Could/Should Diana be bisexual/gay?

[UsagiTsukino]

The same status quo that's still keeping MJ and Peter apart? Although I do respect that DC didn't go with the Deal With The Devil card. Still keeping Superman and Lois seperate is the direction DC is taking it and they aren't going to change their minds anytime soon.

On topic. It would be nice if they handle Diana's "coming out story" in a more respectable way like perhaps her gradually trying to come to terms with her sexual orientation. If handled well it could be a well done and relatable story

Good Point. What do you mean by in a more respectful way? Have they wrote bad coming out stories.If so, how would you want it?

[Outside_85]

Wont happen sadly since she's a minor character and gay/bi. Seems to be the trend with DC. Either kill a gay/bi character or put said character in limbo

I wouldn't actually count on that, considering how WW's past keeps finding ways to come back in again.
It wont be the same, probably, but if a future writer is a fan of a previous given era he or she will find ways to incorporate those bits into the story.

[dupersuper]

When was Black Canary Bi? That would be fine. I like her to be with Arrow but I wonder who she would be with?

I think Gail Simone said she thought of BC as bi, but I don't think she wrote any stories showing this.

[Haephestus]

I think Wonder Woman should be bisexual.

Or omnisexual since I think she would also have an emotional and/or sexual relationship with an alien if she was so inclined. Actually, I guess she is having a relationship with an alien in Justice League. But then, Wonder Woman isn't a "human" so I'm not sure how to categorise an immortal (?) demigoddess and an alien getting down and dirty together.

[liopleurodon]

Oh my, there is so much to reply to here, where do I even begin?

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; and logic supports the thousands of years old position that same sex preference is culturally influenced.

There is ZERO evidence that sexual preference is cultural in nature, but rather there is significant evidence that it is biologically influenced. Example: homosexual behavior is widely seen in species which possess no culture.

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.

This is just a false statement, and links to articles proving it wrong have already been linked to here. Homosexuality in non-human species is not a rarity, but instead so common as to be unremarkable.

For thousands of years, humankind lived with the position that men like women; however, for some reason, it's become almost a humorous issue, because people in the United States media, at least, have been taking a position to give the perception that same sex has been the norm for thousands of years, even though it's only developed into acceptability in the United States media for about the past five years.

Another demonstrably false statement. Homosexuality has been documented in detail in culture after culture throughout history, in every continent, going back as far as recorded history. In many many cultures it was accepted as a normal fact of life. This is not conjecture, it is historical fact. It can therefore be safely inferred that homosexuality has been a trait of humanity from its inception.

Thus, Diana likely engaged in same sex intimacy while on Paradise Island. When she met Steve, she very easily reverted back to her normal desires for a male. However, that's probably the most weak example to illustrate this point, because the context of Diana is a comic book written by Marston who chose to make it so. But I think same sex is abnormal and is very unlikely to be the outcome without some environmental stimulus. Morally, I'm obligated to consider it wrong. Legally, which seems to be what most here on the board base the issue upon, same sex orientation is perfectly fine.

Ok, now this is just plain offensive. You just implied that those who do not share your sexual orientation are "abnormal".

as a male, and I've had gay men hit on me; in those instances, I can begin to have some empathy for women. In one specific example, I can remember a situation where somehow I got on this bus where it was just me and this guy; I got on the bus to either ask directions and/or just to ride the bus. As we were engaged in a conversation, he really begin to crowd me and I was surprised, because it was new. Next I knew, he was rubbing me in my area. To keep it from getting further, I just started making things up to get out of the conversation and finally got of the bus. I was freaked out, because it was the first time it was done by a male, but I had females do it many times by that point in my life; as some, I didn't become homophobic; it was just a different experience for me, but it did follow another male encounter in my childhood. I have several more examples, but I'll spare the readers.

I'm sorry, but what is the point in this? Someone hit on you and made you feel unconformable, therefore all gays are predators and are bad people? That is what you are implying.

If anything, I'll go as far to say that genes may be involved with the ease to which someone can become same sex oriented, but environmental factors would need to enter the fray.

I know you're trying to sound reasonable, but the extent of the involvement of genes is for qualified geneticists to decide.

[liopleurodon]

Anyway, trying to bring this thread back from being derailed ...

I consider Diana to be Pansexual (that is, she can love any person regardless of gender, sex, etc.). It would certainly fit in with her theme. Looks like DC wants to push the gag-worthy relationship with Supes, however, so if she's anything other than hetero, we're unlikely to find out any time in the near future.

[Gaelforce]

Okay...edits and deletions have occurred.

I have removed/edited all posts (including my own ;) ) referring to Intelligent Design. That topic is completely irrelevant to this thread and no further discussion on it will be tolerated.

