Batwoman is a lesbian!

[JeepMonkey]

Ok it's been a while since we had a good debate. I'm bored today and felt like gettin you stirred up a bit.

My questions are: Is this the kind of comics we want kids reading? Do children even read comics anymore or is it just adults?

Maybe it's just me, but I do not agree with this at all. I think it's morally wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/06/01/batwoman.uncloseted.ap/index.html

 

[mingez]

Ok it's been a while since we had a good debate. I'm bored today and felt like gettin you stirred up a bit.

My questions are: Is this the kind of comics we want kids reading? Do children even read comics anymore or is it just adults?

Maybe it's just me, but I do not agree with this at all. I think it's morally wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/books/06/01/batwoman.uncloseted.ap/index.html

Great post!! If you wanted to stir things up, I know this'll do it.

My take:

Morality is relative. I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with lesbians. And for all of the fundies: Your children will not grow up to be lesbians by virtue of being exposed to them.

There are lesbians in the world, and sheltering people from that truth is, in my opinion, doing them a disservice. The US (and the rest of the free world for that matter) is a melting pot, and I don't see what is so strange about reflecting that diversity in Comic Books.

I say...whatever. I don't read comics, but throw in a little girl on girl action and I just might start. But it's probably about time something like this came about. My guess is that the more underground comics have already printed such characters. This is only getting exposure because DC Comics is one of the big publishers.

Batwoman...my new favorite superhero.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

I'd pay to see her and Cat Woman get it on!!

 

[judge09]

If its an adult comic I am ok with it. I certainly find entertainment in things that I wouldnt let a 5 year old see. My personal opinion is that I could live without it but I dont see it as a problem so big I am going to organize a march on Washington or anything.

 

[graewulf]

So long as they don't plan on having any explicit girl-girl action I see no problems with it at all. Gays & Lesbians are a reality, and making her a Lesbian is not a bad thing. Anything explicit (straight or gay/lesbian) would be bad in a comic book.

 

[90Xjay]

I saw that earlier this week.
Ya just another attempt by the Gay agenda to "normalize" the gay lifestyle choice.
As I have said before, when two gays can't come together and reproduce another gay offspring, then they have to recruit from the fringes of society.

"Morality is relative. I don't believe there is anything morally wrong with lesbians"

Not so much "relative" but rather "selective" for some people who like to keep a few morals around in their hip pocket just in case something offends them then they take them out and say "thats just wrong"!

Morality is like truth in that once you have it you can't deny it without being dishonest with yourself. You just can't be given the truth about something then not act on it but rather put the truth in your pocket for future use when you see fit. You then loose the truth and begin a lifelong process of becoming your own god, deciding what is right and wrong in your own universe. What really stinks about being the god of your own universe is when you run into another god of his own universe that decided that it was ok for him to kill you. That is the basis for Humanism, which is the highest form of idoltry.

The real truth is that we will all be judged by a higher authority someday. Live by your standards and what seems right for you and you risk falling way short.

90

 

[redrooster]

DC is grasping because comic book sales probably suck since video games and TV rule the world. Although the Batwoman/Catwoman/WonderWoman threesome might get my attention.
Here's what I say about gays: If you are gay, that is fine. I'm not, so I don't feel threatened. Just because you are gay doesn't mean I want to see you in every other TV show just because Hollywood has made it trendy to be gay. And one other thing, if you are gay that is your prerogative, but don't expect me not to make fun of your silly A$$.

 

[Laph]

Batwoman is a LEsibian..... NO!!!!!!:-| WHY CAN'T SHE BE BI, I'm ok with Bi

 

[bchcky]

i have no problem with someone being gay or a lesbian. but why make batwoman a lesbian? there's no good reason, when she was straight, was her love life a big part of the comic? NO. this is a comic book, about superheroes, fighting evil, not a romance novel. if this were a don juan story, and they wanted to make him gay, that changes a lot of things, but to make a superhero gay, what does that do? thats not what the comic is about.

 

[mingez]

If a particular standard of morality was a universal truth, then everyone and every religion or belief system would have the same standards of morality. This simply is not so.
For example, "It's immoral not to sacrifice a virgin to the Chac gods in ancient Mesopotamia inorder to insure a good crop." "It's immoral for a woman to work." "It's immoral to steal." "It's okay to steal if you need it." "Thou shalt not kill."
All of these demonstrate different ideas of good and bad throughout different cultures present and past. No one culture is inherently evil.

Each one of these belief systems has decided that it is the correct one. And it's "Truths" to be finite. This is why morals can only be judged within the context of it's own culture.

Lacking such relativity is a huge reason there are cross-cultural conflicts and war.

 

[mingez]

i have no problem with someone being gay or a lesbian. but why make batwoman a lesbian? there's no good reason, when she was straight, was her love life a big part of the comic? NO. this is a comic book, about superheroes, fighting evil, not a romance novel. if this were a don juan story, and they wanted to make him gay, that changes a lot of things, but to make a superhero gay, what does that do? thats not what the comic is about.

I understand what your saying here, and I totally agree that it's contrived solely for marketing and publicity purposes. But as a former comic geek, I remember quite often reading Spiderman, X-men, etc and a big part of the storylines were romance, triangles, and juggling their superhero lives with their personal lives.

Her being gay adds a dynamic that perhaps straight characters wouldn't have. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the author or editor decided
to make her a lesbian out of artistic license.

