Should Capt America be gay?

[Sidewinder]

From the Agony Booth:

Top 4 reasons Captain America should be gay

Posted by: Joshua Bell on Tuesday, April 15, 2014

So by now, most of you have had a chance to see Captain America: The Winter Soldier, a great movie, as everyone can agree. While it doesn’t quite reach the heights of Iron Man 3, due mostly to the script not being nearly as clever (for one thing, it’s a mystery story where the mystery is painfully easy to solve), it definitely continues Marvel’s streak of every post-Avengers movie being a fearless game changer that one-ups its predecessor. Chris Evans continues to be the best casting decision the studio has made, the action is energetic and fun, and the story keeps to the simplistically cheesy but sincere spirit of the character. It’s just a damn fine popcorn flick. It is also, as I noticed on a second viewing, super-gay.

Not in the pejorative sense of the word, but a literal one. The film hits Fast and Furious levels of gay. It hits 300 levels of gay. It’s so gay, it makes Elsa from Frozen look straight.

The gay subtext of the film is so blatant, I’m rather surprised I didn’t notice it sooner. Our hero is consistently chaste and seemingly uninterested in both of the women throwing themselves at him, yet instantly forms a connection with Falcon, with whom he has far more chemistry. Both men have just lost their “partners”, and Falcon spends almost every scene practically making bedroom eyes at Cap. And the movie ends with Falcon (and only Falcon) at Cap’s hospital bedside playing their song (a Marvin Gaye song, no less). This is easily the most homoerotic superhero film since Batman & Robin.

And you know what? I’m glad. All joking aside, this film brings to mind what a shame it is that there aren’t any major gay superheroes (I mean, Marvel isn’t likely to greenlight a Northstar movie anytime soon). Cap and Falcon make a genuinely cute couple (a lot more so than Steve and Sharon, though in all fairness, she had only one scene with him), and I’m honestly a little sad that there’s no way future Captain America movies will ever fully explore the possibilities here. Even Marvel isn’t that bold.

Or maybe they are. After all, various superheroes have been known to change their race, gender, or sexual orientation in the last decade or so. It’s a natural consequence of almost every well-known superhero being a white, straight male. We’re in an age where fans are demanding diversity, and it’s a lot more effective to simply modify existing superheroes than to make new ones and hope they become popular. So just for the sake of argument, here are the top four reasons why Marvel should make Captain America a gay man:

4. No one cares about Cap’s love life.

One of the first complaints usually brought up whenever it’s suggested a formerly straight character might be rewritten as gay is “What about [insert love interest here]?” Just take the rest of the Avengers: If you turn Hulk gay, you lose Betty Ross, who’s not wildly popular, but an established part of the mythos that everyone knows. Turn Thor gay, and bye-bye Jane Foster, a formerly forgotten character who’s been made very likable by the movies. Iron Man? Being really into women is kind of one of his primary attributes. Hawkeye’s attraction to Black Widow, while not yet a factor in the movies, is a central part of his origin story in the comics.

But Cap? Has anyone ever given much of a shit who Cap is banging? I admit, I rather liked his relationship with Peggy Carter in the first movie, but she’s out of the picture now, and given the age they lived in, the idea that Cap could’ve been in the closet back then is completely plausible.

And Sharon? Is anyone really dying to see Cap hook up with the boring blonde who had two minutes of screen time in Winter Soldier? Even in the comics, I found Sharon uninteresting, as she’s just some random chick with no defining characteristics beyond being Cap’s girlfriend. Last I checked, she wasn’t any kind of fan-favorite, and the rest of Cap’s love life is filled with similarly forgettable women. The point is, nothing would be lost if Cap decided he just wasn’t into chicks.

3. It would make him a lot less creepy.

You may have noticed that the movie failed to give the aforementioned Sharon a last name. That’s because in the comics, her last name is Carter. Yes, as in Peggy Carter. Sharon is her niece. Cap in the comics hooked up with the niece of his ex-girlfriend. Eww.

We have yet to see how the movies plan to approach this without making it seem as creepy as it is. My solution? Don’t. It now feels really out of character for a boy scout like Cap to hook up with the younger relative of his (still-living) ex. If Cap is gay, you can sidestep the issue entirely. And it’s not like you even need to get rid of her. Keep Sharon around, but write her as more of a surrogate younger sister to Cap instead of a girlfriend. She could be the Shadowcat to Cap’s Wolverine. That’s a much nicer idea than Cap being a perv who chases after the hot young niece of his ex just because she got old.

