Should Spider-Man be "pansexual"?

[Sidewinder]

Andrew Garfield thinks a pansexual Spider-Man is the future: 'What are we so scared of?'

Garfield played the web-slinger in the two Amazing Spider-Man movies

Jess Denham. Wednesday 9 September 2015 09:02 BST
--
When most people think of Spider-Man they imagine a straight, white male in a red and blue suit, but Andrew Garfield has called for this traditional image to be turned on its head with a 'pansexual' version of the superhero.

The 32-year-old actor played science genius Peter Parker and his web-slinger alter ego in the two The Amazing Spider-Man movies. He has since passed on the role to British teenager Tom Holland and hopes future portrayals will explore the character's gender and sexuality without sticking to conventions.

"I'm excited to the point where we don't have to have this conversation, where we can have a pansexual Spider-Man," he told Mic. "What are we so scared of? Why are we so, 'No, it has to be this way, a man and a woman'. Why is that even a conversation?"

"We're scared of things that aren't us. Love is love. Skin is skin. Flesh is flesh. We're all wrapped in the same thing. I have no preference."

Garfield has pushed for a gay Spider-Man before, telling Entertainment Weekly in 2013 that he pitched the idea to producer Matt Tolmach. "I was like, 'What if [love interest] MJ is a dude?" he said. "It's hardly even groundbreaking! Why can't he be gay? Why can't he be into boys?"

Whether fans will ever see Spider-Man who isn't "Caucasian and heterosexual" remains in doubt as there is currently a legally-binding agreement between Sony and Marvel to keep him just so in any cinematic franchising.

Other rules in the contract, which leaked during the Sony Pictures email hack last year, state that he must not smoke, he must not abuse alcohol and he can't sell drugs or torture enemies.

Creator Stan Lee first made Spider-Man 53 years ago and sees "no reason" to change the original. "I think the world has a place for gay superheroes certainly," he said. "It has nothing to do with being anti-gay, or anti-black, or anti-Latino, anything like that.

"Latino characters should stay Latino. The Black Panther should certainly not be Swiss. I just see no reason to change that which has already been established when it's so easy to add new characters. I say create new characters the way you want to. Hell, I'll do it myself."

Spider-Man is the most successful franchise in Sony Pictures' history, with five films raking in over $4 billion worldwide. Holland will make his debut in a cameo role in 2016's Captain America: Civil War.

That's a surprising statement from an actor. Anyone agree with him?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm neither for or against it, provided it doesn't represent a change to an existing continuity (i.e., its a reboot or a new adaptation). I don't think it needs to happen, but I have no objection to it if its written well.

[Lord Revan]

the real question here isn't really should/could "Spider-Man" (either Peter Parker or someone else) be "pansexual" but rather why they should be that, all too often characters with any sort sexuality besides "straight" in comics become definied by that sexuality so pansexual spider-man would be "pansexual spiderman" not "spider-man who happens to be pansexual" since the companies are looking for a easy way to be "progressive".

Also changing the sexuality of pre-existing character is something that needs to be done really carefully (if it's not reboot and those have problems of their own) since readers have become emotionally invested on the character, how ever if Peter Parker desided to step down from being spiderman and his replacement was a black man who just happend to be gay as well I'd have nothing against that providing it was writen well.

Basically you want a character who happens to be gay or pansexual or whatever not a character whose major characteristic is that "he's like this straight character but belongs to sexual minority" same way you don't want "is like this male superhero but a girl" rather you want "has similar theme/origin as this male superhero but is a character of her own" for female counterparts.

[Jub]

Peter Parker is meant to be a youth of today, so at some point we need to stop writing him with the sensibilities of a past age. I can see good stories written with a gay/bi/pan Spiderman that don't change who he is in other ways. I don't 100% trust companies to write these stories well, but we might as well give them a shot at some point.

For example, a Peter/Brock/MJ love triangle would make a great arc. You could have Brock as the spurned party and write that in as part of his reason for becoming Venom. If done well it adds a new spin on an old conflict and if done poorly, well it can't be worse than when Peter sold his marriage...

[Starglider]

Peter Parker is meant to be a youth of today, so at some point we need to stop writing him with the sensibilities of a past age.

In that case he should be straight, but update his Tumblr account with a new fringe sexuality and/or gender once per issue. Pansexual, gloomgender, demisexual, tucute etc...

[Sidewinder]

Peter Parker is meant to be a youth of today, so at some point we need to stop writing him with the sensibilities of a past age. I can see good stories written with a gay/bi/pan Spiderman that don't change who he is in other ways. I don't 100% trust companies to write these stories well, but we might as well give them a shot at some point.

