Could/Should Diana be bisexual/gay?

[UsagiTsukino]

Good point. Anyway. If Dc were to do I story of Diana coming out, I would want to start simple maybe she remembers something on the Island or someone she finds to be very dear to her heart yet to be safe they should make it in an alt universe. To be fair it should be either a new character or an old character maybe like Artemis or IO

[Legato]

Good point. Anyway. If Dc were to do I story of Diana coming out, I would want to start simple maybe she remembers something on the Island or someone she finds to be very dear to her heart yet to be safe they should make it in an alt universe. To be fair it should be either a new character or an old character maybe like Artemis or IO

I'd second a pre-existing character, perhaps a supporting character whom haven't been used enough in the past. She could represent her first legit love/experience.

[ascended]

I'd welcome that. Though with Diana's supporting cast you run the risk of that character being dropped into limbo with the next writer. I mean, has anyone seen Ferdinand since Rucka? How many decades went by with nearly no sign at all of Etta Candy? Or Steve? Nemesis is certainly unlikely to come back anytime soon and I figure that when Azzarello leaves the title, Lennox and Zola will disappear to.

But yeah, I would be fine with a supporting cast member being gay/bi/whatever. But then, I dont really care one way or another about anyone's sexual preference. I like to say that I am not bigoted, I hate everyone equally.

As for the debate about homosexuality being an aberration...this is the sort of thing I was hoping we could avoid this time around.

Look people, here's the thing. Homosexuality has been found in human culture since the earliest recorded history. Its been seen in animals of all kinds. And it does not seem limited by culture, geographical region, social/peer pressures, and biological attachments are, as far as I know, still just empty theory. Point being, we dont know why people are gay. They obviously dont choose to be. No teenager says "Hey, there are way too many potential sex partners out there and life isnt challenging enough. I think I'll be gay."

So this argument.....why? No one is going to change anyone else's mind. Can we all agree to disagree and let it go? If someone wants to believe that homosexuals are a natural aberration, let them. The internet is not going to change his/her mind. Especially if that opinion is formed from dogmatic opinions supported by a religious body. Not saying it is, by the way. And if someone thinks that homosexuality is the next step of evolution or whatever, let them. They can call themselves Cyclops.

This is about Diana, and whether or not she could believably be written as bisexual.

[dshipp17]

No, this is untrue.

The discussion was about sexual orientation and another poster commented about teaching about sexual orientation with young students.

YOU then brought Intelligent Design and Evolution into the discussion despite the fact that they have nothing to do with Wonder Woman or sexual preferences.

I let that stand until several people refused to let it drop and that portion of the discussion got insulting. I then went back and deleted/edited every single message having to do with Intelligent Design/Evolution. Yours was the first, but it was not the last.

You were the one who took it off in a tangent. It was not about evolution/ID until you made it about that topic.

It is also outrageous that you categorize your own posts as 'sound rebuttal' and everyone else's replies as 'rhetoric and propaganda.' That is insulting to everyone who posts here and such insults are not welcome on this forum.

Cut it out.

I didn't call everyone else's post rhetoric, though.

[dshipp17]

I'd welcome that. Though with Diana's supporting cast you run the risk of that character being dropped into limbo with the next writer. I mean, has anyone seen Ferdinand since Rucka? How many decades went by with nearly no sign at all of Etta Candy? Or Steve? Nemesis is certainly unlikely to come back anytime soon and I figure that when Azzarello leaves the title, Lennox and Zola will disappear to.

But yeah, I would be fine with a supporting cast member being gay/bi/whatever. But then, I dont really care one way or another about anyone's sexual preference. I like to say that I am not bigoted, I hate everyone equally.

As for the debate about homosexuality being an aberration...this is the sort of thing I was hoping we could avoid this time around.

Look people, here's the thing. Homosexuality has been found in human culture since the earliest recorded history. Its been seen in animals of all kinds. And it does not seem limited by culture, geographical region, social/peer pressures, and biological attachments are, as far as I know, still just empty theory. Point being, we dont know why people are gay. They obviously dont choose to be. No teenager says "Hey, there are way too many potential sex partners out there and life isnt challenging enough. I think I'll be gay."

So this argument.....why? No one is going to change anyone else's mind. Can we all agree to disagree and let it go? If someone wants to believe that homosexuals are a natural aberration, let them. The internet is not going to change his/her mind. Especially if that opinion is formed from dogmatic opinions supported by a religious body. Not saying it is, by the way. And if someone thinks that homosexuality is the next step of evolution or whatever, let them. They can call themselves Cyclops.

This is about Diana, and whether or not she could believably be written as bisexual.

The opinion is formed by observation; the quickest source, again, would be watching a documentary on wildlife on Animal Planet; if done that way, you'd see that those media pushed papers are what I've characterized them as, just breeding controversy and unusual observations supported by extrapolation and speculation; as I said, you just need to look at the common and not the exception; nothing I've seen, outside of those papers spreading due to media influence demonstrates that homosexuality is not socially influenced; I know of no Animal Planet documentaries dealing with homosexual tendencies in animals and it's certainly not something that's easily found while watching shows on observing wildlife. Nothing explained has been solely based on religious dogma; that's just how you want to see it.

[Legato]

I didn't call everyone else's post rhetoric, though.

Still none of your post had anything to do with the actual topic itself.

[dshipp17]

Still none of your post had anything to do with the actual topic itself.

Start from my first post; they did; and than I begin responding to other posts.

[Legato]

I'd welcome that. Though with Diana's supporting cast you run the risk of that character being dropped into limbo with the next writer. I mean, has anyone seen Ferdinand since Rucka? How many decades went by with nearly no sign at all of Etta Candy? Or Steve? Nemesis is certainly unlikely to come back anytime soon and I figure that when Azzarello leaves the title, Lennox and Zola will disappear to.