2. It makes his origin a lot more dramatic.

There’s so much storytelling potential in the whole idea of Captain America, a man from 1945 suddenly finding himself in the 21st Century, that the comics themselves haven’t even had time to deal with. Imagine if you added Steve being gay to that. Think of what that implies. Whether or not he had confronted and was comfortable with his sexuality before he was frozen, just picture a gay WWII soldier waking up now and being told (on top of everything else), “BTW, homosexuality isn’t considered a mental illness anymore. Oh, and we repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’. Oh, and 17 states have legalized gay marriage.” Think of the dramatic possibilities that would offer. Imagine Steve as a man who had to hide who he was just to serve his country, suddenly being flung into a world where he doesn’t have to pretend anymore. You could tell poignant, touching stories about the tribulations of gay men in the military, stories about how far we’ve come, and how far we still have to go. Any writer worth his salt could do something great with the concept.

1. He and Falcon are just adorable.

Seriously, the interaction between these two is the heart and soul of Winter Soldier. Falcon is a lot more than just a replacement for Bucky: he’s the inspiration for a lot of Cap’s decision making. Meeting Falcon, a fellow vet who’s still optimistic in a far more cynical world where warfare is much grayer, is what helps Cap hold onto his sense of purpose and righteousness even as things go to hell around him.

The movie is essentially The Last Temptation of Captain America, as circumstances try to force Cap to compromise his principles and he refuses to budge. Falcon takes the role of the little angel on Cap’s shoulder, with Black Widow and Nick Fury standing on the opposite shoulder as little devils. You can choose to interpret the admiration and affection on Falcon’s face in every scene as platonic if you want, but for me, I can’t help but imagine how awesome their wedding would be: Both of them in their dress blues, dancing to “Trouble Man”. You know that would be adorable.

Comments on the Agony Booth page:

I feel this feeds into the idea that a person can't be a virgin without something being wrong with the person. If [Cap] doesn't want a relationship right now, that fine. It also gives the idea that two best friends of the same sex are automatically homo for each other.

<snips irrelevant comments>

I'm not sure I agree Cap should be gay, though. I think that kinda cheapens the thing with Peggy in the first film. Bisexual, sure, but not strictly gay, I don't think...

Also, maybe I'm blind, but I thought Falcon and Cap just looked like good army buddies or something. XD Go figure. Either way, I'm good, but if they make that move, would still prefer him to be bisexual over gay for the above reasons.

<snips irrelevant comments>

This is a really interesting idea, but I am also open to him being bisexual because he did seem really into both Peggy Carter and Falcon. Also he was really dedicated to Bucky as well. Seriously thinking back to when he saved Bucky in the first film, you could play "I will always love you" and it would totally fit. I'm open to him being gay, I have more of a crush on Winter Soldier anyway ;)

I know! Let's make Captain America BLACK! Or a black MIDGET. Or maybe a black midget WOMAN. How about a black midget woman jihadi? WHERE DOES IT END !??!

How about leaving the classics alone. Don't put slacks on the Mona Lisa, or a fig leaf on Michelangelo's "David"; it is NOT an improvement, it is just a cheap show of submission to the PC Thought Police.

And, for the record: I have NO objection - ZERO - to gay superheroes in the comics. I just get double-plus totally eaten up with sickly green vitriolic rage when yet another one of my childhood icons gets ret-conned to near-unrecognizability. Why can't the classics stay classic? If you want to make something "new & improved", then bring something new & improved to the table (i.e. that we've never seen before), don't go packaging "New Coke" taste in cans with "traditional flavor Coke" labels.

[Block]

Whoever wrote this doesn't seem to understand human interaction very well. Cap has been portrayed as a very loyal guy who has only been awake, what? Six months? A year? It's totally normal for him not to be over Peggy. Especially if Natasha is prodding at him constantly, making him feel defensive.
He and Falcon can also be friends without being gay, I've had similar back and forth friendships with guys I've served with that never came close to being sexual, since we're both straight. Turns out you can tease each other without malice without it being romantic.

