Could/Should Diana be bisexual/gay?

[slvn]

I'm about to stir the pot with most posters in this thread and a small segment of the population at large, but I believe logic supports the position that being raised on an island of the same gender would create the propensity for Diana to have possibly engaged in same sex intimacy

I agree with that, but behavior does not simply equate with orientation. A person who is biologically oriented mostly towards heterosexuality might incline towards homosexual behavior if that's the only sexual intimacy available (or vice versa). It sounds like we might agree about that part.

...and logic supports the thousands of years old position that same sex preference is culturally influenced. Supporting my position is that male lions prefer female lions, male elephants prefer female elephants, male cheetahs prefer female cheetahs, male alligators prefer female alligators (e.g. putting two male alligators in unnaturally close proximity with one another is likely to result in the death of one of the male alligators), etc.

While argumentum ad alligator is no doubt a difficult argument to answer, I will note there is plenty of documentation of "homosexual" behavior among animals (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...ior_in_animals). You'll see there that scientists have even found evidence of a genetic basis for this behavior among mice and other animals. Or, if you want something better than Wikipedia, see the article "Same-sex behavior seen in nearly all animals," http://phys.org/news164376975.html .

For thousands of years, humankind lived with the position that men like women;

Yes--and that men like men (see Plato's Symposium) and that women like woman (see the poems of Sappho), whether religious and political leaders like it or not. As Foucault shows in The History of Sexuality, the heterosexual norm is culturally constructed; for most of Western history, sexual identity and preference was pretty widely considered fluid, not fixed. And it's not just in Greece or the West that homosexuality and other variations of sexuality and gender have been well-known, and sometimes honored--see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality .

[GEMINUS]

While I am all for more LGBT representation, I am going to have to oppose the idea of changing Diana's sexuality. DC would never alter the sexuality of Superman or Batman, so why should Diana receive such treatment? If the longstanding sexuality of DC's most iconic male superheroes is to be respected, then why not the sexuality of it's (supposedly) premier heroine as well?

[Power Torch]

Yep. We HAVE had this discussion before.. more than once. The last time we did, I posted this image jokingly... then everyone jumped in saying "That's not what she meant!!!!" LOL. I know.

Using that image (I know you dont mean it) is just as bad as people saying Poison Ivy loves woman cause Harley said that Ivy loved Harley. Love does not mean that you "LOVE" someone like that. I tell all my friends I love them. Does not mean I love them in that way. It just means they care.

I would not care is WW was bi, but do I think she needs to be. No, is a good character and does not need to be changed.

[tunneler]

Diana needs to be gay/bisexual because otherwise it would not be possible for her to have sex with many of her half brothers and sisters like Apollo and Aphrodite as hinted in the cover of issue #12. It is a good idea to have Wonder Woman experiment with her sexuality for a few issues because it would lead to some interesting stories that can attract new customers based on the premise of her exploring her sexual preferences and also if she becomes a bisexual it would give DC Comics some more diversity which can also attract some new customers because everyone wants to see more diversity in comics.

[brettc1]

Isn't everybody bi anyway?

[dshipp17]

Yes--and that men like men (see Plato's Symposium) and that women like woman (see the poems of Sappho), whether religious and political leaders like it or not. As Foucault shows in The History of Sexuality, the heterosexual norm is culturally constructed; for most of Western history, sexual identity and preference was pretty widely considered fluid, not fixed. And it's not just in Greece or the West that homosexuality and other variations of sexuality and gender have been well-known, and sometimes honored--see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_homosexuality .

These examples are best considered aberrations stimulated by environmental factors or stresses. I could also cite an example such as cannibalism. There was (or might still be) examples of cultures that engaged in human cannibalism; that factor was more likely than not, socially influenced; however, the norm, under these circumstances (e.g. starvation), is the vast majority of people tend to starve to death before resorting to cannibalism (e.g. these two are equivalent to very small exceptions to the larger population at large that shunned those tendencies at the time or would have considered them strange, as with the example of cannibalism); there is a small Asian culture where they have totally removed the concept of infidelity, but it’s pure culturally influenced; outside of this example, infidelity is clearly a distinction in most peoples’ minds.

