Shouldn't Bow Hot Hoof have stopped all the gay stereotyping with Rainbow Dash?

[cmarston1 5,959]

Not really.  Rainbow Dash would still have the whole being a tomboy automatically means that she is a lesbian stereotype to go along with the whole rainbows = gay thing that would make people think that she is one in the first place.

As for the whole topic on whether or not there should be queer characters in MLP, than I don't see why not.  I mean the show despite supposedly being about romance, has had plenty of heterosexual relationships in it already, so I don't see why there can't be any LGBT characters or relationships in the show as well.  I mean there's Mr and Mrs Cake , Shining Armor and Cadence, Cranky and Matilda, Big Mac and Sugar Belle as examples.  Heck the show/EQG even has had the main characters be involved with having or being the receiving end of hetero crushes such as Twilight and Flash Sentry, Sci Twi and Timber Spruce Sunset and Flash Sentry, Spike and Rarity, Rarity and Prince Blueblood, Trenderhoof and Applejack, Rarity and Trenderhoof, and Rarity and Capper.

 I am pretty confidant that none of the mane 6 are going to be in same sex relationships, and I won't fool myself that there is even a slight chance for that to happen, but I wouldn't mind seeing LGBT characters in the show, even if I don't feel like that will be all too likely to happen.  Right now I am really hoping that Scootaloo's queer aunts that she live with from Ponyville Mysteries: Riddle of the Rusty Horsehoe, in either season 8 or season 9.

Edited February 4, 2018 by cmarston1

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,438]

2 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

When you try to find it in a TV show that is not focused around romance it kind of is. You're looking to confirm something in a show that literally has very little relevance to the show which would serve no purpose for the narrative at all. That's politics whether you like to admit it or not. If the "representation" does nothing to improve the narrative, or change anything, or it's just shoved in to have it there, it's political.

LGBT members make up less than 10% of the population, so being represented in 10% of shows seems appropriate wouldn't you say? They don't need "representation" in this show unless the writers have an actual plan for that representation, but asking for it simply to be there for the sake of being there is making it a political when it doesn't need to be.

Pitch me an idea of how it can be used and meshed with the narrative of the show without hijacking that narrative and I will accept that as non-political, but to want it simply to have it that's just meeting a quota whihc is political.

Currently, the show is not heavily focused on romance so revealing sexualities would be arbitrary at best which makes it there simply to meet a political quota of "representation". It does nothing to add to the entertainment value of anyone. If you are more entertained just because LGBT characters exist in a show then your standards are insanely low.

Not to mention Hasbro avoids controversy like the plague as they sidestep it every time.

Because a male and a female make a baby, so when you have an episode like say... The Cake Twins' birth you sort of can't explain that they came from anywhere else besides a male and a female. It's a matter of circumstances kind of make it impossible to not portray straight romance as the norm because it's the only way you can bring in new child or baby characters without having to just adopt them from other places. How would Shining and Cadance have had a baby if they were not male and female? It's a matter of the stupid LBGT movement gets their panties in a wad over this "hetero-normative" thing but here's the thing it's going to remain rampant because most kids this will be the norm. They will mostly see men and women married, and men and women have children together. It's still the norm, and thus that will remain true in media.

There isn't really a reason to force other sexualities in there unless there is a narrative purpose and the show writers have an idea for it in mind. Otherwise it's just there to earn those LGBT brownie points. Too bad brownie points don't become sales.

My kids are not going to be getting their values or lessons on such subjects from cartoons, so naturally I am not concerned.

It's just a kid's show.