No, they should CREATE A NEW CHARACTER who embodies these characteristics, not shoehorn these characteristics into a preexisting character without them. They can give the "Spider-Man" identity to a gay or "pansexual" character, but they should NOT magically make Peter Parker gay or "pansexual."

For example, a Peter/Brock/MJ love triangle would make a great arc. You could have Brock as the spurned party and write that in as part of his reason for becoming Venom. If done well it adds a new spin on an old conflict and if done poorly, well it can't be worse than when Peter sold his marriage...

This might work as a 'What If...?' story, if the subject is handled with the respect and sensitivity it deserves. The talentless hacks infesting Marvel Comics, however, can easily devolve it into one with the "beware of gay people!" Broken Aesop.

[Jub]

In that case he should be straight, but update his Tumblr account with a new fringe sexuality and/or gender once per issue. Pansexual, gloomgender, demisexual, tucute etc...

It wouldn't be that unlikely for him to be at least somewhat to the middle of the Kinsey scale. Based on numbers from the UK 49% of people between 18 and 24 aren't 100% straight. How many of them will ever be in a no hetero relationship is up for debate, but having Peter Parker struggle with a homosexual crush would be an easy way to show the struggle a lot of youth will go through.

No, they should CREATE A NEW CHARACTER who embodies these characteristics, not shoehorn these characteristics into a preexisting character without them. They can give the "Spider-Man" identity to a gay or "pansexual" character, but they should NOT magically make Peter Parker gay or "pansexual."

So comic book heroes should be static and unchanging from first issue to last? I guess Superman shouldn't have 90% of his abilities, Batman should still be talking about how the Joker pulled a massive boner or about how gay Robin and himself are... Yeah, take your regressive ideas and shove them.

This might work as a 'What If...?' story, if the subject is handled with the respect and sensitivity it deserves. The talentless hacks infesting Marvel Comics, however, can easily devolve it into one with the "beware of gay people!" Broken Aesop.

It could also work in a big screen movie or the next reboot of the main series.

[Gandalf]

This might work as a 'What If...?' story, if the subject is handled with the respect and sensitivity it deserves. The talentless hacks infesting Marvel Comics, however, can easily devolve it into one with the "beware of gay people!" Broken Aesop.

Couldn't that be the case with any time they could try to address anything?

[Hillary]

Who cares, as long as the writing is good.

[Crazedwraith]

Deja Vu. We had nearly exactly the same thread back when Garfield was actually in the role saying ASM2 should have him be gay/bi.

[Raw Shark]

I'm with Stan here. Pansexuality is great and all, and there's nothing that especially rubs me the wrong way about a Spider-Man who likes penis, but why change an existing character with existing continuity (I know, Marvel, but pretend this makes sense here) when you could just introduce a new one? Oh shit, there's something new in the dialogue? Then make up new shit.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm with Stan here. Pansexuality is great and all, and there's nothing that especially rubs me the wrong way about a Spider-Man who likes penis, but why change an existing character with existing continuity (I know, Marvel, but pretend this makes sense here) when you could just introduce a new one? Oh shit, there's something new in the dialogue? Then make up new shit.

The thing is, Marvel doesn't have just one continuity.

[Raw Shark]

The thing is, Marvel doesn't have just one continuity.

If there is one thing that has ever been constant about Peter besides his moral compass, it is that he is very interested in girls.

[Tribble]

If there is one thing that has ever been constant about Peter besides his moral compass, it is that he is very interested in girls.

Well aside from his deal with Mephisto of course lol

I'd rather see Marvel come up with good characters that happen to be pansexual/gay rather than taking an existing character and making that their defining characteristic.

[Joun_Lord]

To echo what others have said, I'd prefer for them to not change the character of Peter Parker but I'm not opposed to a gay/bi/pan/whatever Spiderman. There has already been a gay Spiderman with Miles Morales and there wasn't too much of a fuss beyond from the homophobes and the people that made fun of him for being the "PC Spiderman" where he's gay and mixed race.

Much like I said about a female Doctor, a characters gender or sexual orientation should be secondary to the character. It should be there but not in your face, it should effect little until they want to bang okay. A Spoodermang who is gay literally should be a Spiderman who is gay, not a gay Spiderman. Same with bi or pan or trans or anything of the sort. Of course explore it some, I think a trans or gay Spiderman could be damn interesting especially with the parallels between his or her secret lives and could make for some downright amazing stories, but for the most part their shouldn't be much of a difference between a gay or straight, cis or trans, male or female Spiderman.