The same with those animal examples; additionally, these may not be examples of homosexual tendencies at all, but the equivalent of say me sharing a room with another college student who is male; when I was in college, and such is probably still the case, a coed dorm setting was rare; usually, males were required to room with males and females room with females, but this behavior is totally divorced from sexual orientation; thus, due to environmental factors, these animal examples are aberrations as compared to the animal examples that I cited; it's just an example of the researcher fudging the data to breed controversy. There’s no need to make such consorted efforts to observe the animal examples that I cited.

[Gaelforce]

I should have been more specific in my reply :)

The issue I have is simply this - Diana is heterosexual. She has never in her 70+ years been portrayed as otherwise. She has never kissed a woman let alone slept with one, nor has she been shown to ever be in a relationship with and/or attracted to anything but men. A writer or two has danced around the subject with innuendo ('I don't have any girlfriends, either') but that doesn't invalidate the fact that she has always been portrayed as being straight, and for all this time, DC editorial has made it so. They own the character and that character has not been bi/gay.

This isn't to say there's anything wrong with being GLBT, just that Diana has not been, and, in fact, her original origin can't get any more hetero - living on an island of women, Diana falls in love with the first man she lays eyes on and leaves the island, in part, to be with him. In past stories they have wed (both Earth 1 and Earth 2) and had a child (Earth 2).

I can absolutely understand LGBT readers wanting someone to relate to, however, my objection is to change an existing character into a potential stereotype and, in doing so, take away a character *others* such as myself have related to over the years.

I was a scrawny, flat-chested tomboy and, as the old song goes, 'hopelessly heterosexual' ;) I have only ever been attracted to men, have only ever been with men and have been married to a wonderful guy for 26 years. My sister has been married to a great woman for 12 years, and my brother has not yet found the right guy for him. Point being, I'm not at all put off by the idea of same sex relationships - they're just not for me. I am the family's token straight.

Growing up in the late 60s/early 70s there weren't many role models for me, and along came Diana and there she was - a woman who fought shoulder to shoulder with the guys and then went out with Steve at the end of the day. She was someone I deeply identified with and that was, in part, due to her sexual orientation. Nobody thought she was any less feminine for punching out the bad guys, and no one thought she must be gay because of it.

So though I can understand reasons why she might have been gay/bisexual, she has never been so, and even tho' I can sympathize with people who want to see more LGBT role models (myself included, btw), I would rather not see one created at the loss of a role model for others. You can be a strong, independent woman, you can play sports with the guys, work the same jobs as men, and be heterosexual. Being the princess looking for her prince doesn't mean you have to sit in a tower waiting for him to come rescue you - you can get off your ass and rescue your own damn self ;)

[Flâneur]

I feel like this thread could just as easily be 'could/should diana be straight?' given the foreshadowing and consistent subtext.

Instead of being me and objecting at something, I'll post a few general points:

• Sexuality being what it is and heteronormativity being what it is, there's no conclusive 'heterosexual' depiction in fiction and those assumptions shouldn't really be made.
• I don't really agree with the biological argument; I think culture is such an engine of destruction that we've had ideas about our gender roles and sexuality forced into our blood and guts almost as tightly as DNA. Diana, coming from such an alien cultural experience, would probably pose a lot of interesting questions if her sexuality was explored and that's worth reading.
• I think it'd be unfortunate if heterosexuals felt they didn't have something to identify with but I'd point out that a) heterosexual depictions are everywhere and b) we're identifying with someone living on an island who flies around and engages in magical BDSM. I really think a character being queer is often seen as an obstacle far more than it actually is.

[Outside_85]

I should have been more specific in my reply :)

The issue I have is simply this - Diana is heterosexual. She has never in her 70+ years been portrayed as otherwise. She has never kissed a woman let alone slept with one, nor has she been shown to ever be in a relationship with and/or attracted to anything but men. A writer or two has danced around the subject with innuendo ('I don't have any girlfriends, either') but that doesn't invalidate the fact that she has always been portrayed as being straight, and for all this time, DC editorial has made it so. They own the character and that character has not been bi/gay.