Problem here is that Sesame Street actually had a character with cancer within its cast as a focal point. People with cancer are a minority (despite it being a terrible disease) yet they felt compelled to bring it up. One could say that was for educational purposes given the show. Fair enough, but when it comes to LGBT, the issue is only one thing: Companies like Hasbro are cowards because of the societal bullshit in this country. If they can show a heterosexual relationship, they can damn well show a homosexual relationship because it is no different. LGBT doesn't automatically mean sex. It's not about 'representation' either. I don't need to an LGBT character to 'identify' with. The reason its inclusion would be a good thing is to show that LGBT isn't some horrible end of the world thing that should be avoided at all costs. They can treat it like...any other relationship. That's what it is. Like any other relationship. I know, "Hasbro's bottom line blah blah bigots losing their shit blah blah", they can do whatever they want. Doesn't change the fact that the logic behind not bothering with it at all is a tad flawed. There was that storybook that introduced Aunt's of Scootaloo that apparently were a lesbian couple and it was gone about in a fairly casual way. Yet people STILL lost their shit over it, going so far to boycott the book because they said it was officially 'politicized'. Yes, because showing LOVE is automatically political if it happens to be gay, I guess. These are the same type of people that would be offended by them showing a character with a mental handicap, because their logic with that is "You acknowledged it, therefore you are making fun of it!" I can't exactly take those people or their viewpoints with any validity.

With that though, the whole 'Rainbow is a lesbian' thing is a simple byproduct of her punkish personality, nothing more. It's not important, it is just what the fandom does for fun. Nothing new. Who cares.

[Guest]

Just now, Kyoshi said:

Problem here is that Sesame Street actually had a character with cancer within its cast as a focal point.

Seasame street was a show designed around teaching kids these kind of lessons and it was a regular thing for the show in its almost 50 year run. MLP has been running for 8 years now and the most we've gotten for an LGBT reference is one mention of Scootaloo having two aunts in a book that isn't even confirmed as canon.

Just now, Kyoshi said:

People with cancer are a minority (despite it being a terrible disease) yet they felt compelled to bring it up.

I am not even going to begin to attempt to liken cancer and terminal illnesses in shows to LGBT stuff. It's not even remotely a fair comparison and it's reeking of appeals to emotion. Let's simply stay on point here instead.

Just now, Kyoshi said:

Fair enough, but when it comes to LGBT, the issue is only one thing: Companies like Hasbro are cowards because of the societal bullshit in this country. If they can show a heterosexual relationship, they can damn well show a homosexual relationship because it is no different.

Except it's not their responsibility. They are in business to make money. Whether you like it or not, shows taking risks like showing LGBT characters potentially loses money. They are not huge like Disney, so they might not be able to afford the risk. The show would get banned in China and Russia, cutting off a huge revenue stream. A company has the right to refuse to engage in a tactic they fear will cost them money. They also have the right to not be shamed for it. Whether you like to admit it or not, homosexuality is still a huge taboo in most of the world.

2 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

LGBT doesn't automatically mean sex.

No one said it did.

2 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

It's not about 'representation' either.

Except the people in this thread saying they want representation...

3 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

The reason its inclusion would be a good thing is to show that LGBT isn't some horrible end of the world thing that should be avoided at all costs. They can treat it like...any other relationship. That's what it is. Like any other relationship. I know, "Hasbro's bottom line blah blah bigots losing their shit blah blah", they can do whatever they want. Doesn't change the fact that the logic behind not bothering with it at all is a tad flawed.

They have the right to protect their profit line.

That being said, it's not Hasbro's job.

Also we have seen with a lot of fandoms and shows... a lot of the time it isn't treated like "no big deal". Spark up a conversation with the Steven Universe fandom and ask why Steven Universe is a good show, I promise you within the first few sentences mention of the LGBT representation and body positive crap will come up. Face it, we live in a society that doesn't just treat it as "no big deal" good or bad.

It can be done, but few people actually seem to have interest in doing that.

6 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

There was that storybook that introduced Aunt's of Scootaloo that apparently were a lesbian couple and it was gone about in a fairly casual way. Yet people STILL lost their shit over it, going so far to boycott the book because they said it was officially 'politicized'.

Doesn't that kind of prove my point though? Hasbro fears losing money. They have bills to pay and employees to pay. Bigots or not, their money is green like anyone else's. If people want to show Hasbro that they needn't fear losing bigot dollars they need to buy a LOT more merchandise to show them that they will pay the difference. To this day though, piracy remains rampant in the brony world, including the MLP movie being leaked and given out for free online to where it harmed sales harshly. So yeah, I can see why they need to rely on the soccer moms buying the Blurays and DVDs for their kids...

8 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Yes, because showing LOVE is automatically political if it happens to be gay, I guess. These are the same type of people that would be offended by them showing a character with a mental handicap, because their logic with that is "You acknowledged it, therefore you are making fun of it!" I can't exactly take those people or their viewpoints with any validity.

