Should Spider-Man be "pansexual"?

[Lord Revan]

another thing that when depicting minorities, especially sexual minorities the comic book companies want to "show" how progressive they are so more often then not you end up with characters (even when making a new one) whose characterization is dominated by their sexuality to the point that it becomes their sole defining characteristic.

[Jub]

another thing that when depicting minorities, especially sexual minorities the comic book companies want to "show" how progressive they are so more often then not you end up with characters (even when making a new one) whose characterization is dominated by their sexuality to the point that it becomes their sole defining characteristic.

You have to start somewhere and even if they're shaky first steps they're steps that should be taken. If you never try for fear of failure you're never going to go anywhere new.

[Lord Revan]

another thing that when depicting minorities, especially sexual minorities the comic book companies want to "show" how progressive they are so more often then not you end up with characters (even when making a new one) whose characterization is dominated by their sexuality to the point that it becomes their sole defining characteristic.

You have to start somewhere and even if they're shaky first steps they're steps that should be taken. If you never try for fear of failure you're never going to go anywhere new.

true enough my issue isn't that these would "shaky first steps" but rather more often then not those "shaky first steps" are the only thing that happens, while there's semi-decent characters that come from sexual minorities those tend to be the minority (no pun intended) of the characters of this type depicted. Sure it's getting better but there's still alot of the "lets make a character be a gay stereotype to show how progressive we are" rather then making a character who just happens to belong to sexual minority.

[Jub]

true enough my issue isn't that these would "shaky first steps" but rather more often then not those "shaky first steps" are the only thing that happens, while there's semi-decent characters that come from sexual minorities those tend to be the minority (no pun intended) of the characters of this type depicted. Sure it's getting better but there's still alot of the "lets make a character be a gay stereotype to show how progressive we are" rather then making a character who just happens to belong to sexual minority.

They just need one of these characters to take off, and that means throwing more darts. If we get a minority or openly gay character and something about them grabs people then we'll get more of them.

[Zixinus]

I am against anyone, even fictional characters, having any kind of sexuality imposed on them whether it's straight or gay or whatever.

Just because there is no need to have the conversation of whether they can make a pansexual Spider-Man doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a conversation whether that's something that Spider-Man's character should be. Part of the point of superheroes is that they have certain consistencies. There should also be a conversation of why they want to turn Spider-Man's character pansexual as well as what role should it play in the story.

The article doesn't provide any answers to those questions. I can imagine a pansexual Spider-Man being workable but not easily.

[Jub]

The article doesn't provide any answers to those questions. I can imagine a pansexual Spider-Man being workable but not easily.

What parts would be hard about that?

-----

I'd probably start this sort of idea off fresh with a new run, not a reboot but a good run that works alongside other releases.

He can still have his relationships with Gwen and Mary Jane. We know he's usually got an on again off again thing with MJ, maybe he could have feelings for Harry but finds out that Harry is straight and has to deal with that. There could be a thing between him and Brock, that would add an interesting angle to the Venom arc. Just working between those four supporting characters you've already got some interesting story ideas.

You could have something where maybe Norman Osborn is anti-LGBT and that further pushes Peter and Harry apart. Maybe Peter has two secrets to hide from his aunt May or the fight with Ben is partially due to Peter coming out to him. This is what I've managed after minutes of looking things over.

You probably don't even give more than clues about anything until a few issues in. Then you ease things in from there. Ideally there would be entire arcs where his sexuality is given no more thought than if he were straight.

[Grumman]

I'd probably start this sort of idea off fresh with a new run, not a reboot but a good run that works alongside other releases.

He can still have his relationships with Gwen and Mary Jane. We know he's usually got an on again off again thing with MJ, maybe he could have feelings for Harry but finds out that Harry is straight and has to deal with that. There could be a thing between him and Brock, that would add an interesting angle to the Venom arc. Just working between those four supporting characters you've already got some interesting story ideas.

You could have something where maybe Norman Osborn is anti-LGBT and that further pushes Peter and Harry apart. Maybe Peter has two secrets to hide from his aunt May or the fight with Ben is partially due to Peter coming out to him. This is what I've managed after minutes of looking things over.

Your ideas are bad Spider-Man slash fanfiction. All you've done is taken a couple of shitty homosexual drama cliches and pasted them straight into Spider-Man's backstory.