[Sidewinder]

More relevant comments from the Agony Booth page:

I don't really want to see this simply because I'd rather a super hero that was gay all along have a movie made, rather than it be shoehorned into a character to make a statement. I remember when I was young coming across Spectral, a male character that turned out to be gay. The comics actually dealt with it too, it wasn't just, "Oh yeah, and he's gay." It's one of the things I felt Malibu Comics, with the Ultraverse, did right, for all the mistakes and missteps elsewhere.

A casual search for homosexual comic book characters turned up quite a few, and, oddly enough, I actually managed to find a few out of the bunch that weren't lesbians that existed purely for reasons of sex appeal. So picking a good male or female character, that's homosexual, with thought behind that fact (and not just done for sex appeal) is wholly possible. I'd really just prefer to see that. With Captain Peggy Carter may be out of the way now but with that already established it really would feel like he was just suddenly turned gay, just because. I don't want that to be how things are handled, not something on a whim, but something with real thought and love behind it.

Not to disagree with the fact, and it is a fact, that he and Falcon are adorable together.

It would be great if there were gay superheroes in publication who have sales figures and multimedia popularity even in the same league as the Avengers or the Justice League, etc. There are a lot of good gay characters out their, they aren't all tokens. Unfortunately, until such a time as Batwoman starts selling four books a month like her male counterpart, that isn't going to happen. The only realistic way we are going to see real LGBT representation in the movies any time soon is if an existing popular character like Cap is retconned.

That's a delusion. That isn't a LGBT representation at all. That's taking something that's straight, already established as straight (in the very movie universe you're talking about, at that), and then suddenly calling them gay. That's not real. That's the most basic example of a token. "Oh, and now they're gay, just so people think we actually support the LGBT crowd." It's like throwing a black character in the midst of a bunch of white people in your movie to not appear racist. The LGBT characters in film, books, games and comics that I want to see are characters that actually encompass those things, real characters with layers. Not the LGBT logo slapped on them. Not some fake. Not some fraud. Not something inserted at random in hopes it would make a few easily bribed people happy.

That is what it would be. Not something finally done right to represent a proper LGBT character. It would be a lie. Something wrong. It's everything I don't want, because what I want isn't a lie. What I want to be achieved, one day, the right way, is real and true. Not a bribe. Not a lie. Not a retcon. The real deal. I'd rather push and struggle for that for a decade more to achieve something real than see people accept another fraud. And that is what it would be, no matter how you word it or justify it. I don't want another token gay character, I don't want a straight character that's had a rainbow flag slapped on them at random. I want an actual character with depth and layers and feelings - who has had to actually deal with this part of themselves.

Maybe this happens. It wouldn't make me happy. I'd feel like I'd lost. Like we all had. Even as a few easily bribed sheep were celebrating.

Personally, I share Moppet's view. All too often, DC and Marvel Comics use "token gay guys/girls" without thought to character development. For all my initial apprehension to Batwoman, at least DC portrayed the emotional and social conflicts the character faced and continues to face, due to her sexual orientation- they didn't just have her say, "I'm gay," as if its impact on the character was no more significant than a favorite color. Now contrast this with Garth Ennis' 'Punisher' comics, in a character's sexual orientation is either UTTERLY IRRELEVANT to the plot, or used in ways that can demonize a character (see the bisexual William Rawlins performing fellatio on a gay Nicky Cavella, and the lesbians who try to force themselves upon Kathryn O'Brien, in 'Up Is Down and Black Is White').

[AniThyng]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that it is creepy for Rogers to go out with a relative of his now elderly ex, who is "younger" than he is. (I would guess that they are actually +/- a couple years? I mean if we don't count all the year's Cap was frozen into his age, in which case you might as well argue that it's creepy that he's hanging out with Falcon, a boy young enough to be his grandson.

[Grumman]

The gay subtext of the film is so blatant, I’m rather surprised I didn’t notice it sooner. Our hero is consistently chaste and seemingly uninterested in both of the women throwing themselves at him, yet instantly forms a connection with Falcon, with whom he has far more chemistry.

"What are you, gay?" is not an argument I can get behind.

[Crazedwraith]

think I can see both sides. The article has a point that Captain America's love interests are much smaller part of his mythos than Betty Banner for Hulk, MJ for Spider-Man etc. And I've got no particular objection to Characters being gay in a reboot even if they weren't before. So long as you tell a good story with it. (I understand if people want to create new heroes who gay from the start though, it's just they'll never be as popular or iconic as the heroes that have been around since the 40s)

But everyone's objections to saying he's gay from the evidence of Winter Soldier sound pretty accurate as well.

