Superman is bisexual now!

Potential-Monke

I didn't read past page 1, because it had all the hallmarks of the usual poster vs poster snipes and having a go at each other over opinions.

It doesn't bother me in the slightest, because I don't think they're changing a well established character just so they can relate to the more prevalent LGB+ community, what bothers me is that they're spending a lot of time and effort ensuring we know exactly what sexual preference these people are. I can't even recall if there were any LGB+ characters in my cartoons from the 80's and 90's, but to be honest, I wasn't watching to see who they would bang uglies with, I watched superhero shows to see them do superhero stuff!

Probably wouldn't watch it anyway, Japanese anime has basically ruined western cartoons, Janime is so much better. Let cartoons be cartoons again, and shop shoehorning in sexual preferences into something that is realistically aimed at 14 year olds. Same applies to all my entertainment. I haven't played The Last of Us 2 for 2 reasons, 1: a character I like I believe gets a Negan treatment, and that could potentially ruin the entire series for me, and 2: there's apparantly a lot of focus on Ellie and her lesbianism. I want to play a game, not an interactive soap opera. Just like my cartoons should show cartoon stuff, not real life sexual preferences and advances.

But, like literally everything out there, one can ignore what they don't like.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118039525#Comment_118039525

Clarke Kent and Lois Lane, Peter Parker and Mary-Jane, Bruce Banner and Betty Ross, comic book characters definitely exist in the realms of adult sexuality, it’s just usually heterosexuality.

Potential-Monke

And comics, if we're to base it on American stats from 2011 to 2021, the number of Americans who identified as LGB+ rose from 3.5% to 5.6%. So, still a very small percentage of the population in general, and now potentially over-represented if the trend continues, resulting in alienating the bulk of the audience, or in their eyes, the ones who would buy the most.

If one was to care about that. I have never bought or read a comic in my life, just weren't a thing around my area when I was a kid. I don't agree with ret coning well established characters for no reason other than to include, with no hint in their history of being that way. Work away with new characters, but don't concentrate on that part, just make the kissing scene after the saving moment with [sexual preference] like they've always done without leaving time to think about it. Move on, do more superhero stuff. Make the comic about the superhero who just happens to be [sexual preference] and treat it like an every day normal thing without pointing it out, because that's far more believable imo.

Penn

Yeah, all this talk of sexuality and gender in comics goes completely against the fun, happy, superheroey comic stories we all grew up with.

Like Green Arrow's sidekick Speedy getting addicted to drugs, or Iron Man's alcoholism, or even the domestic violence storyline of Ant-Man abusing his wife, The Wasp. Not to mention various rapes and sexual assaults.

Bring all that stuff back! Not needlessly controversial stuff like sexuality or climate change!

Also I would suspect at this stage, Superman for the most part at this stage is more marketed towards a teenage to adult audience. So covering sexuality is pretty logical. In relation to the Last of Us Part 2, it was critically acclaimed and it's a narrative focused game. You're free to ignore it if you're upset by a lesbian lead but it really did not affect its reception and probably says more about you that you're so annoyed by it.

I see the latest podcast from Blindboy is about Captain Planet in the 80s. If there was ever a cartoon pushing a blatantly political message it was that one :) I do remember the likes of He Man and Bravestarr having a little "breaking the fourth wall" bit of moralising at the end of every episode. But the rest of each episode was mostly about making you want to buy the toys. But Captain Planet was end to end political.

One thing I did learn from Blindboy which I did not know before - was that there was an entire episode of Captain Planet dedicated to the "troubles" up in the North of Ireland. But Irish and British media decided never to show that one. Which is probably good because they appear to have buggered up the Narrative quite badly about what went on up the North in those days.

I would be less bothered by changes to the sexuality of Superman characters than the constant changes of the Lore of that universe. For example in the Reeves Movies Superman flew to the moon and the sun, and even went around the earth so fast he turned back time. In one of the more recent movies Superman "returns" after having flown back to investigate the ruins of his home planet.