Hey I agree it's not right, but here's the thing: those people buy the products. Hasbro needs to sell the products or no show.

8 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

With that though, the whole 'Rainbow is a lesbian' thing is a simple byproduct of her punkish personality, nothing more. It's not important, it is just what the fandom does for fun. Nothing new. Who cares.

The irony here is people would find it more offensive if she was made gay because we'd be basing it on a stereotype alone.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,438]

Just now, Key Sharkz said:

Also we have seen with a lot of fandoms and shows... a lot of the time it isn't treated like "no big deal". Spark up a conversation with the Steven Universe fandom and ask why Steven Universe is a good show, I promise you within the first few sentences mention of the LGBT representation and body positive crap will come up. Face it, we live in a society that doesn't just treat it as "no big deal" good or bad.

And....that means...what in this context? That is just how those people react to what that show does. They make a big deal out of it, so what? At least it is a positive sense, right? Or is taking any kind of showing of LGBT as a positive thing somehow bad in your eyes? Plus, they don't have to go that far with FiM as an example. Let's say there are two gay characters, they are in a relationship. All they have to do is simply show it in a standard way. Have the two character hug each other or do something else simple that indicates their relationship, perhaps maybe upon leaving for osmething. Boom, done. Context is given, it isn't shoved in anyone's face, the other characters don't make some big deal about it and all is good. Which, Steven Universe does it essentially the same way, I think. I haven't seen all of it so maybe I am wrong, but the inclusion of LGBT in a show doesn't automatically make it what everyone cares about. In this case, people might be surprised that the writers and everyone else involved actually have the balls to include a theme such as thought, regardless of potential bigot backlash.

6 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

I am not even going to begin to attempt to liken cancer and terminal illnesses in shows to LGBT stuff. It's not even remotely a fair comparison and it's reeking of appeals to emotion. Let's simply stay on point here instead.

Except a constant argument against LGBT in a show like this is that it is a kid's show and 'sexuality' has no place. Even within the confines of an educational show, cancer has a place? You think kids are really gonna understand that at that age? Hell no, they will just see it as 'she is sick' and nothing more. Much like how kids could see a gay relationship in FiM as 'oh, the boy pony loves the boy pony.' and that's it. The world goes on, society doesn't crumble, all is well.

8 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Except it's not their responsibility. They are in business to make money. Whether you like it or not, shows taking risks like showing LGBT characters potentially loses money. They are not huge like Disney, so they might not be able to afford the risk. The show would get banned in China and Russia, cutting off a huge revenue stream. A company has the right to refuse to engage in a tactic they fear will cost them money. They also have the right to not be shamed for it. Whether you like to admit it or not, homosexuality is still a huge taboo in most of the world.

Then they can simply edit it for those regions that are a few hundred years in the past.

9 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Doesn't that kind of prove my point though? Hasbro fears losing money. They have bills to pay and employees to pay. Bigots or not, their money is green like anyone else's. If people want to show Hasbro that they needn't fear losing bigot dollars they need to buy a LOT more merchandise to show them that they will pay the difference. To this day though, piracy remains rampant in the brony world, including the MLP movie being leaked and given out for free online to where it harmed sales harshly. So yeah, I can see why they need to rely on the soccer moms buying the Blurays and DVDs for their kids...

Except the petition went nowhere. The books were not removed, nor were they altered. So clearly Hasbro didn't budge from the bigots, some of which were threatening to bar their kids from it at all costs as long as the book remained as is. And these people were freaking out for what now? A casual display of a same sex relationship. The book didn't say "LOOK KIDS, GAY STUFF" or anything like that, they just did what a couple would probably do regardless of the genders. That works in showing that having such a thing isn't going to melt the brains of children. Part of progress is abandoning outdated nonsense like the views of these soccer moms. If we still took their words for law, then gay marriage would still be illegal in the states entirely.

13 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

The irony here is people would find it more offensive if she was made gay because we'd be basing it on a stereotype alone.

I know I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't care either way. That is simply a difficult thing to predict in this case.

14 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Except the people in this thread saying they want representation...

Yeah, some people definitely do want that. That isn't a bad thing. I am just saying that isn't what it is ENTIRELY about.

