't need to go further than that, but ... I'll play reductionist. 

Parent - "I should be able to control when and how I have a conversation with my kids over things." Changes TV station that has animated gay characters."

Reality - While on errands, child with mother sees two gay men holding hands. 

I hope that clears up the purpose of the strip's inclusion, as well as my referencing my own kids. The point remains valid. Parents have limited control, and that perception that they do have control is an illusion. 

I would like any gay undertones or symbolism to be subtle in FiM, as I prefer nuance in my storytelling. I don't need a show to hit me over the head with a message. Ironic ... as I applied that same thing in this thread ... but had to forgo nuance to draft a roadmap. Keep up next time. 

That’s your argument? We can’t control everything in our lives, so we should just let corporations decide how and when we raise our kids instead of trying to take the responsibility ourselves?

There are all sorts of things we can’t control, from the mundane like relationships, gay or straight, poverty, racial divides, to more serious stuff like war, death, and disease. That doesn’t mean we should force those realities on kids before they’re ready for them. And it’s definitely shouldn’t be done by someone who isn’t family.

[Jeric 46,850]

35 minutes ago, ShootingStar159 said:

That’s your argument? We can’t control everything in our lives, so we should just let corporations decide how and when we raise our kids instead of trying to take the responsibility ourselves?

Do you see the two letter word that begins with s and ends with o? Found it yet? Good. Everything that precedes that word is an appropriate summation of one of my points. Everything that follows it is not. 

Well not everything. You see, most people on the internet assume that everything someone says that is perhaps contrary to another is somehow an argument. No, I haven't yet made an argument. Just pointed out factors that you and others overlooked as you crafted your narrative. This is how I work. Just spitting out an opinion disinterests me. 

Again, points I raised in this discussion are focused around nuance, complexity, the possibility that certain assumptions may not be concrete truths, and the illusion that we have control over how and when external complexity is introduced to children. I could further complicate this discussion by adding to it the likelihood of how suggestible you are when it comes to advertising. 

In the end, I'm simply saying that there are no absolutes, and nearly all positions on this subject amount to a house built on sand. Poorly constructed fabrications that are easily disassembled by reality.  

 

[ShootingStar159 2,155]

44 minutes ago, Jeric said:

Do you see the two letter word that begins with s and ends with o? Found it yet? Good. Everything that precedes that word is an appropriate summation of one of my points. Everything that follows it is not.

 

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

Ironic ... as I applied that same thing in this thread ... but had to forgo nuance to draft a roadmap. Keep up next time. 

You’re being awfully dismissive and demeaning over this, especially since it’s just a minor difference of opinion.

As for the rest of it, it seems there was a misunderstanding, and if so, I apologize for it. The way you phrased your “we can’t control everything” statement made it seem like you were saying my viewpoint was completely wrong, not just had a problem. Maybe the idea that we can have full control of how we raise our children is idealistic, but I prefer to view the world that way. Just because reality never goes the way we want it to, doesn’t mean I’m going to turn into a cynic.

Edited October 15, 2017 by ShootingStar159

[Moon Knight 2]

1 hour ago, Jeric said:

Do you see the two letter word that begins with s and ends with o? Found it yet? Good. Everything that precedes that word is an appropriate summation of one of my points. Everything that follows it is not. 

Well not everything. You see, most people on the internet assume that everything someone says that is perhaps contrary to another is somehow an argument. No, I haven't yet made an argument. Just pointed out factors that you and others overlooked as you crafted your narrative. This is how I work. Just spitting out an opinion disinterests me. 

Again, points I raised in this discussion are focused around nuance, complexity, the possibility that certain assumptions may not be concrete truths, and the illusion that we have control over how and when external complexity is introduced to children. I could further complicate this discussion by adding to it the likelihood of how suggestible you are when it comes to advertising. 

In the end, I'm simply saying that there are no absolutes, and nearly all positions on this subject amount to a house built on sand. Poorly constructed fabrications that are easily disassembled by reality.  

 

Don't lie, Jeric. You tried making an argument, earlier. At least part of one. It was hengef on "But what if kids see two men holding hands in the grocery store?" So? They'll assume they're brothers or some such. More than likely, they'll dismiss it. They don't care about random guys. We're talking about a TV show that our kids watch and love, with characters they are attached to. If they see too mares with little hearts floating around them, nuzzling each others muzzles, giving each other bedroom eyes, paying lots of attention to the other, etc. They'll notice. Kids pay a lot of attention to their television. Kids aren't going to pay but the bare minimum amount of attention to some dudes holding hands in the grocery store.

 

 

Again, you seem very, very dismissive, like Star said.

 

Why are you using terms "fabrications that are easily disrupted by reality". That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're talkinga about a toy company using their children's media to teach things that parents and guardians should teach their kids.

 

Guardians have a lot more control over their kids life than you believe, especially before they hut 12 or 13, the age parents should be teaching their kids about homosexuality anyway.

 

 

I'm done here, no one is changing anyone's mind, so I'm just gonna bounce. Have a good discussion/debate, people.