[FaxModem1]

Honestly, it'll never happen, as Marvel has yet to make a Black Widow or Nick Fury movie, so a gay superhero movie is even further down the line. That said, a solid romance between Bucky and Steve would add onto the tragedy of the Winter Soldier character. If Marvel wanted to be bold, have it established in Avengers 2 or Captain America 3 through flashbacks of just how close the two of them really were, but hid a lot of their feelings due to the times they were living in. Only now, in a more accepting world, they can't get together due to Bucky's insanity and programming, and Steve's constant guilt of losing his friend.

Like I said, it'll never happen, but a good story could be made out of it.

[Majin Gojira]

In modern fictional analysis it's really common for people to read "eros" into all social interactions between characters regardless of what is actually presented. It says a lot more about the viewer and modern society than it does anything about the characters. People do form extremely deep friendships ("Philia") and especially did so in Cap's time and before. That it must be sexual to a modern viewer is disheartening in some respects as the idea of "love" has been diminished to simple lust.

And the arguments used to support it are, frankly, pretty crap. They all rely on how the author reads scenarios and lack specifics (and the 'losses' he mentions for turning other characters gay miss SO MUCH MORE).

Besides, there already is a canonical Bisexual super hero god-man in the Marvel Universe. Greg Pak revealed that yes, The Incredible Hercules has had male lovers in the past. Several, in fact. He loves Women, he loves men, he Loves. To double down on it, Pak's Amazing X-Men series featured a AU Herc in a relationship with his Universe's Wolverine -- to the point where when one of them died near the end of that series, the other was going to Raid Tartarus to get him out.

Besides, having Amadeus Cho insist on screen that "I'M NOT HIS EROMENOS!" would be a dream come true.

[Tsyroc]

I'm not sure I buy the argument that it is creepy for Rogers to go out with a relative of his now elderly ex, who is "younger" than he is. (I would guess that they are actually +/- a couple years? I mean if we don't count all the year's Cap was frozen into his age, in which case you might as well argue that it's creepy that he's hanging out with Falcon, a boy young enough to be his grandson.

If that's creepy, how about Thor and Jane Foster? Jane probably can't trace her ancestry back as far in time as Thor has lived already. Not to mention, since she's so much shorter than he is she kind of looks like an adolescent version of Sif.

As for Captain America being gay. I don't have a problem with Captain America being gay, I just think it would be the wrong move to make Steve Rogers gay. I like that he's old fashioned and has old fashioned morals, and isn't a dick about them. So he's kind of shy around women and probably hasn't had sex yet. Big whoop. Sure, a good story could be done about him being able to come out because it is more accepted now. I just think there is enough they can do with him already and that would be an annoying reach. I also think it would piss way too many people off. I've already seen a few posts around the web where people were ticked that Cap wasn't blindly "America Fuck Yeah!". They clearly have never read Captain America because that is exactly not the Cap that Steve Rogers is. If you want that type of Cap you need to get the 1950s anti-commie version or John Walker, the 1980s Reagan style replacement for Rogers.

The little I read of the Ultimate version of Steve Rogers. He is a little more of a dick and seemed to follow the government line a bit more than the 616 version, but I think that changed when the Ultimates broke ties with the government. I'm not certain because other parts of the story went to total crap and I stopped reading.

[Kojiro]

I was skeptical of this article at the point the author suggested Iron Man 3 was a superior movie to TWS.

That said I would much rather see new characters created- including some number of gay ones- than changes to established heroes. To me this falls under retcons so I oppose it on those grounds.

[Crazedwraith]

I was skeptical of this article at the point the author suggested Iron Man 3 was a superior movie to TWS.

That said I would much rather see new characters created- including some number of gay ones- than changes to established heroes. To me this falls under retcons so I oppose it on those grounds.

Interesting. I respect that viewpoint but do you apply it to reboots, or new versions of established characters? Does that really still count as a retcon?

For example; Ultimate Colossus was gay. Mainstream Colossus is not. But the ultimate verse was created to be new and different so I don't see that a retcon. No continuity was changed because ultimate colossus was always gay.

Making 616 Cap guy would be a massive retcon. If they'd laid the groundwork and made it a point in the first film, MCU Cap being gay wouldn't exactly be a retcon, just a re-imagining.

