Twitter is Blowing Up over Proposed Sequel to "Frozen"

[BoSoxGal]

By the law, I believe. And it's legal for gay folks to fuck like crazy AND get married. So enough with all the prudish morality keep it at church those that are stuck on it.

[Bicycle Bill]

I wouldn't necessarily call it "prudish morality".  I just happen to believe that man, as a higher, reasoning animal, has advanced beyond the basic instincts to be able to do more than eat, sleep, shit, and propagate the species 24/7.
In fact, since for almost all life forms on earth same-sex reproduction is a biological impossibility (yes, I know that there are some that are hermaphroditic and others, like amoebas and bacteria, that can reproduce asexually), you'd think that homosexual behavior in nature would have gone away as an evolutionary dead end a long, long time ago.

-"BB"-

[Scooter]

In fact, since for almost all life forms on earth same-sex reproduction is a biological impossibility (yes, I know that there are some that are hermaphroditic and others, like amoebas and bacteria, that can reproduce asexually), you'd think that homosexual behavior in nature would have gone away as an evolutionary dead end a long, long time ago.

What can be seen in many species is adults, usually males, either singly or in same-sex pairs, either "adopting" the young of adults that have died, and/or otherwise contributing to protecting the young of the herd, thus contributing to the survival of the species even without reproducing themselves. There is clearly an evolutionary advantage to having "surplus" adults, without biological young of their own, who can nevertheless contribute to the care of the young bred by other adults.

You can see analogous behaviour in humans - there is a long tradition of relying on childless adults in teaching, medical, spiritual, etc. roles where they care for the children of others, and it is not surprising and probably not coincidental that lesbians and gay men are overrepresented in the "caring" professions - teaching, health care, social services, ordained ministry, etc.

[TPFKA@W]

I try to be open minded about this sort of thing and fall a lot short sometimes.

I like to think that it's not the gay or color factor but more the change factor. Don't hijack old established fairy tales and make them gay or black or whatever. Create new ones. Use your imagination and come up with black princesses and lesbian princesses who have a back story which is is unique to and for them. Then the old fusspots who nay it all can calmly be quiet about the gayness or colorness of the princess.

[Scooter]

No one is talking about turning Pocahontas into a lesbian. It took decades for Disney to make a movie based on The Snow Queen because they knew that the source material would require radical changes to appeal to modern audiences, and even once they began, they shifted from one conception of the character of Elsa to another until they settled on what eventually made it to film. So to suggest that faithfulness to the source material precludes making the character a lesbian, when her sexual orientation was never established in either the original fairy tale or in the film adaptation, is a pretty weak argument.

And seriously, do you really believe that the usual suspects would object any less if Disney invented a lesbian princess out of whole cloth and built a completely innovative storyline around her? Ma fammi il piacere...

[Bicycle Bill]

And seriously, do you really believe that the usual suspects would object any less if Disney invented a lesbian princess out of whole cloth and built a completely innovative storyline around her? Ma fammi il piacere...

Probably not, but it would remove at least one arrow — "How dare they do that to a beloved children's classic like _____________?" — from their quiver.

-"BB"-

[Joe Guy]

Why do we need to know the sexual orientation of any character in a children's fairy tale?

[TPFKA@W]

And seriously, do you really believe that the usual suspects would object any less if Disney invented a lesbian princess out of whole cloth and built a completely innovative storyline

I can't really speak for the usual suspects but I do know people don't deal well with change even when it is less controversial. I blew a gasket when they made Jimmy Olsen black in the new Supergirl. Trying to sort it out I realized that the actor who played him was so cool that he should have been cast as a completely new character and not as the dweebie, red headed Jimmy Olsen I grew up with who was decidedly not as cool as the black actor cast to play him.

So for at least for me, I would be open to a princess who happened to be gay. It is probably stretching things to think evangelicals would feel the same.

[TPFKA@W]

Why do we need to know the sexual orientation of any character in a children's fairy tale?

Well it can change the approach to whether there is a legitimate heir when they are all happily ever after.

[Joe Guy]

Then they need to obey the laws that were applicable Once Upon a Time.

[Scooter]

Why do we need to know the sexual orientation of any character in a children's fairy tale?

I think the whole Snow White/Sleeping Beauty storylines of awakening through a prince's kiss fall apart unless we acknowledge that they are both heterosexual, and the same can be said of many others (Cinderella, etc.). Fairy tales are full of explicitly heterosexual characters, to pretend that introducing gay characters would somehow force sexual orientation into fairy tales when it previously was never an issue is bullshit.

[Joe Guy]

Why do we need to know the sexual orientation of any character in a children's fairy tale?

I think the whole Snow White/Sleeping Beauty storylines of awakening through a prince's kiss fall apart unless we acknowledge that they are both heterosexual, and the same can be said of many others (Cinderella, etc.). Fairy tales are full of explicitly heterosexual characters, to pretend that introducing gay characters would somehow force sexual orientation into fairy tales when it previously was never an issue is bullshit.

Fairy tales are for children. A man and a woman getting married in a children's story is not forcing heterosexual characters on them. It is just part of a story showing a man and woman getting married. It's not like that's something unusual.