The current Superman and Supergirl can not even survive because they can not breath in space. That is quite a lore change.

Certainly have nothing against comic book characters dealing with political and moral issues however. They always have. Sometimes it is subtle sometimes it is in your face. But they were almost always about characters with god like powers struggling with mundane human flaws and issues. Entire aspects of the Xmen universe for example deal with being "different" - so directly going into the area of racism, sexualityphobias, disabilities and disfigurements.

RobbieTheRobber

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118039910#Comment_118039910

So you never bought and never read comics and are not likely to start reading them now but you know what you think was in the comic stories and you want them to go back to the way you remember when you didn't read them. 😂😂😂🤔

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040020#Comment_118040020

Clearly I grew up with different comics. 😮😁 The Bash Street Kids shoot up smack, Judge Dredd gets caught in a gloryhole. Not. 😂 More like I suppose grew out of comics before I got into the American stuff which was aimed more at adolescents and over time more at adults. These days it seems the mainstream stuff is more like soap operas for adults? Judging by the level of investment into the minutae of characters i come across online that does seem to be the case.

Looking up demographics of comic readers it seems the "average" reader is between 20-30, single, male, video game player with disposable income. So it's pretty narrow a demographic. Though they all seem to be US based surveys.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040041#Comment_118040041

My general take on such things regardless of the media or the subject involved is; part of the story = good, the story = not so good.

I'd align with that too I think. Exceptions to that rule depending on how well the story is done in both cases. Captain Planet for example - it was the story every time and rarely done well if I remember. But then in the X-Men one of the movies was all about being "Different" because they had found a "cure" to the X gene. And the story was then all about who wanted to take the "cure" and who did not see it as a cure at all because their difference was their identity. And I think they did that well enough for it to be ok that the subject = the story was not a bad thing.

It was certainly timely for me too at the time because there were people in my life around that time who had differences too - that they saw as their identity. People who were, for example, entirely deaf who would not be interested in a "cure" for their condition because they did not see it as a disability but as their whole identity. They identified with the deaf community - the celebrated and cherished their language (sign) - and much more. And at the time I was naive simply assuming that anyone with such a condition as deafness and blindness or paralysed legs or whatever would automatically want a cure were one offered.

But as a general take I can not fault it. Certainly looking at the recent D.C. Arrowverse there are times when alternate life styles or identities are part of the story and they do it really well (Constantines Bi Sexuality was an example I gave earlier). But there are times when they make it the subject of the story (Dreamers Trangenerism for example) and it just goes off the rails pathetic. There was a recent episode of Supergirl - centered around a slums area that was about to be demolished - that was the most in your face commentary on Racism I have ever been hit with by a show. And it was as awful as you might imagine it to be. Mostly done through the narrative of Jimmy Olsens sister. (Jimmy and his sister now being Black, unlike the original characters).

I havent researched it online but I assume there is a reason Supergirl has gone full "woke" so significantly more than any of the other Arrowverse shows. Why is that one show in particular so monumentally deeper into it than the rest particularly?

jill_valentine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118039525#Comment_118039525

The idea comics were always childish escapism is a post CCA illusion.

The American Comics Code was a response to a moral panic about the crime, sex and violence being commonly depicted in comics in the 1950s - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comics_Code_Authority

The CCA had rules like -

• "Policemen, judges, government officials, and respected institutions shall never be presented in such a way as to create disrespect for established authority."
• "Suggestive and salacious illustration or suggestive posture is unacceptable."
• "Illicit sex relations are neither to be hinted at nor portrayed. Rape scenes, as well as sexual abnormalities, are unacceptable."

- which were interpreted as forbidding depictions of protest, homosexuality, and just about any other subject puritans might get in a lather about. In practice, it was possible to depict heterosexuality to a much further degree than homosexuality, righteous military violence more than any other kind, and white characters in more politically provocative roles than black ones.