Off the top of my head, I can think of two comics that have drama deriving from the fact that the protagonist is homosexual without resorting to the same shitty cliches:

1. Batwoman. Spoiler

Part of Kate Kane's backstory is that she's a military brat who joined the cadets. She was kicked out under DADT because her sense of honour did not allow her to violate her oath by lying and risking that the other girl would get caught up in the investigation.

2. Secret Six's Scandal Savage. Spoiler

Her father is a caveman who wants his daughter to give him a grandchild and is none too pleased that she wants nothing to do with that. Except by "caveman" I mean he's literally thousands of years old, and his powers of regeneration are renewed by the consumption of his descendants.

[Jub]

Your ideas are bad Spider-Man slash fanfiction. All you've done is taken a couple of shitty homosexual drama cliches and pasted them straight into Spider-Man's backstory.

That's exactly how the rest of the drama and relationships in a Spiderman comic are handled. I was keeping my ideas in line with what we've already seen from the people writing the comics. You can't honestly say that most of his currently established relationships or issues are deep or nuanced. FFS, the one time they went that route they literally had him sell his marriage to the devil because Peter Parker can't be married.

Besides, I'm not a writer and my LGBT friends tend to end up trans and I don't really see that as the trait they'd give Peter. The only gay people I know are boring as fuck or stereotypical. One is super loud and swishy with a penchant for hitting up the clubs whenever he can, another is pretty depressed and hasn't had a date since I've known him, another seems to be doing okay but wasn't out before he moved away and now I don't see that much of him, and his sister is in a wonderful long-distance relationship with a great gal. They're all just normal ass people with normal ass problems.

Frankly, I'd suspect that most gay people have pretty stereotypically gay problems to go along with their normal ass everyday problems. Pretty much all of my gay friends have at one point or another had issues with knowing if their crush will be of a suitable orientation to return their feelings, having trouble with coming out and who they can trust, being outed against their will, or being looked down upon by those that are against gay marriage. These issues are stereotypical because they're very real and common issues. Bisexual people still have the stereotype that they're either gay or straight and just haven't made a choice yet, or that it's a phase, or that they cheat and that should probably come up in a comic where a character is gay because at least some readers will have experience with that sort of thing.

In the case of Peter Parker, he's known for having a messed up love life complete with love triangles and pushing lovers away. These things pretty much have to come up if he's bi/pan-sexual, if it comes off as cliched that's because he's a very archetypical character with stories we've seen over and over again. If he's bi you still need to stick to those types of stories, just with some men involved, because they define the hero as much as his costume or feeling like he has no choice but to use his powers for the greater good.

[Sidewinder]

another thing that when depicting minorities, especially sexual minorities the comic book companies want to "show" how progressive they are so more often then not you end up with characters (even when making a new one) whose characterization is dominated by their sexuality to the point that it becomes their sole defining characteristic.

You have to start somewhere and even if they're shaky first steps they're steps that should be taken. If you never try for fear of failure you're never going to go anywhere new.

They just need one of these characters to take off, and that means throwing more darts. If we get a minority or openly gay character and something about them grabs people then we'll get more of them.

I am speaking this as a Chinese-American, a member of the minority you claim to represent.

As a child, I wanted to see more Asians among the superheroes in the cartoons I watched and the comic books I read. Unfortunately, not only were these characters often token, but they were also INSULTING STEREOTYPES, due to hack writing. I'd rather not see an Asian superhero AT ALL, if all the comic book companies and animation studios could offer, were such stereotypes.

In pushing for a "pansexual" Spider-Man, you will likely make Marvel Comics push the job of creating a "pansexual" superhero, into a hack writer who will reinforce the idea a bisexual person is a sex-crazy and out-of-control "swinger" straight from a porn addict's most lurid fantasies. The result will be a Broken Aesop so bad, it'll poison comic book fans' (and comic book fans' parents') opinions of bisexual people, for a decade.

A topic we hold so personally, must be handled with the respect and sensitivity it REQUIRES, or the effort will be counterproductive.

[Jub]

I am speaking this as a Chinese-American, a member of the minority you claim to represent.