We (the board as a whole, I mean) had pretty much this conversation when Andrew Garfield said his Spider-Man should gay/bi-sexual and have a male version of Mary Jane.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I don't see why it should matter what gender Cap is attracted to. If he's gay, so be it, but tell a good story about it.

I also find it hilarious that the original article keeps going on about how Cap and Falcon have this really close bond. No shit, they're both veterans who've lost close friends struggling to keep true to themselves in a world that's different to what they thought it was.

Based solely on the first Cap film, he'd spent years wanting to serve in the army, being told he couldn't. And then finally got the chance, then woke up 70 years later. Is it any wonder that he easily forms bonds with other veterans?

Again, I don't see why a superhero's sexual orientation should matter. They're supposed to go around saving people and stopping villains. Who they're attracted to should be at best tangentially connected to that role.

[Scrib]

In modern fictional analysis it's really common for people to read "eros" into all social interactions between characters regardless of what is actually presented. It says a lot more about the viewer and modern society than it does anything about the characters. People do form extremely deep friendships ("Philia") and especially did so in Cap's time and before. That it must be sexual to a modern viewer is disheartening in some respects as the idea of "love" has been diminished to simple lust.

It's not really base lust. It's this current progressive movement. They want more LGBT characters and they especially want more awareness so this sort of reinterpretation is the tool they use to get it. So potentially platonic relationships get looked at in a different light. YMMV on the benefits of this.

Again, I don't see why a superhero's sexual orientation should matter. They're supposed to go around saving people and stopping villains. Who they're attracted to should be at best tangentially connected to that role.

I wish everyone thought like you.Except they don't and you know don't. How much time was dedicated to Jane and Thor? To Pots and Stark? They've been part of the plots-in important ways- of at least a movie each. Superheroes are not just flying islands, who they fuck is apparently very important to the story, especially if you're making a billion dollar franchise and want to maximize appeal.

[Broomstick]

Yay, we can have straight heroes and gay heroes. What the hell is wrong with a celibate hero? Frankly, I think it would do our society some good if NOT fucking everything on two legs was as accepted as being a sex machine of any orientation.

[Eternal_Freedom]

That's true. What's wrong with Cap just being asexual? Hell, make it a side-effect of the serum for an explanation if you really need to.

[Batman]

Their sexual preferences and resulting love interests being important is something that varies from hero to hero and sometimes even from iteration to iteration. Let's look at Lois and Clark (the characters, not the TV series). Yes, she's a big part of the Superman myth...in the comics. She's a big part of the Superman myth in the core Timmverse too...but never as a love interest. She doesn't even find out Clark and Supes are the same person. And yet he works perfectly fine as the Man of Steel.
Movie Pepper and Jane Foster were important to the movies because they were made important, not because the movies couldn't have worked without them.
I positively fail to see why we have to establish a sexual orientation for Cap (be it straight, gay, bi, omnisexual, whatever). It just doesn't seem to be particularly important for that character-whereas making me or Tony gay would mean going up against decades worth of painting us as womanizers.

[Scrib]

That's true. What's wrong with Cap just being asexual? Hell, make it a side-effect of the serum for an explanation if you really need to.

How are you going to pull in the female demographic without some shitty romantic side (if you're lucky) plot? I know what you're thinking: good writing. But that's just plain silly.

For me the answer is and always will be the above:nothing in theory but some marketing exec has decided that it's necessary. Go figure.

Their sexual preferences and resulting love interests being important is something that varies from hero to hero and sometimes even from iteration to iteration. Let's look at Lois and Clark (the characters, not the TV series). Yes, she's a big part of the Superman myth...in the comics. She's a big part of the Superman myth in the core Timmverse too...but never as a love interest. She doesn't even find out Clark and Supes are the same person. And yet he works perfectly fine as the Man of Steel.
Movie Pepper and Jane Foster were important to the movies because they were made important, not because the movies couldn't have worked without them.

I positively fail to see why we have to establish a sexual orientation for Cap (be it straight, gay, bi, omnisexual, whatever). It just doesn't seem to be particularly important for that character-whereas making me or Tony gay would mean going up against decades worth of painting us as womanizers.

It doesn't have to be that way. I meant that it is important, whether it was made so or not (honestly that seems like a bit of a rabbit hole-everything in fiction is made the way it is)

And since this is the current default state then it seems that saying that they don't have to have a love interest in a thread about LGBT love interests is a bit pointless no? Sure, we could have Cap (or any other character really) without a romantic interest. However, if the movies are going to continue tacking on love interests then it's not really a counter to anyone asking why that love interest has to be straight.

