Super Mario Bros. X Forums

This came across my news feed on FB (please excuse the fact I'm linking to polygon): http://www.polygon.com/2016/1/6/1072386 ... network-uk

We've had the Debate Spawn: Homosexuality thread, but I don't think that's worth bumping in relation to this because my questioning here has to do with censorship and promotion of LGBT characters and not homosexuality itself. Now in the past I think I've made it clear that my opinion on characters with "alternative lifestyles" is that they shouldn't be characterized they way they are for the sake of inclusivity but rather it should be one of many factors that makes up the character. Put simply, I don't like this token gay character and that token (insert minority here) character. To the point of this thread though I would say LGBT lifestyles shouldn't be promoted, nor should they be censored. I think both are counter productive to reaching any goals of tolerance, acceptance, and egalitarianism because censorship is just exclusive while promotion can foster contempt from those opposed to such lifestyles and implicitly acknowledges the fact that there are differences rather than the differences themselves. Allow me to illustrate what I mean with two examples:



On the left is a Good Luck Charlie clip, and the other is cutscene from TLoU: Left Behind. Now there's the obvious difference in maturity between a kids show on Disney and a rated M game, but putting that aside gets to my point which is appealing to characterization. Pay attention to the dialogue in the Good Luck Charlie clip and you'll see that it's all focused on the moms, and is essentially a setup for a joke, the laugh track plays when the door opens to the two moms mind you, and just throws "lol lesbians exist" at the audience. Now with TLoU, you wouldn't even be able to guess that any of the characters weren't straight and that particular scene was actually a bit of a shock because sexuality is never hinted at for those two girls. In the main game, there's a character named Bill who is also implied to be gay but it's not the focal point of his character - it's just a part of it like it is a part of actual gay people. Instead of "lol gay people exist," you're given time with the characters for them to develop and you get to learn their personality and see how they grow and you're given some time to relate first. You'd have to play the game to really get what I'm talking about with Bill and the two girls in the video so I won't go into too much explanation about his character, and I'll just leave it at. Lastly I want to say that if you want less gay characters, make your own story. If you want more gay characters, again, make your own story.

Now, SU fans (and everyone else too): what do you think of the link above and about what I've said below that in that context?
EDIT: So I watched the series through that point, and I do have to say that the edit does kind of ruin the moment. There's a bunch of other scenes that are way more on the nose so I don't get why this particular shot was cut.

For some people their sexuality is... I wouldn't say a focal point for their character, but a source of struggle, sometimes to an extent that it's worth a portion of the plot, and I don't think that should be any more forbidden than their inclusion as characters. As someone who isn't familiar with said struggles I think the way I'd include said characters is without addressing it in a blatant way, but I'm almost certain some people would still think including them alone is political. Maybe it is, sure, but I don't even think it should be. I'd love to get past the point where people care at all what a character is so we can all just judge/enjoy a narrative as a whole, but I accept that this/things like this are happening due to mounting social pressure.
I don't think there's a right or wrong way to include or not include certain kinds of people as characters regardless. There are critical aspects to the different tropes involved, but the criticism is more important to me than the content itself. I think creators should be free to do what they want and people should be free to react however they're inclined (within the realm of free speech I mean) whether from a political standpoint or not.

There's also the fact that media aimed at children will strive to teach and address things that are considered self-evident to grown-ups, and Steven Universe is a children's show. I know a lot of older people like it for what are probably legitimate reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that kids watch TV shows like these and it's common for them to learn new things from them.

I don't think we're in much disagreement. I would like to point out that you're initial argument about the character's sexuality being a source of struggle isn't really what I'm challenging here. I don't mind it being a part of the plot or even a central element of the plot; it's the tokenism and promotion that I feel is wrong because it negatively impacts the content and, to a degree, acceptance in the real world. I just have a problem where characters are made as "that gay couple," or "that trans person," because it just seems shallow and makes acknowledgements to distinctions between people rather than having them grow and acknowledging that they're normal people that have nothing to be promoted or censored. I don't think I really explained myself well in the OP, and please forgive if I didn't here either.

All in all though, I think you're on the mark.

Yeah, I didn't entirely mean that part in disagreement anyway. I'm just saying how I see it.
As someone who aspires to write I'm more than happy to include characters like that and it's very easy to get into this weird kind of thought process like "Should I write them a certain way?" and there are so many ways to interpret the correct way to do it, I think. "Just write them as you would anyone else" sounds ostensibly like the right answer sometimes, but then I got to thinking maybe the target audience has more to do with it.

There's also that "having them grow and acknowledging that they're normal people that have nothing to be promoted or censored" is itself a promotion, kind of.

Well, once you force LGBT in characters to be a plot or an obvious part of personality you'll always get people that are dumb enough to stereotype them to the rest of the real world.
It's a shame really.

Yeah, it is. What's fortunate though is that stereotypes don't always have to be encouraged, and can sometimes be discouraged with realistic LGBT characters. This is at the root of what I said above about promotion v. censorship since both can lead to stereotypes and should be avoided.