15 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Seasame street was a show designed around teaching kids these kind of lessons and it was a regular thing for the show in its almost 50 year run. MLP has been running for 8 years now and the most we've gotten for an LGBT reference is one mention of Scootaloo having two aunts in a book that isn't even confirmed as canon

You gotta start somewhere I suppose.

[Guest]

Just now, Kyoshi said:

And....that means...what in this context? That is just how those people react to what that show does. They make a big deal out of it, so what? At least it is a positive sense, right?

It means perhaps that isn't the conversation Hasbro wants about the show. Perhaps they want it to be graded on its own merits, there's nothing wrong with that is there? They don't feel they need the extra points for being "progressive". Hasbro isn't being homophobic or transphobic or anything for NOT including them are they?

Just now, Kyoshi said:

Plus, they don't have to go that far with FiM as an example. Let's say there are two gay characters, they are in a relationship. All they have to do is simply show it in a standard way.

We've learned in the past it simply is not that simple. You give an inch people take a mile. If they WANT to do it, they should. If they don't then they shouldn't. We've learned these little half hearted nods never please anyone, they always expect more and more. It's better to simply tell the story you want to tell.

2 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

but the inclusion of LGBT in a show doesn't automatically make it what everyone cares about.

Except a lot of people make it about that.

3 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

In this case, people might be surprised that the writers and everyone else involved actually have the balls to include a theme such as thought, regardless of potential bigot backlash.

Or they could just be making a show for entertainment and put light friendship lessons that are painfully obvious to meet education standards required of kids shows these days but never intended anything super serious.

4 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Except a constant argument against LGBT in a show like this is that it is a kid's show and 'sexuality' has no place. Even within the confines of an educational show, cancer has a place? You think kids are really gonna understand that at that age? Hell no, they will just see it as 'she is sick' and nothing more. Much like how kids could see a gay relationship in FiM as 'oh, the boy pony loves the boy pony.' and that's it. The world goes on, society doesn't crumble, all is well.

HUGE difference.

For starters... Children can have cancer and have a concept of people dying of cancer at a young age. Sexuality... Children are not sexual. Children develop that later in life. It would be better suited for a show like SU which is targeted more at kids who are closer to that age. Not to mention the show isn't about romance, so it would feel stupidly out of place.

6 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Then they can simply edit it for those regions that are a few hundred years in the past.

23 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Fair enough, but here's the thing: in Russia homosexuality is punished. A simple edit may not be enough to stop them from banning it outright. Hasbro doesn't get to decide that.

7 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Except the petition went nowhere. The books were not removed, nor were they altered. So clearly Hasbro didn't budge from the bigots, some of which were threatening to bar their kids from it at all costs as long as the book remained as is. And these people were freaking out for what now? A casual display of a same sex relationship. The book didn't say "LOOK KIDS, GAY STUFF" or anything like that, they just did what a couple would probably do regardless of the genders. That works in showing that having such a thing isn't going to melt the brains of children. Part of progress is abandoning outdated nonsense like the views of these soccer moms. If we still took their words for law, then gay marriage would still be illegal in the states entirely.

That wasn't my point. My point was that because there was outrage shows that there is still a threat of lost profits. Chances are Hasbro didn't do anything because you'll learn the more you study business that the best opinion is no opinion. Hasbro chose to remain silent and not comment either way. That's sort of how you avoid pissing off either side. I get you don't like it but the reality in the world the majority of the world population is against homosexuality. That's just a fact, and it's something we have to deal with. In the confines of a small place like a first world country it's easy to deal with, but on a world scale it's a lot more complex.

10 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

I know I can't speak for everyone, but I wouldn't care either way. That is simply a difficult thing to predict in this case.

27 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

I know plenty of lesbians who actually hate how Dash is seen as a lesbian based upon stereotypes.

10 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Yeah, some people definitely do want that. That isn't a bad thing. I am just saying that isn't what it is ENTIRELY about.

28 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Really because I have seen no real other reason given besides "show kids gay characters!" No one has proposed a narrative reason for it, yourself included...

11 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

You gotta start somewhere I suppose.

But why should all shows be obligated to do that? What if Hasbro simply doesn't want to? Can they have that right?