Possibly the subject should really be formulated as:

Would you be shocked, surprised or upset, if Diana came out as bi-? (It is after all possible that DC one day decides to make her just that and explain the lack of it in the past with 'the right one just wasn't there'...just a theory)

[Gaelforce]

Possibly the subject should really be formulated as:

Would you be shocked, surprised or upset, if Diana came out as bi-? (It is after all possible that DC one day decides to make her just that and explain the lack of it in the past with 'the right one just wasn't there'...just a theory)

I would be because it would be a stunt and it would come across as one. I just do not subscribe to the 'you never know...' theory, and can't equate 'slim possibility' with 'probability'.

70+ years and never once in or considered a relationship with another woman. Period. Repeatedly throughout the decades shown in relationships with men (Steve Trevor, Trevor Barnes, Batman, Superman, etc.) and flat out stated in no uncertain terms 'NOT a sister of Sappho' in Batwoman. You don't spend so much time establishing a character as one particular sexual identity and then suddenly change it without it coming off as a publicity stunt.

She was willing to 'test the waters' and date numerous men throughout the years, both in continuity and in Elseworlds, and never once has she ever been shown considering dating/being attracted to a woman.

On the other hand, I *adored* Hippolyta and Phillipus and hate that we've lost that with the nu52.

I am not against LGBT characters in any way, shape or form, but I just don't want to see a longstanding straight character suddenly written as gay or bi. As someone has pointed out, you will never see anyone suggest that this be done with Bruce, Clark, Hal, Barry, etc., and the fanbase would go ballistic if you did.

But hey, Diana's from an island full of women, so they all MUST be gay or at least having hot gay sex, right?

That's an adolescent fantasy.

The day they make Bruce Wayne gay is the day I'll think twice about being more accepting that Diana is bi. Sorry.

[apexspark]

I would be because it would be a stunt and it would come across as one. I just do not subscribe to the 'you never know...' theory, and can't equate 'slim possibility' with 'probability'.

70+ years and never once in or considered a relationship with another woman. Period. Repeatedly throughout the decades shown in relationships with men (Steve Trevor, Trevor Barnes, Batman, Superman, etc.) and flat out stated in no uncertain terms 'NOT a sister of Sappho' in Batwoman. You don't spend so much time establishing a character as one particular sexual identity and then suddenly change it without it coming off as a publicity stunt.

She was willing to 'test the waters' and date numerous men throughout the years, both in continuity and in Elseworlds, and never once has she ever been shown considering dating/being attracted to a woman.

On the other hand, I *adored* Hippolyta and Phillipus and hate that we've lost that with the nu52.

I am not against LGBT characters in any way, shape or form, but I just don't want to see a longstanding straight character suddenly written as gay or bi. As someone has pointed out, you will never see anyone suggest that this be done with Bruce, Clark, Hal, Barry, etc., and the fanbase would go ballistic if you did.

But hey, Diana's from an island full of women, so they all MUST be gay or at least having hot gay sex, right?

That's an adolescent fantasy.

The day they make Bruce Wayne gay is the day I'll think twice about being more accepting that Diana is bi. Sorry.

Io.

And Alan Scott.

[Outside_85]

I would be because it would be a stunt and it would come across as one. I just do not subscribe to the 'you never know...' theory, and can't equate 'slim possibility' with 'probability'.

Guess you don't play the lottery then :)

70+ years and never once in or considered a relationship with another woman. Period. Repeatedly throughout the decades shown in relationships with men (Steve Trevor, Trevor Barnes, Batman, Superman, etc.) and flat out stated in no uncertain terms 'NOT a sister of Sappho' in Batwoman. You don't spend so much time establishing a character as one particular sexual identity and then suddenly change it without it coming off as a publicity stunt.

And her hitching up with Superman is not a PR-stunt?
I think we went over the while Sappho thing somewhere else.

She was willing to 'test the waters' and date numerous men throughout the years, both in continuity and in Elseworlds, and never once has she ever been shown considering dating/being attracted to a woman.