 

[Jeric 46,850]

8 minutes ago, Moon Knight said:

Don't lie, Jeric.

Curious. This would normally bother me, but I have a rather extensive history here when it comes to integrity. I'll have my reputation speak to my genuine nature. 

10 minutes ago, Moon Knight said:

Guardians have a lot more control over their kids life than you believe, especially before they hut 12 or 13, the age parents should be teaching their kids about homosexuality anyway.

Legal control, yes. The question remains whether legal control effectively shields a minor child from their complete social environment. 

13 minutes ago, Moon Knight said:

Again, you seem very, very dismissive,

Let me make this clear. I seem dismissive, because I am being dismissive. I see a poorly considered opinion, and I sent it back hoping some additional consideration would be applied, giving the idea more ... body. It doesn't matter if I reached the same conclusion as another person, if the other's conclusion was poorly derived. If the resulting opinion was counter to mine, yet was full bodied, I would approve. I do this often here. 

21 minutes ago, Moon Knight said:

I'm done here, no one is changing anyone's mind,

I wasn't aware that this was a goal. Not mine certainly.

20 minutes ago, Moon Knight said:

They'll notice. Kids pay a lot of attention to their television

Kids do. They also pay attention to far more that that. 

23 minutes ago, Moon Knight said:

I'm just gonna bounce

This, good sir, is a phenomenal plan. I have been looking for an appropriate stopping point ... might as well be now.

[MAIKUN 262]

Get real Jeric! Her parents are dead and she’s still an orphan, get over with it.

[Buck Testa 5,505]

To all the "Kids shows shouldn't be teaching kids about same sex relationships and it should be up to the parents." comments; 

 

No, they really should. In fact it needs to be as normalized as possible in the media and other places. They should because we know what you mean when you say "I want to teach my kids about that." 

What you are really saying is "I want my kids to be bigoted against those queer folk like I am, and I can't do that if they think they are just normal people." 

You can deny that all you want, I don't really care. I grew up smack dab in the bible belt. The "teaching my kids my way" line was extremely popular rhetoric to spread bigotry, hatred and ignorance. My own parents are quite fond of the phrase. You think you are preventing your kid from becoming gay or whatever by hiding them from those icky truths that gay people exist, but the fact of the matter is it doesn't work. If a kids gay no amount of sheltering is going to "fix" that. Sure as hell didn't work on me while I was hiding in the closet for years while my parents waxed poetic about how sinful it all was. If I had a magical pony show that could have shed some light on "hey kid, you're normal after all" during those years, I would have LOVED that. 

So yeah, bring on the kid shows with the gay aunts. I know for a fact that you cannot trust the parents to NOT be complete imbeciles when it comes to not filling their kids brains with bigoted ideologies. They think they are doing the right thing, but all they are doing is just spreading more misery into the next generation, and even more lgbt people will feel alone confused and scared. If one cartoon show with magic ponies can be a ray of hope to some kid stuck in one of those households, then more power too them. 

[Whirlwindmark 41]

Really? People are losing their minds over this? So two characters, who are most likely one time only...happen to be gay? So what? It's not like they announced something disturbing like say...."Spike and Thorax end up as a couple in the end, and Thorax species are hermaphodites so they can have a kid" 

or "Flurryheart grows up and marries Ember"

You'll never see that(except in fanfiction and fanart)

So two side characters happen to be gay, what's the big deal? Being gay is not a choice. So what's wrong with including one?

[Catpone Cerberus 23,591]

 

On 13.10.2017 at 2:53 PM, VG_Addict said:

What do you think about this? Do you think they could appear in the show?

What I think.
I don't honestly care that much, gays and lesbians are thing that exists, and thus I don't think it's special in good or bad way to see them in entertainment. I think that both people that are overly excited about this, and people who think this is bad in someway, are overreacting.

And could they appear in the show? Probably not, Hasbro knows that there's lot of parents that don't like gays existing so they probably won't risk it.

(As a sidenote, I would actually like to know what those parents think they are protecting their children from, do they think that one turns gay after seeing one in a television?)

Edited October 17, 2017 by The Cerberus

[ShootingStar159 2,155]

33 minutes ago, Buck Testa said:

To all the "Kids shows shouldn't be teaching kids about same sex relationships and it should be up to the parents." comments; 

 

No, they really should. In fact it needs to be as normalized as possible in the media and other places. They should because we know what you mean when you say "I want to teach my kids about that." 

What you are really saying is "I want my kids to be bigoted against those queer folk like I am, and I can't do that if they think they are just normal people." 

You can deny that all you want, I don't really care. 

I can’t control what you think of me. I know who I am, what I believe, and why I believe it. And I believe 6-7 year olds are too young to be forced by a corporation to confront a reality they might not be ready to understand. I hate to break it to you, but if Hasbro put a blatantly gay couple in the show, the kids you think would benefit from it most wont see it, because their parents won’t let them watch the show anymore.

And I would hope we can both agree that the show has great morals and values even without an obvious gay couple, morals like “people can be different and still be friends” or “friendship is more important than being right.” And I think those morals are more important, and more effective to the end result you want, than simply pushing for an obvious social statement.