Personal attacks are also a violation of forum rules. Please keep to the topic and do not discuss other posters in a negative/insulting manner.

Thanks :)

[kane]

Anyway, trying to bring this thread back from being derailed ...

I consider Diana to be Pansexual (that is, she can love any person regardless of gender, sex, etc.). It would certainly fit in with her theme. Looks like DC wants to push the gag-worthy relationship with Supes, however, so if she's anything other than hetero, we're unlikely to find out any time in the near future.

Loving all persons regardless of gender, sex, etc. is not equal to be sexually attracted to all persons regardless of gender, sex, etc. There are many men who love other men deeply, who would go through hell for them, but who are sexually attracted only to woman. Sexual attraction is mostly determined by your genetic makeup. If you are not sexually attracted to a woman or a man, then you are not attacted. Period. It is a physical reaction, which is out of your control. I am straight, so I get not sexually aroused by men. It has nothing to do with me not being able to love other people regardless of their gender, it has to do with me being turned on only by women.

Growing up on a island full of women does not make her automatically gay or bisexual. Maybe she needed sexuall relief and had sex with fellow amazons out of sexual frustration. But this does not mean, that she will still continue to have sex with women if she is sexually attracted only to men and there are men available.

[ascended]

Okay, so let me ask this (again). What would it take for you to accept Diana as bi? I think we can take gay off the table, as she does have a history with men obviously. But if DC, for whatever reason, decided to write her as bi, how would it have to be done so that you would roll with it?

Oh, and Gael, you mentioned Diana's forty year long relationship with Steve. Now, thats totally right of course. But its also been something around thirty years since she had a long running, serious boyfriend. Thats an entire generation that likely knows about Diana and Steve, but have never read it in the current books. This is why I think there is enough leeway to play with. Yeah, she had a history, but its ancient history at this point.

[DarkKnghtJared]

The same status quo that's still keeping MJ and Peter apart? Although I do respect that DC didn't go with the Deal With The Devil card. Still keeping Superman and Lois seperate is the direction DC is taking it and they aren't going to change their minds anytime soon.

On topic. It would be nice if they handle Diana's "coming out story" in a more respectable way like perhaps her gradually trying to come to terms with her sexual orientation. If handled well it could be a well done and relatable story

Well, I think they've been building up to bringing back the Peter/MJ relationship since at least Spider-Island, so yeah, I still think that's going to revert to status quo sooner or later.

From a standpoint of likelihood I think either is off the table. If her Batwoman guest role is any indication, they have absolutely no intention of making her gay nor bi. She outright says the former is a myth and there certainly isn't even any innuendo between Diana and Kate to remotely suggest bi. Which is fine, its not a crime that they don't nor do I consider it lacking guts on their part. Could be that they just plain don't want to, and that's okay too. Certainly no one here has done it, but elsewhere I have seen some act as if its outright OOC for her to not be portrayed as gay/bi, that its a foregone conclusion that she always has been and DC is totally in the wrong for not portraying her "right". Neverminding the fact I guess that she's ALWAYS been heterosexual. Its puzzling to say the least. I even read one blog where someone was blaming DC for ruining their slash fun. Zuh? Fan fiction is called fan fiction for a reason, the fan makes it up, DC's not stopping you, lol.

Yeah, there is that Batwoman arc...but it's one line, and honestly, the book's kinda crap anyway, so I'm willing to ignore it. Fan's prerogative.

Good Point. What do you mean by in a more respectful way? Have they wrote bad coming out stories.If so, how would you want it?

Well, how Northstar came out is kind-of hilariously 90s...



And let's not even get into the Rawhide Kid...

I think Gail Simone said she thought of BC as bi, but I don't think she wrote any stories showing this.

I remember Gail saying that at one point when she was writing Birds of Prey--I forget the context for this--she was going to have Dinah think in her narration boxes that she considers herself "at least 70% hetero." Gail felt that was what the character's orientation was, so she just put it in there. However, DC wasn't sure about it at the time, and they changed the line before release without telling Gail.

[Outside_85]

Well, how Northstar came out is kind-of hilariously 90s...



And let's not even get into the Rawhide Kid...

And who wrote that...ah yes, the same guy writing Superman now? :)

[Legato]

Good Point. What do you mean by in a more respectful way? Have they wrote bad coming out stories.If so, how would you want it?