It had a chilling effect even beyond the stuff it actually dealt with. People used it to try to impose restrictions the code didn't even strictly outline, as seen in the response this now classic "Judgment Day" story -

https://www.cbr.com/judgment-day-ec-comics-code-authority/

It lasted in some form until the early 2000s, with rules about how drugs, crime, nudity and violence could be presented. It was technically voluntary but until at least the 90s it was policed by the simple fact stores wouldn't carry your stuff, advertisers wouldn't buy in it, and parents wouldn't let kids have it without the CCA label. It was a US thing, but the US, being the biggest English language comic market, had a defining effect.

Even then though, writers still found ways to skirt it. The fact Mystique and Destiny were a couple who were raising Rogue together was fairly clear just by reading their interactions, but the writer famously snuck dialogue about it through by having Professor X describe them as "Lemans", a term for "lover" so archaic Marvel's oversight people didn't recognise it and let it through.

Even mainstream comics were not always childish escapism, they necessarily became that way due to a censorship effort. Alan Moore's Watchmen was, among many other things, an overt tribute to those pre CCA American stories, but the CCA's effect was also why British comics had been defined by stuff like 2000AD/ Judge Dredd - they realised they could get away with stories their American counterparts couldn't, because their market was already limited by comparison anyway.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040215#Comment_118040215

TBH I wouldn't have much of a clue if any about the Supergirl series. When it first came out, what nearly ten years ago? I caught a couple of episodes on the basis of yer wan's a big mad ride and wearing spandex level of interest. Hey, I admit it. 😁

My overwhelming feeling was it was squarely aimed at tween girls and was very simplistic because of that so hardly my focus group or what would interest me. Plus I don't really like superhero narratives anyway. What little I encountered of the arrowverse stuff was similar and for me too many characters who I had no existing interest in flitting in and out. Though I did notice how very west coast earnest the vibe was. I didn't notice any "woke" really, but again I only watched a few episodes.

I think it was 2015 it came out.

I was not interested in Arrow-verse myself either. At all. But when Covid hit and all my usual outlets and hobbies shut down entirely I kinda gave myself the challenge to watch all the episodes in all the arrow-verse shows. So now I am kinda stuck with it :) Full on "sunk cost fallacy" at this point.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040304#Comment_118040304

Even as a kid I noticed the US difference. One memory that springs to mind was the Marvel stuff showed blood, when they showed blood at all, as coloured black not red. The UK stuff was significantly more gory. Things like Hook Jaw, Flesh and even Dredd was way more in your face on that score than the American stuff, even though it was more aimed at younger kids and predominantly boys compared to the US more teen focused.

DarkJager21

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040215#Comment_118040215

A lot of TV shows these days are gone full on woke/"listen to our message" and it's not even subtle anymore - my wife watches 9-1-1 and some hospital series (New Amsterdam?). There were 2 9-11 episodes she watched recently where basically the characters spent the entire runtime of the episode crying over George Floyd and making all sorts of on the nose comments, over dramatic conversations etc.

That would have been fine for maybe 10/15 mins of 1 episode if they really wanted to get the message across - nope, 2 full episodes of the viewer being beaten non stop over the head about it. Then New Amsterdam is my weekly "stop laughing or get out of the room" series we watch - the main character in this appears to have been lobotomised and in each episode he tries to "out-woke" whatever idea he had in the previous episode.

Yeah it gets around. I was less wondering why it happens - than I am wondering why it is particularly happening in that show.

My guesses are either the writers of that show are particularly woke compared to the rest of arrowverse - or they decided that if they sacrifice that show to woke ideology they could be free to keep it mostly out of the rest of the arrowverse.

Too lazy to google it :) But I suspect there will be a reason why it is focused almost entirely on that one show from all the shows in that universe.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040020#Comment_118040020

The difference was that the message of alcoholism wasn't the primary push behind the series. When sexuality becomes a core concept for the character creation and subsequent stories, then it's going to be a series where everything comes back to his sexuality. The stories will aim to promote the writers/producers viewpoints on sexuality (and perceived related issues). This is especially true when the new character/storyline is based off another successful franchise, and expecting to use that franchises success as a springboard to get their message out.