If someone wants to write a fairy tale with homosexual characters, that's fine, but why should anyone need to alter existing characters in a story in order to acknowledge there are certain minorities in the real world?

It's a children's story. A fantasy. Not the real world. People fly. Animals talk. We don't need to know about their sex lives.

[Econoline]

Unless there are explicit sex scenes (or at least characters' sexual fantasies) included, no one can really know for sure whether the characters in these stories are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, asexual, or some other variant that nobody's thought of yet.

Meade (& Bill) - would you agree that ♥LOVE♥ between two individuals of the same sex is not "sinful" or "perverted" (unless it leads to contact with each other's genitals)? How do you know the details of any particular (married or other) couple's physical relationship? Is a marriage between, say, a man and a woman who are both in their 80s "perverted" because whatever sex occurs between them is non-reproductive?

[Scooter]

Fairy tales are for children. A man and a woman getting married in a children's story is not forcing heterosexual characters on them. It is just part of a story showing a man and woman getting married. It's not like that's something unusual.

The fact that heterosexual marriage is more common than same-sex marriage is no reason for including one but not the other. If you see the inclusion of a same-sex relationship in a fairy tale as "forcing" something, it's only because you believe that there is something about it that you believe is unfit for children to see. That's your baggage.

If someone wants to write a fairy tale with homosexual characters, that's fine, but why should anyone need to alter existing characters in a story in order to acknowledge there are certain minorities in the real world?

Who has proposed doing that? When someone proposes making Cinderella a lesbian, you might have a point. Elsa is presumably not asexual, just because her sexual orientation was never revealed in either the original fairy tale on which her character is based, nor in the Disney film. You would never have whined about her character being "altered" if she had been portrayed in a heterosexual relationship in a subsequent film. Why do you feel the need to do so if she were to be portrayed as a lesbian?

It's a children's story. A fantasy. Not the real world. People fly. Animals talk. We don't need to know about their sex lives.

So why is it that only same-sex relationships are about "their sex lives", while the countless heterosexual relationships are not? You can't have it both ways.

[Joe Guy]

Fairy tales are for children. A man and a woman getting married in a children's story is not forcing heterosexual characters on them. It is just part of a story showing a man and woman getting married. It's not like that's something unusual.

The fact that heterosexual marriage is more common than same-sex marriage is no reason for including one but not the other. If you see the inclusion of a same-sex relationship in a fairy tale as "forcing" something, it's only because you believe that there is something about it that you believe is unfit for children to see. That's your baggage.

Do you know what it means to a child to see a prince and princess married? It means they will live happily ever after. It doesn't mean the prince and princess are heterosexual or homosexual. It doesn't mean they will be having any particular kind of sex for the rest of their lives.

If someone wants to write a fairy tale with homosexual characters, that's fine, but why should anyone need to alter existing characters in a story in order to acknowledge there are certain minorities in the real world?

Who has proposed doing that?

You did.

When someone proposes making Cinderella a lesbian, you might have a point. Elsa is presumably not asexual, just because her sexual orientation was never revealed in either the original fairy tale on which her character is based, nor in the Disney film. You would never have whined about her character being "altered" if she had been portrayed in a heterosexual relationship in a subsequent film. Why do you feel the need to do so if she were to be portrayed as a lesbian?

Do you really think children being read a bedtime story need to hear that Elsa is a lesbian? As far as I know they don't say she is heterosexual either. Introducing sexual orientation would be altering the story whether you pointed out heterosexuality or homosexuality. Do you think the kids care?

Also, please show where I whined.

It's a children's story. A fantasy. Not the real world. People fly. Animals talk. We don't need to know about their sex lives.

So why is it that only same-sex relationships are about "their sex lives", while the countless heterosexual relationships are not? You can't have it both ways.

Same-sex relationships are about their sex lives only when same-sex people want you to know their sexual orientation. Most heterosexuals I know don't broadcast their sexual orientation. Either way, what's that have to do with children's fairy tales?

[Bicycle Bill]

Bill - would you agree that ♥LOVE♥ between two individuals of the same sex is not "sinful" or "perverted" (unless it leads to contact with each other's genitals)? How do you know the details of any particular (married or other) couple's physical relationship? Is a marriage between, say, a man and a woman who are both in their 80s "perverted" because whatever sex occurs between them is non-reproductive?

E-line, I had to mull this one over a bit before I replied.  This question deserved better than a "shoot-from-the-hip" response.

Let me start by saying that to me, the word ♥LOVE♥ is an extremely powerful word.  It's probably one of the most powerful words in the language because of the hardcore, all-encompassing, heavyweight emotion it expresses.  In all my life since I turned 18, I don't think I've told more than three people — and one of those was my mother — that "I ♥LOVE♥ them" (or even "I think I ♥LOVE♥ you") because of the depth of emotion and feelings the word is meant to convey.  As for the other persons — they didn't love me in the same way (one lady even said so in so many words), so nothing ever came of it.

By my own standards, therefore, I don't think I've ever truly experienced a mutual love except the love of my mother for me.  So I don't really feel that I can accurately or honestly answer the question.
  