One thing you know about a pansexual Peter Parker though is just the fact his nickname would be Peter Pan.

Also goddamn, Andrew Garfield is 32? Dude is two years older then I and can still pass for a teen. Fuck. Either he's layering on the make-up or he's got some fucking amazing genes.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know they can digitally de-age people in film, right?

And yes, make up.

I doubt most celebrities look as young without that shit as they do on-screen.

[TheFeniX]

You know, I've never looked, but how do women feel about gay men? Not like that, but do they have anything emotionally invested in a a love story sans a female character? Are men going to care (aside from gay men)? Is a M>M>F love triangle going sell tickets?

The Peter Parker > Mary Jane thing is ok because it makes me feel like a nerdy guy can get a stupidly hot woman if I'm not an asshole. Mary Jane (at least the Dunst version) probably played well with women because she dealt with most of her adversity herself (aside from being kidnapped by super-villians). She did spend a lot of the movie waiting to get swept off her feet, but women don't seem to mind that when the characters have agency in other areas.

So, is MJ getting pushed to the side or competing with another male lead really going to sell tickets? Looking at it from a business perspective, it's a pretty big risk considering the amount of money studios throw at these movies. Even in an era where no one cares about straight/bi/whatever: a male > female pairing plays better with a majority of audiences.

I'd honestly expect more traction of MJ turned into Spider-(wo)man and Parker was the love-interest.

[Sidewinder]

No, they should CREATE A NEW CHARACTER who embodies these characteristics, not shoehorn these characteristics into a preexisting character without them. They can give the "Spider-Man" identity to a gay or "pansexual" character, but they should NOT magically make Peter Parker gay or "pansexual."

So comic book heroes should be static and unchanging from first issue to last? I guess Superman shouldn't have 90% of his abilities, Batman should still be talking about how the Joker pulled a massive boner or about how gay Robin and himself are... Yeah, take your regressive ideas and shove them.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are critical components of a person's identity and personality, and any changes should be gradually introduced, so the changes are believable to an audience. If Marvel Comics wants to make Peter Parker bisexual- not gay, because Peter Parker is not only sexually attracted to women, but via these relationships, formed emotional links that made these women far more than mere beards- they need to establish this over multiple issues of a comic book series- at least 10- with many flashbacks to Parker's experiences in junior high and high school, showing he's always been attracted to men, but was reluctant to express this attraction, due to societal pressures. They also need to reveal why he didn't act on this attraction until now.

If the change isn't gradual, then it looks as if Peter Parker was hit with a gay virus. That's not only unbelievable, but it's downright insulting to those who ARE homosexuals, as it portrays their relationships as being shallow, their feelings for each other as being artificial.

[Sidewinder]

Who cares, as long as the writing is good.

The main problem, in my experience, is that the writing is NEVER good.

[Tribble]

Miles morales is gay? Is that just word of God or something I missed?

[Sidewinder]

Miles morales is gay? Is that just word of God or something I missed?

That's Glenn Beck's (likely baseless) speculation, as seen in Drudge Report Thinks New Spider-Man "Could Be Gay". In truth, Miles Morales' Wikipedia article specifically states he has a girlfriend.

[Gandalf]

The main problem, in my experience, is that the writing is NEVER good.

So why address anything?

Also, if the writing is never good, why are you suggesting that they make a new character? Wouldn't he be similarly problematic?

[Batman]

At least the terrible writing of the new character wouldn't ruin an established one.

[Kojiro]

That's Glenn Beck's (likely baseless) speculation, as seen in Drudge Report Thinks New Spider-Man "Could Be Gay". In truth, Miles Morales' Wikipedia article specifically states he has a girlfriend.

Yeah but this is Marvel. They currently have two Bobby Drakes (Iceman) existing in the same universe and only one is gay. They literally just duplicated the character but hit the gay button. In such a universe having a girlfriend is meaningless- you could just wake up gay tomorrow anyway.

Also, if the writing is never good, why are you suggesting that they make a new character? Wouldn't he be similarly problematic?

I think much of the reason the writing is bad is that it is simultaneously trying to be the old thing and a new thing, and those constraints just don't work.

[Sidewinder]

Also, if the writing is never good, why are you suggesting that they make a new character? Wouldn't he be similarly problematic?

I think much of the reason the writing is bad is that it is simultaneously trying to be the old thing and a new thing, and those constraints just don't work.

Well said.