I know why you believe what you believe, and if the show was targeted for an older audience, I would agree with you. Hiding gay people from public view won’t make them disappear, and showing ignorant people that gays are just like them is valuable. 

I at least don’t think any less of you for what you believe, and I hope you can accept that I feel differently without any hard feelings.

Edited October 17, 2017 by ShootingStar159

[Buck Testa 5,505]

3 minutes ago, ShootingStar159 said:

And I believe 6-7 year olds are too young to be forced by a corporation to confront a reality they might not be ready to understand.

See, that's nonsense. Even in this show we have couples and even a marriage on full display and there was not a peep of outrage about that. Why? Cause its normal. However the idea that WE aren't normal, that we are strange and different and scary and that we'd scar their poor little noggins is just flat out ridiculous. Kids grow up in families with gay parents, are you suggesting they are auto traumatized by proximity with a gay couple? 

The only thing that keeps that Othering of LGBT going is bigoted parents forcing that ideology on their children. Thankfully despite those parents efforts each generation is more accepting. So again, bring on the cartoons with gay characters. We need all the help we can get to make sure generations down the line have a better homelife than we get now. 

[Heavenly Inexplicit 309]

That's cool with me. Long as being gay is like a background thing, and not the only outstanding aspect of their character. I prefer to keep politics outta ponies, but you know, whatever. Gay people are people, not politics. Just don't make it political, don't make it the only interesting thing about them, and it's all good.

 

[bwrosas 252]

Here I give my Thoughts on it and what this means for the LGBT community as far as My Little Pony : Friendship Is Magic is Concerned.

Comments are Welcomed

[Ashen Pathfinder 16,161]

We can have a good discussion here without the name-calling and hostility please. Please remember rule #1 of our guideline. That is NOT a request.

Thank you.

[Olsen1987 133]

i must really giggle at some people here.
seriously, it's not bad at all to have such things in the show itself.
if you think it's a problem, then maybe you are the problem?

if it seems forced on kids if it's included, then what about all the other things being "forced" on them?

same sex couples is just couples like straight ones, not some hocus pocus badus.

one argument i've heard is that kids adopted by gays have a much harder time growing up because of the new parents.
and it's really not helping it improve in the future by hiding it as much as possible, and especially not in kids in growing up.
that's the time where they learn lots of things, and can easily be indoctrinated into things that really shouldn't be a issue in the first place.

and if it hurts pony stuffs in countries where gay stuff is illegal, then i doubt they have much western influences anyway and is unlikely to watch the show at all.
if it makes them have a bad ache in the posterior, then good, serves them right for their views.

[Lunar Glow 676]

While I'm rooting for an appearance on the FiM show, the concept of LGBT characters is (unnecessarily) a touchy subject on TV anyway, let alone a TV-Y show. I highly doubt that the writers are going to take the risk in putting them on.

Shame. 

[Steve Piranha 29,419]

On 6/4/2018 at 3:23 PM, Lunar Glow said:

While I'm rooting for an appearance on the FiM show, the concept of LGBT characters is (unnecessarily) a touchy subject on TV anyway, let alone a TV-Y show. I highly doubt that the writers are going to take the risk in putting them on.

Shame. 

They could at least put Ambermoon and Lilymoon tho

 

[Steve Piranha 29,419]

Scootie's lesbian aunts appeared in the comics. 

Spoiler

Too bad they are lesbians, I'd gladly ask out these hot mares otherwise 

 

[Guest]

On 10/13/2017 at 2:30 PM, Jeric said:

The confirmation didn't arise from a general sense of confusion. This fandom often comes across as one to dislike any ambiguity, as they act rather childish at times when people challenge their assumptions. I've seen fans react to this news with a general attitude that boils down to, 'Yeah I don't believe it.'

Hence the pressure to confirm it, and when he did the instant tagging of Equestria Daily and the bemoaning that the EqD comments section didn't all buy it. 

 

As far as the question on the OP, I do believe that we will see Lofty and Holiday on the show in season 8, especially with Dubuc in charge of FiM. 

While I am still skeptical if it will appear in the show, because Hasbro avoids controversy like the plague, I will say it recently re-appeared in the comics, which while they are mostly B-canon, it's clear the possibility is rising. This would be a pretty big thing for Hasbro considering prior to this they avoided any and all controversy.

Expect a wave of "OMG MY KIDS WILL NOT WATCH A SHOW THAT SUPPORTS GAYS!" if it does happen.

[Cwanky 17,570]

You know what? Good for Scootaloo, her family and her aunts. The fact that they are lesbian should be both celebrated and normalized just as much as how (I assume) Scootaloo manages to live a happy life despite her disability.

On one hand, I do have mixd feelings though. We live in the damn 21st century. People being openly gay shouldn’t shock or scare anyone. They’re not hurting you via their lifestyle or acting ina crude manner. Get over it and live and let live. Still, as part of a diverse society, its nice and potentially inspiring to hear about how different people with sifferent backgrounds live their lives.

[Toastypk 923]

They're pretty cute! I was really hoping we'd see them in the show, and we might.