But yeah, I would be fine with a supporting cast member being gay/bi/whatever. But then, I dont really care one way or another about anyone's sexual preference. I like to say that I am not bigoted, I hate everyone equally.

As for the debate about homosexuality being an aberration...this is the sort of thing I was hoping we could avoid this time around.

Look people, here's the thing. Homosexuality has been found in human culture since the earliest recorded history. Its been seen in animals of all kinds. And it does not seem limited by culture, geographical region, social/peer pressures, and biological attachments are, as far as I know, still just empty theory. Point being, we dont know why people are gay. They obviously dont choose to be. No teenager says "Hey, there are way too many potential sex partners out there and life isnt challenging enough. I think I'll be gay."

So this argument.....why? No one is going to change anyone else's mind. Can we all agree to disagree and let it go? If someone wants to believe that homosexuals are a natural aberration, let them. The internet is not going to change his/her mind. Especially if that opinion is formed from dogmatic opinions supported by a religious body. Not saying it is, by the way. And if someone thinks that homosexuality is the next step of evolution or whatever, let them. They can call themselves Cyclops.

This is about Diana, and whether or not she could believably be written as bisexual.

Thank you! If one wants to just discuss about homosexuality then make a thread dedicated to it. Coming in here and derail a thread that is supposed to be talking about Wonder Woman and if she should or should not be gay is disrespectful to those and to the thread starter who only want to talk about that IMO

[Outside_85]

The opinion is formed by observation; the quickest source, again, would be watching a documentary on wildlife on Animal Planet; if done that way, you'd see that those media pushed papers are what I've characterized them as, just breeding controversy and unusual observations supported by extrapolation and speculation; as I said, you just need to look at the common and not the exception; nothing I've seen, outside of those papers spreading due to media influence demonstrates that homosexuality is not socially influenced; I know of no Animal Planet documentaries dealing with homosexual tendencies in animals and it's certainly not something that's easily found while watching shows on observing wildlife. Nothing explained has been solely based on religious dogma; that's just how you want to see it.

You do realize the only reason homosexuality is still not exactly considered common today is because for hundreds if not thousands of years, people in power saw it as a grave offence against their view of the world and hunted down those they considered abnormalites.

However if we go back to Sparta we find out a homosexual relationship between men in the army was common because they saw it as male bonding.

[Legato]

Once again none of this have anything to do with the actual topic

[UsagiTsukino]

I'd second a pre-existing character, perhaps a supporting character whom haven't been used enough in the past. She could represent her first legit love/experience.

Maybe Io or Valerie. Maybe a amazon that appear once. Heck maybe one of guther slaves or Guther herself. I actually now want to write one but with the topic being derailed, people will dislike it. I will post later.

[Legato]

Maybe Io or Valerie. Maybe a amazon that appear once. Heck maybe one of guther slaves or Guther herself. I actually now want to write one but with the topic being derailed, people will dislike it. I will post later.

Do it man. They may not care about the main topic but we do

[dshipp17]

You do realize the only reason homosexuality is still not exactly considered common today is because for hundreds if not thousands of years, people in power saw it as a grave offence against their view of the world and hunted down those they considered abnormalites.

However if we go back to Sparta we find out a homosexual relationship between men in the army was common because they saw it as male bonding.

I don't think that's why it isn't common today; and it would contradict everything I said about the topic, if there were an actual consensus about that position. However, yeah, one mistake of society is making people feel ostracized for looking a certain way, talking a certain way, being a certain sex, being a certain way, or being a certain race.

I said this as much, a while back, and I long for the day that people will not be denied certain opportunities which mostly only goes to the good looking, including, and particularly, employment; it would be great if we all could be judged on the content of our character and on the level of merit that we can display, rather than because of appearance or who we are, particularly something that we cannot adjust or change such as appearance. I long for the day that we can all just get along and where everybody is made to feel like a human being. I long for the day that trouble making is considered a taboo and is actively shunned again.

I just want Diana placed in positions where we can really examine her character rather than saying what we believe her character to be; a good way would be exploring her sexual tendencies. Is she shallow? Currently, I have to believe so, but I'd certainly like to see her placed in normal, everyday scenarios where we can see it; that means having advances passed to her by men who don't look as good as Batman, Steve, or Superman; that can even include other women; that can include guys with appearance issues and emotional issues, which includes being shy or socially withdrawn, due to being made fun of or bullied; those characteristics don't have to be attached to villains; just real worlds situations; it's just an examination of her character and to see rather we can really say that she is not shallow and cares for everyone; Hades was an honest attempt, but that's asking a lot of anyone, where there are so many cases to try using.

[slvn]

...; I know of no Animal Planet documentaries dealing with homosexual tendencies in animals and it's certainly not something that's easily found while watching shows on observing wildlife....

This is your scientific standard? You define "aberrant" as "not on Animal Planet"? Really?

Maybe that's not religious dogma, but it's some kind of dogma--or at least, it sure ain't science. Scientists don't stop with the obvious.

But since that is your standard, here's an Animal Planet report about a very nice gay penguin couple:

http://blogs.discovery.com/animal_ne...ouplehood.html

[dshipp17]

This is your scientific standard? You define "aberrant" as "not on Animal Planet"? Really?

Maybe that's not religious dogma, but it's some kind of dogma--or at least, it sure ain't science. Scientists don't stop with the obvious.

The heterosexual tendencies of the wildlife is as conspicuous as seeing something fall to the ground, once thrown in the air; sure, we can examine it closer, but, the commonsense observation, and the easiest observation, is what goes up must come down. You can go and look for exceptions to the rule, but the citing is so obvious and likely.