As a child, I wanted to see more Asians among the superheroes in the cartoons I watched and the comic books I read. Unfortunately, not only were these characters often token, but they were also INSULTING STEREOTYPES, due to hack writing. I'd rather not see an Asian superhero AT ALL, if all the comic book companies and animation studios could offer, were such stereotypes.

In pushing for a "pansexual" Spider-Man, you will likely make Marvel Comics push the job of creating a "pansexual" superhero, into a hack writer who will reinforce the idea a bisexual person is a sex-crazy and out-of-control "swinger" straight from a porn addict's most lurid fantasies. The result will be a Broken Aesop so bad, it'll poison comic book fans' (and comic book fans' parents') opinions of bisexual people, for a decade.

A topic we hold so personally, must be handled with the respect and sensitivity it REQUIRES, or the effort will be counterproductive.

Here's the question then, would you rather see stereotyped heroes or no heroes at all? That seems to be the sum of our options. Most comic writing is hackneyed, stilted, and cliched even for white straight male characters.

[Sidewinder]

Here's the question then, would you rather see stereotyped heroes or no heroes at all? That seems to be the sum of our options. Most comic writing is hackneyed, stilted, and cliched even for white straight male characters.

I'd rather see no heroes at all, than to see heroes who reinforce OFFENSIVE STEREOTYPES.

To counter your question, would you rather see no "gay heroes" in comic books, or see only "gay heroes" who are child molesters that prey on Boy Scouts, due to hack writers reinforcing that offensive stereotype? Would Jewish board members rather see no "Jewish heroes," or see only "Jewish heroes" who are money-grubbing misers? Would black board members rather see no "black heroes," or see only "black heroes" who are brainless brutes with rapacious sexual appetites?

That's the dilemma I face regarding heroes who supposedly represent a minority. Very few writers handle the subject with the respect and the sensitivity required.

[Jub]

I'd rather see no heroes at all, than to see heroes who reinforce OFFENSIVE STEREOTYPES.

To counter your question, would you rather see no "gay heroes" in comic books, or see only "gay heroes" who are child molesters that prey on Boy Scouts, due to hack writers reinforcing that offensive stereotype? Would Jewish board members rather see no "Jewish heroes," or see only "Jewish heroes" who are money-grubbing misers? Would black board members rather see no "black heroes," or see only "black heroes" who are brainless brutes with rapacious sexual appetites?

That's the dilemma I face regarding heroes who supposedly represent a minority. Very few writers handle the subject with the respect and the sensitivity required.

I think I'd rather see those obviously terrible examples than none at all. At least with that people will be talking about how terrible these comics are and getting into conversations about how the events on the page bear little resemblance to real people. The people that are going to see these comics and form an opinion due to them aren't the kind of people likely to be swayed anyway. The people that are likely to be swayed won't be poisoned by a few comics.

EDIT: This is coming from a person without a dog in the fight. I understand your reasoning and completely get why you don't want to see those kinds of characters.

[Kojiro]

I think the most important aspect of super heroes is that they be both 'super' and 'heroes' (even if super means fantastically wealthy and the hero part is anti). Those are your first two check boxes on the list. Race, gender and orientation shouldn't even be on the list. They should be secondary characteristics that might come into the storyline well after the character is established. These things shouldn't be a selling point- for a super hero- because they're mundane. Which isn't to say super heroes can't weigh in on such topics but by and large they're beneath their scope. They are the problems of ordinary people, to be fixed by ordinary people.

Take the Xmen for example. The entire subtext of Xmen is (or at least was) persecution, bigotry and being different. There was an ever present reminded that they existed in a world that hated and feared them yet they fought to protect it. It never explicitly came out and said 'you can be different AND be a hero' but it was right there in every issue. Now obviously no one on the planet is a mutant like the Xmen but I didn't need to be exactly what they were to understand the lesson. Yeah I was different to other kids but that was ok. It game me a sense of self worth and I think helped me learn tolerance for others different to myself. But I never bought the comics for that. I bought them for cool looking heroes doing cool things. The lesson was made to appeal to me and I readily absorbed it. But Magneto never gave the Xmen shit for being mutants, nor did we constantly see the Xmen smashing bigots as they could have yet the comic still pushed the narrative 'you can be different and a hero'.