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

@Key Sharkz You repeatedly refered to me as "he" in reply to @Divine plywood. I am not a "he". When people say "don't assume someone's gender", this is what they mean, don't assume the default is a man. My pronouns are "They/ Them/ Theirs", and, yes, "They" is a valid singular pronoun, same as "You" is both valid as singular and plural.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Wylyth

[Guest]

Just now, Wylyth said:

@Key Sharkz You repeatedly refered to me as "he" in reply to @Divine plywood. I am not a "he". When people say "don't assume someone's gender, this is what they mean, don't assume the default is a man. My pronouns are They/ Them/ Theirs, and, yes, They is a valid singular pronoun, same as You is both valid as singular and plural.

Love, it's the internet. No one can see you, no one can see what you look like or what pronouns you prefer. Getting bent out of shape over it is kind of dumb.

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

Just now, Key Sharkz said:

Love, it's the internet. No one can see you, no one can see what you look like or what pronouns you prefer. Getting bent out of shape over it is kind of dumb.

Like i said, dont assume someone is male. If you don't know what their gender is, use "They". its not really a difficult concept. You know, you could have just said "I'm sorry"

[Guest]

Just now, Wylyth said:

Like i said, dont assume someone is male. If you don't know what their gender is, use "They". its not really a difficult concept. You know, you could have just said "I'm sorry"

I legitimately do not care.

Either way this has nothing to do with the discussion, do you have anything to add to the discussion?

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

Just now, Key Sharkz said:

I legitimately do not care.

Either way this has nothing to do with the discussion, do you have anything to add to the discussion?

Ok, heres something to add to the discussion, the reason we need more LGBTQIA+ characters (OPENLY LGBTQIA+ characters) is so more people will be more considerate in the real world. 

[Guest]

Just now, Wylyth said:

Ok, heres something to add to the discussion, the reason we need more LGBTQIA+ characters (OPENLY LGBTQIA+ characters) is so more people will be more considerate in the real world. 

Here's the thing: what if Hasbro doesn't want it in there?

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,438]

8 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

HUGE difference.

For starters... Children can have cancer and have a concept of people dying of cancer at a young age. Sexuality... Children are not sexual. Children develop that later in life. It would be better suited for a show like SU which is targeted more at kids who are closer to that age. Not to mention the show isn't about romance, so it would feel stupidly out of place.

I am detecting some contradictions. A bit ago, you said that nobody was implying that sexuality automatically means sex. Here, you are saying that sexuality is by default sexual and not a good topic for children. Thing is, love is in kid's shows all the damn time, mostly in the form of heterosexual relationships. Since we established earlier that LGBT also doesn't automatically mean sex, that also can just be love, nothing beyond that. Nothing different from what all sorts of other kids shows put up all the time, except it is same genders. Not much of a difference.

11 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

It means perhaps that isn't the conversation Hasbro wants about the show. Perhaps they want it to be graded on its own merits, there's nothing wrong with that is there? They don't feel they need the extra points for being "progressive". Hasbro isn't being homophobic or transphobic or anything for NOT including them are they?

If that's the case then they wouldn't even go anywhere near the whole Lyra Bon bon thing. Slice of Life even had them give each particular looks in a peculiar looking context. If they didn't ever want that to be a discussion point, then they would avoid it. Even still, I don't see people constantly talking about gay characters anyways. There are all sorts of things to discuss in terms of the show. It would raise some talks amongst the community at first for sure as it would be a new thing for the show. New stuff being talked about, that itself is nothing new.

14 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Fair enough, but here's the thing: in Russia homosexuality is punished. A simple edit may not be enough to stop them from banning it outright. Hasbro doesn't get to decide that.

With the animation they use, it would be easy as hell.

15 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

I know plenty of lesbians who actually hate how Dash is seen as a lesbian based upon stereotypes

That's their problem, because that's just the fandom doing that portrayal.

16 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Really because I have seen no real other reason given besides "show kids gay characters!" No one has proposed a narrative reason for it, yourself included...

Well, that's because I already stated why I think it should happen and how. I was thinking of a way to appease everyone, but you apparently want it to be woven in to the narrative, but if that happened then you would most likely accuse it of pandering and the bigots would still be pissed off, probably more if it was directly tied into a story rather than casually shown, which would then make you say it was a bad idea.