With previous comics or shows, there were episodes where an issue was raised. Perhaps it was mentioned a few times in a variety of issues, but it wasn't the main intention behind the series. There was a story, and character development independent of the social issues message... which was what sought to hook readers/watchers. Tony Starks drinking and womanising wasn't the primary reason the storyline was being made... it was background information for flavor, to add some depth to the character, and make it something that people could relate to because, we tend to lean towards characters who are flawed in some manner.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118039910#Comment_118039910

So because they're a minority we don't have to tell stories about them or even include them in stories? How come the "over representation" of white males doesn't concern you?

As for alienating audiences, why can't straight people enjoy stories about members of the LGBT community?

Sonics2k

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040764#Comment_118040764

You do know people said the same thing when the first inter-racial relationships happened in comics right? There was picketing and boycotting against the writers and artists who did it. People are jumping to these massive conclusions that this will now be the sole storyline of Jon Clark, I strongly suspect he's going to be still going on insane journeys to other galaxies and fighting all forms of mental monsters.

You make an interesting point though "sexuality becomes a core concept for a character creation", because this is not the characters creation. It also flies in the face of previous claims that writers shouldn't alter existing characters to match "current trends' as some have said. So either make a character, but don't do anything with sexuality, or keep a character exactly the same for years.

Personally I'm not a fan of changing a long established characters core, but I think the massive over reaction to 'outing' Jon Stark as bi is insane. People are acting as if he's suddnely going to be drawn getting railed by his new guy with full penetration on view, when in reality the relationship will most likely be treated as any other relationship in comics, eg Peter Parker and Mary Jane, Clark and Lois and so on.

seamus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118039525#Comment_118039525

Anyone who thinks that comic books used to have simple, child-friendly stories unrelated to contemporary social issues and had no exploration of the characters' humanity, clearly never read anything except the Beano.

Comic books have had adult themes and challenging storylines since Superman fought the Nazis.

^ Is it apocryphal or do I remember hearing a story that they used Superman comics or something similar to "out" the passwords being used by the KKK at one point? Or am I entirely imagining having heard that story somewhere?

jill_valentine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118041194#Comment_118041194

You're dead right. The Superman radio show depicted and mocked some of the KKK rituals and ceremonial nonsense based on what had been uncovered by the fantastically named Stetson Kennedy, a civil rights activist who'd infiltrated them.

It's debated whether they really revealed codewords etc but certainly that was the belief at the time, and the dismissive treatment of the KKK in the show is considered to have damaged their recruitment drives and did have an effect on their political influence.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Superman_(radio_series)

SnazzyPig

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118039153#Comment_118039153

I don't think anyone spends 24/7 crossing the road.

Do you?

EmmetSpiceland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118041288#Comment_118041288

Is nothing sacred anymore? The woke agenda strikes again.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118040965#Comment_118040965

You do know people said the same thing when....

That's a false equivalence, because society has moved on, and we are (the US more so) heavily invested in the social sciences. Thirty years of agendas being pushed, and that pushing has gained momentum as time has gone by. Just as you're skipping over what's being said, in that if sexuality is important to the writers/producers, then it will heavily influence the stories being put forward, along with the message expecting to be promoted through the use of storyline. It's not the case that we're expecting the characters sexuality to be the only substantial part of the idea... but many of us do have problems when it becomes a driving force behind content creation.

You make an interesting point though "sexuality becomes a core concept for a character creation"

Pity that you didn't address my point directly though, except as a reference for talking about something else.

when in reality the relationship will most likely be treated as any other relationship in comics, eg Peter Parker and Mary Jane, Clark and Lois and so on.

Which would be fine, except they chose to make the announcement like as if they were entering a brave new world in doing so... giving something to those unrepresented bisexuals. Yay.