[Joun_Lord]

I'd rather see no heroes at all, than to see heroes who reinforce OFFENSIVE STEREOTYPES.

To counter your question, would you rather see no "gay heroes" in comic books, or see only "gay heroes" who are child molesters that prey on Boy Scouts, due to hack writers reinforcing that offensive stereotype? Would Jewish board members rather see no "Jewish heroes," or see only "Jewish heroes" who are money-grubbing misers? Would black board members rather see no "black heroes," or see only "black heroes" who are brainless brutes with rapacious sexual appetites?

That's the dilemma I face regarding heroes who supposedly represent a minority. Very few writers handle the subject with the respect and the sensitivity required.

I wonder what stereotypes would be used for atheist, latino, or appalachian superheroes by writers that terrible. Maybe the amoral sociopath who hate religious people for the atheist, the lazy mexican or the fiery latino, and the inbred "squeal like a pig" redneck?

[Sidewinder]

I wonder what stereotypes would be used for atheist, latino, or appalachian superheroes by writers that terrible. Maybe the amoral sociopath who hate religious people for the atheist?

Look no further than Garth Ennis' vision of the Punisher. Hell, in The End, he causes the EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE. That's beyond anti-heroic behavior- that's downright villainous.

[Simon_Jester]

I think I'd rather see those obviously terrible examples than none at all. At least with that people will be talking about how terrible these comics are and getting into conversations about how the events on the page bear little resemblance to real people. The people that are going to see these comics and form an opinion due to them aren't the kind of people likely to be swayed anyway. The people that are likely to be swayed won't be poisoned by a few comics.

Every little bit hurts. Racism, sexism, and so on are things people learn, as the cumulative result of a thousand little details. When you willfully go from putting 1000 details in someone's life that make them racist, to putting in 1005 details, you're causing harm. Just like your fuel emissions contribute to global warming- it's a big problem and your contribution is individually small, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it.

[Jub]

Every little bit hurts. Racism, sexism, and so on are things people learn, as the cumulative result of a thousand little details. When you willfully go from putting 1000 details in someone's life that make them racist, to putting in 1005 details, you're causing harm. Just like your fuel emissions contribute to global warming- it's a big problem and your contribution is individually small, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't care about it.

I agree to a point. However, I think that it also creates discussion about fair portrayals and gives people who might not otherwise stand up a reason to make themselves heard.

[Balrog]

Oh FFS, it seems like this topic or a variation of it comes up every month. If it's not changing an established character's race, then it's their gender, or their sexuality, or something else to mark off on the checklist.

No, Spider-Man shouldn't be "pan-sexual" any more than Zorro should be a woman, or the Monkey King should be a Native American, or Bilbo Baggins should have a disability, or Anansi should be a dragon-kin in disguise who just happens to take the form of a spider for reasons. These are characters who already exist and who are loved by the public for the defining character traits which they already possess. What's worse, as people like Jub have already admitted, these changes aren't being done for some higher literary purpose but solely for the fact of getting diverse characters out there by having them piggy-back on the success of others.

You want diverse characters, create new ones. Let them rise and fall on their own merits.

[Jub]

Oh FFS, it seems like this topic or a variation of it comes up every month. If it's not changing an established character's race, then it's their gender, or their sexuality, or something else to mark off on the checklist.

No, Spider-Man shouldn't be "pan-sexual" any more than Zorro should be a woman, or the Monkey King should be a Native American, or Bilbo Baggins should have a disability, or Anansi should be a dragon-kin in disguise who just happens to take the form of a spider for reasons. These are characters who already exist and who are loved by the public for the defining character traits which they already possess. What's worse, as people like Jub have already admitted, these changes aren't being done for some higher literary purpose but solely for the fact of getting diverse characters out there by having them piggy-back on the success of others.

You want diverse characters, create new ones. Let them rise and fall on their own merits.

Name a new comic book character that's hit the mainstream in the last decade. The reason people want to piggyback these traits is that most new things don't gain traction. The fact is, if the new alternative character doesn't take off the studio will assume that it's due to the alternative traits and take that as a sign to continue circling the wagons.

[Sidewinder]

You want diverse characters, create new ones. Let them rise and fall on their own merits.