18 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

But why should all shows be obligated to do that? What if Hasbro simply doesn't want to? Can they have that right?

They aren't. Nobody is holding a gun to the CEO's face and demanding it. The inclusion in the book was a huge surprise to everyone, nobody expected it. Which means nobody was forcing them to. The only forcing I seen was people wanting to force Hasbro to remove it. Hmmm...They are not obligated at all, I just personally think that a show focusing on friendship, something that is a good thing, can also show that same sex relationships are perfectly fine and not the end of the world in their existence. It matches the shows theme to me. Not in romance, but acceptance.

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

6 hours ago, Wylyth said:

Seuxality is not political. Gender Identity isn't political. Me existing as a pansexual femminine enby does not make me political. Im sorry, but im so tired of people acting like having more representation of LGBTQIA+ characters is "too political". 

@Key Sharkz speaking of which, i outright said that I was an enby, not a man. So please, just say you are sorry and endeavor not assume someone is a man.

[Guest]

Just now, Kyoshi said:

I am detecting some contradictions. A bit ago, you said that nobody was implying that sexuality automatically means sex.

No contradiction.

Saying you're gay doesn't mean you're going to get sexual, however you're still talking about your sexuality which is a subject that for kids... Will have no relevance. I apologize for the confusion.

Just now, Kyoshi said:

Thing is, love is in kid's shows all the damn time, mostly in the form of heterosexual relationships.

Mostly as a plot device.

1 minute ago, Kyoshi said:

If that's the case then they wouldn't even go anywhere near the whole Lyra Bon bon thing. Slice of Life even had them give each particular looks in a peculiar looking context. If they didn't ever want that to be a discussion point, then they would avoid it. Even still, I don't see people constantly talking about gay characters anyways. There are all sorts of things to discuss in terms of the show. It would raise some talks amongst the community at first for sure as it would be a new thing for the show. New stuff being talked about, that itself is nothing new.

Except that is just people perceiving them as gay, there was nothing confirming it. You're mistaking headcanon with canon.

I mean maybe you haven't seen it, but I have yet to have anyone tell me about SU without bringing it up.

2 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

With the animation they use, it would be easy as hell.

25 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Except that wasn't my point. My point was Russia can STILL ban it even if they edit it out because they don't want to be associated with it.

3 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

That's their problem, because that's just the fandom doing that portrayal.

26 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

So if the show accepted it you're saying their offense at the stereotype is not valid?

4 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

Well, that's because I already stated why I think it should happen and how. I was thinking of a way to appease everyone, but you apparently want it to be woven in to the narrative, but if that happened then you would most likely accuse it of pandering and the bigots would still be pissed off, probably more if it was directly tied into a story rather than casually shown, which would then make you say it was a bad idea.

27 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

No because if you just put it there for it to be there, then it's only there for brownie points. I am saying that if the show creators WANT it there and have a narrative reason then by all means do so! However what they shouldn't do is throw it in and weave it into the narrative out of pressure. If they don't want to do it either in the narrative or out of it, then leave it out. That's fair is it not?

5 minutes ago, Kyoshi said:

They aren't. Nobody is holding a gun to the CEO's face and demanding it. The inclusion in the book was a huge surprise to everyone, nobody expected it. Which means nobody was forcing them to. The only forcing I seen was people wanting to force Hasbro to remove it. Hmmm...They are not obligated at all, I just personally think that a show focusing on friendship, something that is a good thing, can also show that same sex relationships are perfectly fine and not the end of the world in their existence. It matches the shows theme to me. Not in romance, but acceptance.

But you're kind of pressuring them right now. You're not forcing it by holding a gun to their head sure, but you're expressing disdain over it not being there.

I mean can we at least acknowledge if Hasbro doesn't want to do it then they are not bigots or assholes for that maybe?

2 minutes ago, Wylyth said:

@Key Sharkz speaking of which, i outright said that I was an enby, not a man. So please, just say you are sorry and endeavor not assume someone is a man.

Perhaps this is a matter best left to PM, love?

It has nothing to do with the discussion.