You see, I'm bisexual myself, and in my mid 40s. I experienced alongside many homosexuals in how society changed, and the way the media sought to represent homosexuals. Grand.. and I also knew many homosexuals who cared deeply about being represented, and being treated equally with heterosexuals. Again, grand... perfectly understandable. At the same time though, I've also seen what has happened to the fantasy genre in fiction, and TV, along with the creeping spread of woke beliefs into areas which were traditionally male dominated... and I've seen how these agendas have been pushed, where established franchises have been used as a springboard to launch alternative visions, glorifying the beliefs of these woke creators... whether that was about homosexuality. transgenderism, etc. Often with that original franchise (and their traditional consumer base) suffering as a result.

And if the sexuality of this character is treated the same as a Heterosexuals sexuality in a similar comic or show, perfect. However, from experience, and how I've seen comics and the industry behind them change over the last two-three decades, I don't expect that to happen.. because it doesn't mesh with what's being coming out of "creative" offices in the west.

I'm pretty sure that some posters here would have a stroke if they saw what happens in Doom Patrol weekly... That show is pretty niche but popular, it's always dealing with sexuality in a pretty open way and it appeals to audiences. The difference here is that certain posters are annoyed by them being open in a very basic way in a mainstream comic. I'm lost on who would be alienated by that unless they have some pretty crappy attitudes.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042105#Comment_118042105

The whole point of this thread was that Superman/boy being bisexual was promoted as a brave and bold direction to take him (if it's ok to assume his gender).

To most people, it's not, and shouldn't be a big deal, never mind being brave or bold. To intentionally promote it as that seems like intentionally pandering to the LGBTQ+2BBCHSBCRTEBBCCHANNEL4 community and to stick it to "bigots".

As has been said, as long as the sexuality isn't suddenly the main focal point of the character and their story arcs, most people wouldn't give a flying ****. But the fact that it was promoted as such is grating (note: not infuriating, not anger inducing, not nuclear level meltdown) and unneccesary.

Changing aspects of any character will always cause pushback, for example if a traditionally asian character was made white, it's evil whitewashing. If a character who had been gay was made straight, it's erasure of gayness. However if it goes the other way eg a black/female James Bond it is seen as a positive. The same people were falling over themselves to laud an all female Ghostbusters as a great new direction despite the film being objectively shite.

Yes, actual bigots won't like superman/boy being bi. But that's not to say that the over promotion of that aspect of his character will also slightly irk people who don't care about his sexuality. That doesn't make them bigots.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042258#Comment_118042258

In fairness, it pretty clearly has annoyed you.... There's no indication of "over promotion" but the reality is that LGBT characters in the most popular comics of Marvel or DC is low. So it's a big deal to some extent although late to the game. Your issue is you don't want LGBT characters to be in your face, it becoming a part of a plotline is most likely going to be viewed as "over promotion" by you.

And the fact you're getting annoyed before the plot has even launched and you most likely don't even read comics. This just seems like you trawling for anything LGBT related to complain about.

Also, they haven't changed an aspect of a character. It's the son of superman who has taken the title being bi. I don't think you'd be posting to complain that he was dating somebody who isn't Lois Lane if they were a woman...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042350#Comment_118042350

Ah now mike, lets not do this.

You are right in one aspect though. I don't want LGBT characters in my face if the fact that they are brave and bold for being LGBT is the reason they are in my face.

I didn't trawl the internet to see it. I clicked on RTE.ie and saw it and read the article, and thought that it was worth a conversation. The amount of responses to this thread is proof I was right. Many people didn't think that this was newsworthy and were surprised to see RTE covering it.

The fact that the title of the article was "SUPERMAN WILL COME OUT AS BISEXUAL IN FORTHCOMING COMIC BOOK, DC HAVE ANNOUNCED" does seem like over promotion of the sexuality of a superhero and did seem like pandering.

And no, I wouldn't have complained about him dating someone else if they were a woman. Because it wouldn't have been described as "a bold new direction", much like being bi isn't bold either.

FunLover18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118042258#Comment_118042258

It shouldn't be a big deal, if you don't want it to be treated as a big deal maybe don't start a thread about it.