Name a new comic book character that's hit the mainstream in the last decade. The reason people want to piggyback these traits is that most new things don't gain traction. The fact is, if the new alternative character doesn't take off the studio will assume that it's due to the alternative traits and take that as a sign to continue circling the wagons.

Let's see how REAL-WORLD homosexuals view the idea of piggybacking, as seen in comments in the Agony Booth article "Top 4 reasons Captain America should be gay":

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.

(Moppet is referring to this character.)
[quote="Josh J Bell (writer of the article "Captain America should be gay")"]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.[/quote]

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.

More recent comments:

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Cap being gay ... but only if it is done as an evolution, not as a bomb shell. As pointed out above, it could be used to explain some of his more exotic character qualities / eccentricities.

My objection is that I don't want them to make him gay just for the sake of doing so (i.e. shock value), or in ways that go against his established character & backstory. Having grown up in a time (1960s-1970s) and place (Deep South) where homophobia was rampant; and having watched the slow evolution of several friends during those years, as they dealt with their various slow & painful journeys out of the closet & into the streets; I feel that having Cap suddenly & miraculously "turn gay" would be an insult both to his character specifically, and gay people generally, since (according to all my gay friends) that is just NOT how it works ... no one just wakes up one day & finds they are gay.

If you rely on "piggybacking," I doubt you'll receive the support you want- not even from real-world homosexual and bisexual people.

As for ORIGINAL CHARACTERS who are also homosexual, see Spandex: Fast and Hard. Printing comic books about homosexual characters does not have to be as hard as you think it is.

[madd0ct0r]

I greatly enjoyed the short bit of spandex I read.

[Raw Shark]

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious that Spectral was literally given flaming rainbow powers, and doubly so that the writers apparently then went on to handle his homosexuality well?

[Replicant]

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..

Did I miss the new age notice that being straight was no longer normal? No matter how acceptable alternate lifestyles are (they mean nothing to me, whatever floats your boat I am happy that you are happy) people like that are still a VERY small percentage of the population.

A gay spiderman is about as interesting as an intentionally black James Bond. Actually it is less interesting. A James Bond that is black, or some other racial background is fine is your doing it because you have found the best possible actor (or actress) for the role. But making Spiderman gay or whatever else is not window dressing due to circumstance, it is altering the actual history or personae of the character.

If you want to make a statement, then make one by creating an interesting character who also happens to be this or that. But do it right, do NOT create the GAY superhero, create a hero who has it has a portion of their character.

Here is a great example. There are a few instances that imply that Susan Ivanova from B5 was bisexual, but at no point if somone listed 10 major aspects of her character would that come up. It was just part of what she was, she didnt exist to be bi, she existed to be a badass who among many different things also happened to be bi.

That is how you do it right.

[Starglider]

Racism, sexism, and so on are things people learn, as the cumulative result of a thousand little details.

Sadly I have to disagree with you there. If these things were completely arbitrary inventions they wouldn´t have arisen spontaneously in nearly every human culture (albeit in uncountable minor variations). Racism is an outcome of fundamental stereotyping and othering mechanisms. Sexism comes from differences in male vs female mating strategies, the fact that women used to be constantly pregnant and this was much more debilitating and dangerous than it is now, and the fact that minor differences in physical strength and stamina used to have a much bigger bearing on stone age tribal warfare and hunting success. These conditions persisted for long enough to constitute significant evolutionary pressure. The result is outcries of shock and horror from liberal parents when their kids first say something nasty about the opposite gender: "but I never taught them that! must be evil society...".

Without going into a slew of depressing studies, in short if these traits weren´t to some extent innate they wouldn´t be so hard to get rid of. As it is we do need to actively teach people not to discriminate, and in fact to generally not to be assholes when historically being an asshole was often a useful survival trait. Although if anything that reinforces your point about minimising negative examples, because as those parents complaining to the Huffington Post found out, a few negative examples can undo a lot of positive training.

[Simon_Jester]

Okay, permit me to amend.

There is an ingrained tendency for humans to stereotype.

However, the precise nature of what we stereotype, and how we do so, is a learned behavior.

That said, stereotyping on a persistent scale is still something we learn (like, oh, most human mating rituals). It's something we can unlearn. It's not a truly autonomous reflex like breathing.

Therefore, as you note, my point about minimizing negative examples and maximizing positive ones remains valid.