-"BB"-

[Scooter]

Do you know what it means to a child to see a prince and princess married? It means they will live happily ever after. It doesn't mean the prince and princess are heterosexual or homosexual. It doesn't mean they will be having any particular kind of sex for the rest of their lives.

And if it were a prince and a prince, or a princess and a princess, that would change what, exactly?

If someone wants to write a fairy tale with homosexual characters, that's fine, but why should anyone need to alter existing characters in a story in order to acknowledge there are certain minorities in the real world?

Who has proposed doing that?

You did.

Really? Care to quote the words?

Do you really think children being read a bedtime story need to hear that Elsa is a lesbian? As far as I know they don't say she is heterosexual either. Introducing sexual orientation would be altering the story whether you pointed out heterosexuality or homosexuality. Do you think the kids care?

It isn't necessary to introduce the word "lesbian", but having her portrayed as being in love with another woman is not going to scar anyone for life.

Also, please show where I whined.

Fine, how "complained", "protested", "took issue with"? Feel better now?

So why is it that only same-sex relationships are about "their sex lives", while the countless heterosexual relationships are not? You can't have it both ways.

Same-sex relationships are about their sex lives only when same-sex people want you to know their sexual orientation. Most heterosexuals I know don't broadcast their sexual orientation. Either way, what's that have to do with children's fairy tales?

Heterosexuals "broadcast" their sexual orientation by the very fact of being in a relationship with and/or demonstrating/expressing interest in someone of the opposite sex, which is the same way that homosexuals "broadcast" their sexual orientation wrt to someone of the same sex. It is relevant to children's fairy tales only insofar as someone asserts that one of those is acceptable content in a fairy tale and the other is not.

[Joe Guy]

And if it were a prince and a prince, or a princess and a princess, that would change what, exactly?

Nothing, unless they decide to make a conspicuous issue of it.

Who has proposed doing that?

You did.

Really? Care to quote the words?

By implication when you say that Elsa should be a Lesbian. How do you do that without making an issue of a same-sex couple?

You wrote:

It isn't necessary to introduce the word "lesbian", but having her portrayed as being in love with another woman is not going to scar anyone for life.

Also, please show where I whined.

Fine, how "complained", "protested", "took issue with"? Feel better now?

Much better, thanks...

Heterosexuals "broadcast" their sexual orientation by the very fact of being in a relationship with and/or demonstrating/expressing interest in someone of the opposite sex, which is the same way that homosexuals "broadcast" their sexual orientation wrt to someone of the same sex. It is relevant to children's fairy tales only insofar as someone asserts that one of those is acceptable content in a fairy tale and the other is not.

Heterosexuals are the "standard" whether or not you or me approve of it. A quick Google search showed me that in the U.S. heterosexuals make up about 96% of the population. I don't know how accurate that is but even at 90% it would explain why most fairy tales don't include homosexual characters. They are written to appeal to the masses. The mostly prepubescent children masses. Also, other than men and women formally marrying each other, the characters' sex lives are not discussed. Whether or not they have homosexual or same-sex fantasies is left to your imagination and I doubt anyone but imaginative adults would even give that a thought.

[Scooter]

And if it were a prince and a prince, or a princess and a princess, that would change what, exactly?

Nothing, unless they decide to make a conspicuous issue of it.

It would be no more "conspicuous" than any heterosexual couple in the same situation. So there is no problem, is there?

Who has proposed doing that?

You did.

Really? Care to quote the words?

By implication when you say that Elsa should be a Lesbian.

I never said she "should" be a lesbian.

How do you do that without making an issue of a same-sex couple?

Portraying a same-sex relationship doesn't make an "issue" of it any more than portraying a heterosexual relationship, unless someone has a problem with same-sex relationships.

Heterosexuals are the "standard" whether or not you or me approve of it. A quick Google search showed me that in the U.S. heterosexuals make up about 96% of the population. I don't know how accurate that is but even at 90% it would explain why most fairy tales don't include homosexual characters. They are written to appeal to the masses.

The overwhelming majority of relationships are not interracial. If interracial relationships did not "appeal to the masses", as they certainly did not in the not too distant past, and probably still do not in some areas, is that in and of itself reason to avoid such portrayals?

The mostly prepubescent children masses

And there it is. What do you imagine a same-sex couple would be doing onscreen in a Disney movie that would not be acceptable for children to see?

Also, other than men and women formally marrying each other, the characters' sex lives are not discussed.a

Who is talking about discussing the sex lives of the characters? Portraying a same-sex couple does not require discussing their sex life, any more than if the couple is Cinderella and her prince.

[BoSoxGal]

Let the gay kids see themselves in 1 out of a 1000 fairytales - what harm could it possibly cause? Straight kids won't be made gay by seeing two princes or two princesses in a movie. It will only maybe save the lives of some gay kids who struggle to feel accepted by society. Seriously I doubt Disney will devote a whole movie to a gay prince or princess but I have no problem taking my niece if they do and she's not going to freak out because she already knows that sometimes boys love each other or girls love each other just like mommy and daddy love each other. She's lucky to have a gay grandfather as I was lucky to have a gay uncle and so from a very young age the prejudices never made any sense to me.