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

Actually, I feel it has lots to do with the discussion. Man isn't the defauly, Heterosexuality isn't the default. Cisgender isn't the default. This is the reason we need more representation. It doesn't even need to be sexual. Just so a married gay couple, I mean, we see married straight couples in MLP (Cadence and Shining Armor, for one), so you could still show gay representation  without being sexual. And thats the problem, no one assumes a straight couple is being sexual, but assume gay couples are.

[Guest]

Just now, Wylyth said:

Actually, I feel it has lots to do with the discussion. Man isn't the defauly, Heterosexuality isn't the default. Cisgender isn't the default. This is the reason we need more representation. It doesn't even need to be sexual. Just so a married gay couple, I mean, we see married straight couples in MLP (Cadence and Shining Armor, for one), so you could still show gay representation  without being sexual. And thats the problem, no one assumes a straight couple is being sexual, but assume gay couples are.

I ask the question again though:

What if Hasbro simply doesn't want to?

[Twisted Cyclone 🚓 6,259]

Here's the sad part about it, we'll have the closed minded conservative parents get up in arms crying about seeing a gay/lesbian couple on the show. This is partially the reason why you don't see it in cartoons much if at all and I don't think Hasbro wants to create the controversy.  

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,438]

Just now, Key Sharkz said:

But you're kind of pressuring them right now. You're not forcing it by holding a gun to their head sure, but you're expressing disdain over it not being there.

I mean can we at least acknowledge if Hasbro doesn't want to do it then they are not bigots or assholes for that maybe?

Nope, not pressuring them at all. I am just simply stating that if they wanted to do it, then this is what I think they could go about it and what it could stand for. That's it. The bigoted assholes are people like the ones protesting that one part in that book. They are the problem.

2 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

No because if you just put it there for it to be there, then it's only there for brownie points. I am saying that if the show creators WANT it there and have a narrative reason then by all means do so! However what they shouldn't do is throw it in and weave it into the narrative out of pressure. If they don't want to do it either in the narrative or out of it, then leave it out. That's fair is it not?

The thing is, how do we know that everyone on the team doesn't want something like this? We don't know that. Someone on the creative team could very well have an idea for something like that, but they don't even bother bringing it up because of fear of the concept getting fully denied, because of the bigots. You say that's business, sure, but that is also part of the reason why I do wish that we could slowly move away from those people and their outdated influence. Who knows what creative thinks at any given point, but they can do what they wish. Also, showing an LGBT couple for the sake of showing one isn't just some 'brownie points'. It is a way of telling people that the world won't end if you do show that. My offense is not with them not showing it, it is with the idiots that prevent such an idea coming to fruition in the first place.

7 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

So if the show accepted it you're saying their offense at the stereotype is not valid?

I already said I don't care either way in this regard, specifically how someone wants a gay character to be portrayed is entirely up to them.

8 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Except that is just people perceiving them as gay, there was nothing confirming it. You're mistaking headcanon with canon.

Slice of Life was basically one giant mosh pit of headcanon's being represented, mostly loosely, but still.

9 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

Saying you're gay doesn't mean you're going to get sexual, however you're still talking about your sexuality which is a subject that for kids... Will have no relevance.

Then heterosexual relationships should never appear either.

And with that, I really am tired. Like, legit tired. I need sleeps.

[Guest]

Just now, Kyoshi said:

Nope, not pressuring them at all. I am just simply stating that if they wanted to do it, then this is what I think they could go about it and what it could stand for. That's it. The bigoted assholes are people like the ones protesting that one part in that book. They are the problem.

12 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

I agree. And I stress again the point you said: if they wanted to do it.

Absolutely.

Just now, Kyoshi said:

The thing is, how do we know that everyone on the team doesn't want something like this?

The people calling the shots don't want to and that's all that really matters. They own the property, they have the rights. It's not a reality everyone enjoys, but that's what it boils down to. You get hired to a job you agree to play ball.

Just now, Kyoshi said:

Also, showing an LGBT couple for the sake of showing one isn't just some 'brownie points'. It is a way of telling people that the world won't end if you do show that. My offense is not with them not showing it, it is with the idiots that prevent such an idea coming to fruition in the first place.

But here's the thing: if it has nothing to do with the story it really isn't good story writing.