[Batman]

Their sexual preferences and resulting love interests being important is something that varies from hero to hero and sometimes even from iteration to iteration. Let's look at Lois and Clark (the characters, not the TV series). Yes, she's a big part of the Superman myth...in the comics. She's a big part of the Superman myth in the core Timmverse too...but never as a love interest. She doesn't even find out Clark and Supes are the same person. And yet he works perfectly fine as the Man of Steel.
Movie Pepper and Jane Foster were important to the movies because they were made important, not because the movies couldn't have worked without them.

I positively fail to see why we have to establish a sexual orientation for Cap (be it straight, gay, bi, omnisexual, whatever). It just doesn't seem to be particularly important for that character-whereas making me or Tony gay would mean going up against decades worth of painting us as womanizers.

It doesn't have to be that way. I meant that it is important, whether it was made so or not (honestly that seems like a bit of a rabbit hole-everything in fiction is made the way it is)

Yes of course everything in fiction is made the way it is. My point was the movies made Pepper Potts and Jane Foster important to the plot-while they were prominent in the comics (and Jane Foster not so much in recent years from what I've gathered), they were far from indispensible (leave alone as an automatic love interest). See the Timmverse and Lois Lane again-yes, you probably need to have her-but not necessarily as a love interest.

And since this is the current default state then it seems that saying that they don't have to have a love interest in a thread about LGBT love interests is a bit pointless no? Sure, we could have Cap (or any other character really) without a romantic interest. However, if the movies are going to continue tacking on love interests then it's not really a counter to anyone asking why that love interest has to be straight.

I think asking why he has to have a love interest is a perfectly valid question in this context. The thread topic is 'should Cap be gay', NOT 'Cap MUST have a love interest so with that precondition should he be gay?

[Scrib]

I think asking why he has to have a love interest is a perfectly valid question in this context. The thread topic is 'should Cap be gay', NOT 'Cap MUST have a love interest so with that precondition should he be gay?

In theory, yes.

But I think we all recognize that, unless there is something really strange in Cap's backstory that I missed, he-and pretty much most superheroes- can absolutely have one partner or none (or three or four for some) without turning the story into a parody. Does this not seem trivially true to you?

The other question is of course what real world factors lead into this decision. And once we get there it seems to me again trivial that "why do superheroes/superhero films need romantic partners/romantic subplots" will have a simple "they don't" as the answer. But if we're looking at real world reasons they clearly almost always have one anyway. On a practical level it's a bit like complaining about the government being involved in marriages when gay marriage gets brought up no?

[Batman]

Since when do I give a damn about real world reasons?

And no, sorry, it's not trivially true to me. The fact that they can? Yes, absolutely. Since celibacy is not exactly hardwired into human nature, heroes having sexual relationships is to be expected. A lot of us do (with varying degrees of success). What I'm not seeing is a) us automatically having to and b) that automatically being important to our story. Timmverse Lois and Clark again.

[Scrib]

Since when do I give a damn about real world reasons?

And no, sorry, it's not trivially true to me. The fact that they can? Yes, absolutely. Since celibacy is not exactly hardwired into human nature, heroes having sexual relationships is to be expected. A lot of us do (with varying degrees of success). What I'm not seeing is a) us automatically having to and b) that automatically being important to our story. Timmverse Lois and Clark again.

Did I say that we have to? I'm a bit confused now. As far as I can tell my argument was that, barring real world pressures, a story could be told not without romance, but without a Romantic Interest-the one true love of the character- being the default.

It seems as if we agree on this part of the argument? (If the Timmverse Lois and Clark is meant to provide a counterpoint to the argument that real world pressures force Romantic Interests then noted.)

[Batman]

And I'm disagreeing. I'm saying a story can be told without romance period. Romance usually happens because most of us are human emotionally if not biologically, but it's not inherently required for the story.

[Scrib]

Yes? You're right.

[Batman]

Then we just have to clear up your 'not without romance' comment, which...makes no sense without a love interest. There can be no romance without there being someone for the hero to fall in love with.

[Scrib]

I meant that a story could be told either without romance or without the Romantic Interest? Or as I said before: a story could be told with one partner, or three or four, or none.