Superman has been stuck with Lois Lane for pretty much the entirety of his printed history and it's not stopped them canning that coupling.

The day they make Bruce Wayne gay is the day I'll think twice about being more accepting that Diana is bi. Sorry.

Midnighter.

[Gaelforce]

I feel like this thread could just as easily be 'could/should diana be straight?' given the foreshadowing and consistent subtext.

Instead of being me and objecting at something, I'll post a few general points:

• Sexuality being what it is and heteronormativity being what it is, there's no conclusive 'heterosexual' depiction in fiction and those assumptions shouldn't really be made.
• I don't really agree with the biological argument; I think culture is such an engine of destruction that we've had ideas about our gender roles and sexuality forced into our blood and guts almost as tightly as DNA. Diana, coming from such an alien cultural experience, would probably pose a lot of interesting questions if her sexuality was explored and that's worth reading.
• I think it'd be unfortunate if heterosexuals felt they didn't have something to identify with but I'd point out that a) heterosexual depictions are everywhere and b) we're identifying with someone living on an island who flies around and engages in magical BDSM. I really think a character being queer is often seen as an obstacle far more than it actually is.

As I've explained, Diana's sexuality is a very important part of the way I identified with the character growing up. I'm not gay/bi and I didn't like being told I was/must be because I played ice hockey and little league, kept my hair cut short and had a boyish figure. It was simple - if you did the things guys did, you must be gay. Diana was the main character who showed me I could be who I am and still compete with the guys.

I just do not see the need to take away something from one group just to give another group something to identify with. Create new characters - Batwoman, The Question, Maggie Sawyer - or have characters that aren't so well defined come out (i.e. Shrinking Violet/Lightning Lass, Karma, Destiny) and everyone should be happy (provided you are creating enough of a variety of new characters to satisfy folks). I am pissed that Renee has vanished and that The Question has apparently changed so much in the nu52 and that Grace and Thunder have vanished. These were all great characters and I think DC is doing a disservice to the fanbase to get rid of them.

Io.

And Alan Scott.

Io was in love with Diana, but it was never stated that Diana was in love with Io and Rucka was specifically told that Diana isn't gay/bi so she couldn't be written that way.

Alan Scott is a brand new character on an alternate Earth. This isn't the father of two who suddenly realized he was gay. This is a young and brand new hero with a different origin in a different universe who is gay because Robinson was told they had to be younger and he therefore couldn't have Obsidian in the book.

And her hitching up with Superman is not a PR-stunt?

Never said it wasn't :p

I think we went over the while Sappho thing somewhere else.

We went over this entire discussion in detail before, yes ;)

Superman has been stuck with Lois Lane for pretty much the entirety of his printed history and it's not stopped them canning that coupling.

Sure as hell has stopped him from looking at other men though, hasn't it?

Midnighter.

Midnighter ain't Batman no matter how much he may wannabe ;)

[Outside_85]

Sure as hell has stopped him from looking at other men though, hasn't it?

Who knows, perhaps he has? :)

Midnighter ain't Batman no matter how much he may wannabe ;)

True :)

But all I am saying is that DC can choose to make any of their existing characters bend in whatever way they desire if the current powers that be think its a good idea and that it can be backed with an appropriate story. And I suppose I need not point out that out of the Trinity, Wonder Woman is the least controversial it could happen to.

[Gaelforce]

Who knows, perhaps he has? :)

Show me or it hasn't happened.

But all I am saying is that DC can choose to make any of their existing characters bend in whatever way they desire if the current powers that be think its a good idea and that it can be backed with an appropriate story. And I suppose I need not point out that out of the Trinity, Wonder Woman is the least controversial it could happen to.

I'm not in any way, shape or form saying what DC can and cannot choose to do. I'm just sayin' I don't want them to do it and wouldn't be happy if they did.

I also find it a bit sexist to say that WW would be the 'least controversial.' Of course she would - in general, men don't have any hang ups about two (or more) women having sex. A lot of them get off on it, and since it's men who control the industry and men who are the majority of readers, of course it would be less controversial. Tell them that the Batgod is gay? You better make a lot of popcorn for that display of testosterone ;)