Just now, Kyoshi said:

Slice of Life was basically one giant mosh pit of headcanon's being represented, mostly loosely, but still.

14 minutes ago, Key Sharkz said:

A discussion for another day, but either way, headcanon is headcanon. On top of that, nothing was explicitly stated.

1 minute ago, Kyoshi said:

Then heterosexual relationships should never appear either.

 

They are mostly there as plot devices. Relevant to the stories they wanted to tell.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,438]

Just now, Key Sharkz said:

They are mostly there as plot devices. Relevant to the stories they wanted to tell.

Then that's what they can do if they wanted the subject to be a focal point in FiM. Of course the bigots would go nuts and call for the show's destruction, but if corporate and the team wanted to tell such a story, that is a hurdle they would have to get across for the sake of creative freedom.

[Guest]

Just now, Kyoshi said:

Then that's what they can do if they wanted the subject to be a focal point in FiM. Of course the bigots would go nuts and call for the show's destruction, but if corporate and the team wanted to tell such a story, that is a hurdle they would have to get across for the sake of creative freedom.

Absolutely!

If they wanted to tell the story they should regardless of reaction. However if they don't then they shouldn't.

MAYBE Gen 5 will be more progressive, but maybe not.

[Truffles 2,033]

Wow, well this topic heated up quickly compared to what I saw this morning.

I'm not really going to weigh in on the big debate, I just want to say I always thought Rainbow Dash was straight but bi-curious for Fluttershy - at least she seemed that way by the evidence presented in the early seasons.

Whether that evidence is real or is just stuff the animators threw in for fun is irrelevant, because when you're talking about something that is a bunch of vectors in a computer whose personality is defined across the mindscape of animators, story board artists, story editors, writers, and executives, then the final product on the screen is by definition all that she is.

[AccountNoLongerUsed 741]

Anyway, like I said in a previous post, I actually also dont like that Rainbow Dash is assume Lesbian for her Rainbow mane, as there is more to LGBTQIA+ than just the L and G. Dash could be bisexual, she could be asexual.

[Steve Piranha 29,421]

2 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

 Not really. I never said he had low standards, I said if that was his idea of entertainment then his standards were low. That is a fair statement and I stand by it. If you are only entertained by a show because it adds token LGBT representation regardless of quality or if just a character being confirmed as "gay" or something improves a show for you then you have very low standards in my book. That's my opinion and I stand by it.

 

Exactly, and that means I can find your opinion to be poor or stupid. My opinion on one's standards is no more right or wrong than your own. It's all subjective, meaning it's totally fair. You're not obligated to agree with my opinion, but you kind of don't really have the right to tell me to lighten it either. If you are entertained merely by LGBT characters EXISTING while adding nothing to a narrative then in my opinion you have very low standards.

See and in my opinion saying you can relate more to a character because they share your gender identity or sexuality then I feel you're putting too much of your life into that basket. I am bisexual and trans, and I can relate to the characters just fine without them needing to be either of those things.

You're talking about personality though. Personalities click. Personalities are often how we make friends and thus establish connections with people. If you can't establish a connection with someone because they don't have your gender identity or sexuality even when you have similar personalities then you are obviously putting too much stock into those things is my point.

Why?

Why should we show MORE than exist in reality? If the entire idea is to represent then it should be accurate. Also many kids can relate to characters that are not their ethnic group, sexuality, etc.

Yeah I find this ridiculous norm imposed by SJWs to be well.... ridiculous. Since when the ethnicity and sexual orientation become more important in the character than... the character? What would add if Dashie, or any of the Mane6 to be lesbian? Nothing

One example of a character that's supposed to represent me is Marco Dias, from Star vs the Forces of Evil if that's the case. Should I like him more just because he's hispanic like me? No, I like him because of his character, and the humor he brings of an everyday dude getting in usual interdimentional princesses shenanigans. This political nonsense should stay away from my horses 

[RDDash 19,172]

On 2/2/2018 at 6:33 PM, Wylyth said:

I headcanon her as Asexual. Theres more to the LGBTQIA+ than just Lesbians and Gay People.

Also, who says both her parents aren't bisexual and fell for each other and choose to marry each other.

Please don't, it's a bit obvious that she has a crush on Soarin.