IDW Publishing Forums

abner419 · Forum Zombie Joined: 28 May 2009 Posts: 418

I was on the phone tonight with my best friend (we've been friends for over 20 years now) who is openly gay and I mentioned this thread topic...

... he, his partner, and I ended up spending 20 minutes making up possible code names for an openly gay Joe character! LMAO - FUN TIMES!!!

He thought the whole idea was totally stupid; "Why would they take time out to talk about someone's sexual preference in a GI Joe story?" was his overall comment.

They also rated their top 3 hottest current Joe's for us:

#3 - Duke
#2 - Ace
#1 - Torpedo

LOL - They couldn't take the topic serious and I'm with them, probably because we are talking GI Joe here people!!! It is just not a topic that fits in this fantasy world and the introduction of a gay character would just be cheesy.

So 2 gay votes and 1 straight vote here for leaving all the Joe's sexual preferences in the dark.

3 votes though for General Hawk to follow General Petraeus lead and have a hot affair! LOL

JohnJett · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:40 pm Post subject:

The White Clown · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:51 pm Post subject:

Blanco · Comic Book Guy Joined: 15 Feb 2011 Posts: 33

Torpedo · Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:49 am Post subject:

Cyberstrike · Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:49 am Post subject:

Rockhammer · Transforumer Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 706

JohnJett · Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 11:56 am Post subject:

I don't have any doubt that Marissa Fairborn was intended to be Flint and Lady Jaye's daughter.

Chalking it up to coincidence isn't giving the story editors who worked on both shows simultaneously any credit. It's a neat little nod that the writers gave to the fans.
_________________
www.JohnJett.com

Rockhammer · Transforumer Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 706

JohnJett · Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:08 pm Post subject:

Rockhammer · Transforumer Joined: 05 Feb 2008 Posts: 706

hushicho · Private Joined: 15 Nov 2012 Posts: 1

As a comic creator and a comic fan who happens to be gay, I have to say that I am all for inclusiveness. As opposed to pandering, which I think we can all agree is an unfortunate thing; however, n.b. inclusiveness does not, in and of itself, equal pandering.

I agree that relationships in GI Joe should be at a minimum, if included; they're not what the series is about or should be about. I've seen too many series hijacked into soap opera territory because the writers can't think of anything exciting to do.

However, if they're in there anyway and interpersonal relationships are explored, as they tend to be in comics, then yes...there should be some more diversity. It shouldn't be hetero all the way. Give us some bisexuals, give us some gays, give us some lesbians, whatever. It doesn't change a person to find out what their orientation is, and it won't change a character either. People who get up in arms about it need to get over it; a person's sexual orientation is not the be-all and end-all of them as a person, much less a character, and if it is then that is just poor writing.

I mean, what's the big hullabaloo? We've accepted Tomax and Xamot being incestuous gay twins since their introductory TV commercial! Everything else should be easy by comparison!

On the topic of art, yeah, art is and has always been a mixed bag. There's a lot of objectification of female characters. Honestly I'd rather it be equal-opportunity exploitation. And why not? These are guys that keep fit and there's a fine line between machismo and homoerotica (which is often crossed constantly) -- no reason why they can't be shirtless or better!

But I think in some cases it can be kind of a drag, since some artists really just draw the same woman, but with slightly different features, or depend on the colourist to differentiate the characters, which isn't a good thing to do. There are some who are doing it intentionally and some who aren't. I don't think Marvel or DC, to be honest, care about being sexist or whatever-ist; they care almost entirely about money, not the readers. That much is apparent by their output, especially of the past decade.

I think it would be good, and an improvement, if IDW and anyone else would take a step towards more inclusiveness and less -isms. There are non-heterosexual, non-anglo-caucasian, and non-mainstream fans out there, and they're a largely untapped audience who would really love to be recognised and appreciated. For the most part, all those audiences have been is pandered to and condescended to; I certainly don't need to remind most of you reading about the disastrously embarrassing 'coming out' for Northstar in the 90s. That sort of says it all about how the bigger comic companies see these characters: a tawdry publicity stunt at best.

It's often much better received if a character just happens to be bisexual, or gay. But at the same time, yes, it is still an issue these days. It shouldn't have to be, but it is. We only just got 'don't ask, don't tell' repealed and people are still raging about that, despite the fact that these people are putting their lives potentially on the line for the same people who sit around and think putting a sticker on their car and guilting other people is actually helping and entitles them to be critical of others' relationships. But even this can be handled delicately and well, with a talented writer or writing crew.

There are improvements that need to be made in every medium, but I think the comic medium is one place where improvement is needed so much. It's also one where improvements can be so much more noticed and so much more striking than many other media. By making some improvements -- either equalising the sexualisation or reducing it across the board, adding diversity to relationships if you're going to have them, and handling it maturely -- you could stand to gain a tremendous amount of praise, critical acclaim, and more readers.

Just my two bits, as requested by a friend here. I hope they're not unwelcome, and it's always interesting to see this issue discussed.