As one poster previously mentioned and you also have a gay character that was apart of a Green Lantern comic who was beaten to death for being gay and never heard from again. What I would want is don't let her bi/lesbianism define who she is. Be about the character and not about her sexual orientation cause it shouldn't matter if she's gay, straight, or bisexual cause she'll still be Wonder Woman regardless

[Desean101101]

As one poster previously mentioned and you also have a gay character that was apart of a Green Lantern comic who was beaten to death for being gay and never heard from again. What I would want is don't let her bi/lesbianism define who she is. Be about the character and not about her sexual orientation cause it shouldn't matter if she's gay, straight, or bisexual cause she'll still be Wonder Woman regardless

Which isn't Mutually exclusive to how they treat Gay characters. Apollo and Midnighter are in an Openly Gay relationship in Stormwatch While we have Exoristos and Sir Ystin contemplateing a relationship But Ex is into women and Ystin Just told her that she/he is a Hermaphrodite. Also Kate Kane is in a commited relationship with a Gay detective who was married to a man before coming out as gay.

I have to say that Dc is doing a Damn good job with Alternative relationships.

[dshipp17]

Oh my, there is so much to reply to here, where do I even begin?



There is ZERO evidence that sexual preference is cultural in nature, but rather there is significant evidence that it is biologically influenced. Example: homosexual behavior is widely seen in species which possess no culture.



This is just a false statement, and links to articles proving it wrong have already been linked to here. Homosexuality in non-human species is not a rarity, but instead so common as to be unremarkable.



Another demonstrably false statement. Homosexuality has been documented in detail in culture after culture throughout history, in every continent, going back as far as recorded history. In many many cultures it was accepted as a normal fact of life. This is not conjecture, it is historical fact. It can therefore be safely inferred that homosexuality has been a trait of humanity from its inception.



Ok, now this is just plain offensive. You just implied that those who do not share your sexual orientation are "abnormal".



I'm sorry, but what is the point in this? Someone hit on you and made you feel unconformable, therefore all gays are predators and are bad people? That is what you are implying.



I know you're trying to sound reasonable, but the extent of the involvement of genes is for qualified geneticists to decide.

All of this is just rhetoric; and you've cited no sources; many people just spew out rhetoric and repeat and repeat, but rarely cite the evidence along with the rebuttals; you speak very authoritatively, but, frankly, I'm unimpressed. All evidence of observation shows homosexuality is socially influenced; after a time, some research has been presented to cast doubt on what's observed, but it requires speculation and extrapolation; there is nothing I can cite just offhand, but I can research deeper for my position, but, basically, my position is based upon observation, commonsense, and common history; and as I said previously, the examples are from small samplings of anomalies, such as the practice of cannibalism; sure, you can find it, but it's not widespread and is clearly socially attributable. There are plenty of documentaries observing animals behaving in the natural; I've seen nothing of a common source showing animals engaged in homosexual behavior, at least not in the widespread means you seem to be suggesting; as I said, it would take unusual effort and speculation to demonstrate homosexual tendencies in the wild.

Additionally, if I cite evidence that supports my position, it's deleted fast; clearly, this is a propaganda forum; go debate somewhere else and get informed. There's plenty of evidence, supporting longstanding observation, you just have to go look at it; but, this information is just rhetoric with nothing much outside of anomalies to support it.

[Gaelforce]

All of this is just rhetoric; and you've cited no sources; many people just spew out rhetoric and repeat and repeat, but rarely cite the evidence along with the rebuttals; you speak very authoritatively, but, frankly, I'm unimpressed. All evidence of observation shows homosexuality is socially influenced; after a time, some research has been presented to cast doubt on what's observed, but it requires speculation and extrapolation; there is nothing I can cite just offhand, but I can research deeper for my position, but, basically, my position is based upon observation, commonsense, and common history; and as I said previously, the examples are from small samplings of anomalies, such as the practice of cannibalism; sure, you can find it, but it's not widespread and is clearly socially attributable. There are plenty of documentaries observing animals behaving in the natural; I've seen nothing of a common source showing animals engaged in homosexual behavior, at least not in the widespread means you seem to be suggesting; as I said, it would take unusual effort and speculation to demonstrate homosexual tendencies in the wild.

Additionally, if I cite evidence that supports my position, it's deleted fast; clearly, this is a propaganda forum; go debate somewhere else and get informed. There's plenty of evidence, supporting longstanding observation, you just have to go look at it; but, this information is just rhetoric with nothing much outside of anomalies to support it.

Nothing has been deleted in regards to the homosexuality argument. Please do not claim that we are censoring you and no one else as this is provably untrue.

All messages on both sides of the Intelligent Design discussion have been deleted in their entirety because it is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

This is not a propaganda forum, nor is it a Religion forum (as you have been repeatedly told).

All messages in regards to the topic of homosexuality in this discussion remain as they were posted. Edits were made for direct insults and/or Intelligent Design discussion only.