Why Can't Captain Marvel Be Gay?

[IMPress Polly]

I don't think that there is a shortage of films and TV shows that depict LGBT characters. Less where they are the protagonist, however, I think that there is a reason why overt non-straight sex is not readily depicted. Most viewers would be uncomfortable watching it and when studios spend millions making the bigger movies, they want to make a profit. That won't happen if large segments of the population avoid the box office. Smaller movies and indie movies have a much smaller target audience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_LGBT_characters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...GBT_characters

Even a casual glance at the list of films provided demonstrates that the gay characters therein are overwhelmingly male specifically, and indeed that they are most often presented not even as normal side characters so much as either villains or as a kind of punch line at that. Further, those depicting lesbians (especially in good faith) are one-sidedly obscure films, not part of major franchises that millions of people have been exposed to. Indeed, the fact that such a list has to be kept at all proves by itself that gay characters are marginal in the world of movie-making.

You also seem to be implying that I'm requesting nothing less that actual sex being depicted on-screen (bolded), which isn't what I've suggested at all.

[stjames1_53]

Even a casual glance at the list of films provided demonstrates that the gay characters therein are overwhelmingly male specifically, and indeed that they are most often presented not even as normal side characters so much as either villains or as a kind of punch line at that. Further, those depicting lesbians (especially in good faith) are one-sidedly obscure films, not part of major franchises that millions of people have been exposed to. Indeed, the fact that such a list has to be kept at all proves by itself that gay characters are marginal in the world of movie-making.

You also seem to be implying that I'm requesting nothing less that actual sex being depicted on-screen (bolded), which isn't what I've suggested at all.

I grow weary. You want the fricking world ruled by lesbians. Just get past the dancing and admit that

[Chris]

Part of the problem with discussing this topic is the phrase "lesbian coding." Search for that or "lesbian coded" finds lots of hits but nothing the directly or even contextually defines it.

[Peter1469]

Even a casual glance at the list of films provided demonstrates that the gay characters therein are overwhelmingly male specifically, and indeed that they are most often presented not even as normal side characters so much as either villains or as a kind of punch line at that. Further, those depicting lesbians (especially in good faith) are one-sidedly obscure films, not part of major franchises that millions of people have been exposed to. Indeed, the fact that such a list has to be kept at all proves by itself that gay characters are marginal in the world of movie-making.

You also seem to be implying that I'm requesting nothing less that actual sex being depicted on-screen (bolded), which isn't what I've suggested at all.

I would support more lesbians and less gays.

[IMPress Polly]

Part of the problem with discussing this topic is the phrase "lesbian coding." Search for that or "lesbian coded" finds lots of hits but nothing the directly or even contextually defines it.

My definition of it is a situation wherein the filmmakers apply lesbian-specific tropes or characteristics to a given character or characters whose sexuality is either non-specified or presented as heterosexual. I pointed to more than one example of this in film in the OP, but the most classic example in my book can be found between the two lead characters in the '90s era TV show Xena: Warrior Princess, who are clearly supposed to be attracted to each other and even wind up kissing on the lips on multiple occasions through varying narrative contrivances that seem awfully arbitrary and convenient. But they're not allowed to formally be in love. (I mean I kiss my besties on the lips all the time, I don't know about you! )

Coding actually used to be demanded by the lesbian community, believe it or not. Like back in the '90s, there was a commercial that Subaru aired openly appealing to lesbian drivers after they conducted a study finding that lesbian women were a particularly strong demographic for their brand. Predictably, Subaru faced a huge public backlash in response from conservatives...but also from the lesbian community, which demanded more subtlety from Subaru in the future: coding that the lesbian community would understand, but which others probably wouldn't. They did exactly that. One example of the subsequent coding was a commercial wherein one of the car models shown had the license plate XNA LVR (translation: Xena lover) that the lesbian community picked up on, but which other people didn't.

Why did the lesbian community demand this back then, you ask? Because being overt about such things invariably resulted in a backlash not only against the advertiser (or media outlet or artist, as applicable), but also in attacks on the lesbian community by conservative forces. Subtlety avoided this dilemma. That was then, however. This is a different era. Many of us have different expectations today.

[IMPress Polly]

I would support more lesbians and less gays.

So would I.

But in all seriousness, in gaming right now you have The Last of Us Part II coming out in the relatively near future. Published by Sony (you know, company behind the PlayStation systems), it will be the first AAA (i.e. non-indie) video game in history to narratively center an openly lesbian character. Predictably, it's a huge controversy, but Sony and developer Naughty Dog are willing to brave the storm at this point, it would appear. I guess this moment in time accordingly has me wishing that the world of filmmaking could have an analogous development of its own.

[Cletus]

Does anybody else think this discussion is as ridiculous as I do?

[IMPress Polly]

Does anybody else think this discussion is as ridiculous as I do?

You're in good company, Cletus. This is a message board full of other old, conservative-minded people who are of a similarly narrow mind.

I've floated this same topic on a left wing message board that I go to as well and the response has been largely the opposite of what it's been here.

[Cletus]

You're in good company, Cletus. This is a message board full of other old, conservative-minded people who are of a similarly narrow mind.

If anyone here has exhibited a narrow mind and limited intellectual capacity, it has been you. You are obsessed with this bull$#@!.

Movies are entertainment. Granted, an occasional filmmaker will think he is more than he is and try to use his film to send some great social message that no one really wants to hear, but for the most part, people go to movies to be entertained. They don't want to be preached to. They don't to be part of some attempt at social indoctrination. They want to forget the stresses of the day and immerse themselves in some imaginary world for two hours. That is all they want.

Less than 4.5% of Americans are homosexual. I suspect a couple of those percentage points come from people who think it is "edgy" to declare themselves homosexual in polls, but really are not. You are a small, insignificant minority that makes a disproportional amount of noise and demands a whole lot more attention than you warrant.

I've floated this same topic on a left wing message board that I go to as well and the response has been largely the opposite of what it's been here.

Of course it is. They are Leftists. By definition, that makes them stupid.

[IMPress Polly]

Less than 4.5% of Americans are homosexual. I suspect a couple of those percentage points come from people who think it is "edgy" to declare themselves homosexual in polls, but really are not. You are a small, insignificant minority that makes a disproportional amount of noise and demands a whole lot more attention than you warrant.

I don't know about that. That statistic keeps growing over time. It was 4.1% in 2016 and 3.5% in 2012 in the same poll, and of course it used to be far less than that as well. The statistic keeps growing over time, which suggests to me that there are a lot of closeted people out there. Or alternatively, perhaps there is truly no such thing as sexual orientation after all and strict heterosexuality is just a superficial performance that's simply been socially imposed on us as a society.

I mean, for example, I've pointed people here to studies indicating that fully the majority of women experience a physical response to both images of nude men and nude women, for example, and that 60% of self-described "straight" women also say they are physically attracted to other women as well. So I mean maybe sexual orientation (as in being strictly heterosexual or homosexual at a biological level) is actually a rare thing or something that doesn't actually exist at all even. Either way, I wouldn't count on that 4.5% statistic remaining the same going forward.