(Spidey and Mary Jane, Superman and Lois, Rogue and Wolverine, Cyclops and Phoenix, the list goes on. A significant other is often an achillies heel for a hero, thus adding a bit of intrigue)

 

[Sparky-Watts]

If a particular standard of morality was a universal truth, then everyone and every religion or belief system would have the same standards of morality. This simply is not so.
For example, "It's immoral not to sacrifice a virgin to the Chac gods in ancient Mesopotamia inorder to insure a good crop." "It's immoral for a woman to work." "It's immoral to steal." "It's okay to steal if you need it." "Thou shalt not kill."
All of these demonstrate different ideas of good and bad throughout different cultures present and past. No one culture is inherently evil.

Each one of these belief systems has decided that it is the correct one. And it's "Truths" to be finite. This is why morals can only be judged within the context of it's own culture.

Lacking such relativity is a huge reason there are cross-cultural conflicts and war.

Well put. On a side note, yet still relative to your post, my beliefs about age of consensual sex will have me shunned in our culture. Biologically speaking, a young boy or young girl are "old enough" to have sex when they have reached puberty. Whether it be at 10 or 14, once they have reached that point physically, I personally don't feel it is wrong for them to wed and begin having children. I know this will strike a nerve with most, if not all of you, but I look at it solely from a biological standpoint. Are they ready emotionally? Probably not, for the majority, though a small percentage may be. But that also is due to our society and it's morals. Since man (and woman) first walked the earth, the signal to the opposite sex that they were ready to bear children was puberty. Even in Christ's time on earth, this was the norm. Mary was between the ages of 12 and 14 when she "conceived" Jesus, according to most scholars. Somewhere along the line, our culture has pushed that biological "readiness" aside, and assigned an arbitrary chronological "readiness". Why? In Biblical times, young girls and boys started families at the age of biological readiness, and prospered as families and societies, regardless of their chronological age. Now that our society has set a "moral chronological age" limit, we are not teaching our children how to become parents and raise a family until later in life, often after puberty. Had we never imposed those morals, I feel that our children would have no problems raising their own children at very young ages, just as they had been doing for thousands and thousands of years. Some cultures still adhere to the "biological" standards, and it does not appear to be a problem for their young to marry and raise a family.

I am not a pervert. I am not a pedophile. I simply believe in biology more than morals when it comes to this issue (and others). Where does it say in the Bible that consensual sex and marriage between two pubescent 12 year olds is a sin? Or marriage and consensual sex between a pubescent 12 year old and a 50 year old is a sin? Where does it say that it is immoral? Who decided that this was immoral? Certainly not God. Had He intended for us to wait until the age of 16 or 18 to engage in consensual, marital sex, then none of us would hit puberty until we turned that age. It is no different in the animal kingdom. Do dogs wait until they are 2 1/2 to 3 years old (17-21 years of age to us)? I realize we are different than animals, but you see my point, right?

Now, please don't condemn me for these beliefs. I am not pushing pedophilia, not in the least. As far as I'm concerned, a pedophile is someone who wants to dip in to the cookie jar prior to puberty. Whether you believe in God or not, look at it solely from the biological standpoint and tell me why it is wrong.

Sorry Jump, didn't mean to hijack your thread. I got to thinking about this the other day when I read about a political party in Amsterdam that is pushing for the age of consensual sex to be lowered from 16 to 12. To me it's not about the chronological age, it's about the biological age.

 

[TwistedCU]

My questions are: Is this the kind of comics we want kids reading? Do children even read comics anymore or is it just adults?

Maybe it's just me, but I do not agree with this at all. I think it's morally wrong.

Yes, children are comic books' primary audience. No, it's not just you
***************


I agree that it may be conveinient to call morals relative, they are not. Thoughts are relative. Opinions are relative.

Morals are a standard by which our free society governs itself.

The question is not so much if homosexuality is immoral or not. We have disussed this here on Jeepz more than once and any who have followed know where I stand on the subject.

The question here is if it is moral to include it in a product that has children as their primary target audience.

To answer that, lets take a look at some of our own Jeepz member's initial reactions to the mention of lesbianism:

I don't read comics, but throw in a little girl on girl action and I just might start.

I'd pay to see her and Cat Woman get it on!!

Although the Batwoman/Catwoman/WonderWoman threesome might get my attention.

Okay... some immediately thought of sex. Okay, we all did in some way, but some of you more explicitly and I am sort of glad you were bold enough to post about it. It helps me to make my point.

Why? Why does mentioning a lesbian make one think of sex like that?

Because thats what defines gays and lesbians. Homosexuality. Without sex they are merely close friends, right? A man can have a girlfriend and vice-versa, and although you may suspect they are sexually active, their status as girlfriend and boyfriend does not indicate it.

That said, when DC Comics introduces lesbianism to a comic book, they are presenting a sexual situation to their audience: Children. That is wrong. That is immoral. If that doesn't agree with your beliefs, your God, your opinions, or what's in your back pocket then you need to take inventory.
*******************

All this is nice to discuss, but fact is they have a right to print it. I have a right to not buy it. So do you, so I ask those of you who think companies should be held to a higher standard than this to boycott them. Especially those of you with children. Kids grow up fast enough as it is and they do not need DC comics to help them along. I know I will boycott them for having sexually related topics in a children's publication. Those of you who know me know well that I would boycott them even if it were an adult mag but I ask you to do so because of their audience no matter what your viewpoint is on Homosexuals.

 

[mingez]

Why? Why does mentioning a lesbian make one think of sex like that?

Because thats what defines gays and lesbians. Homosexuality. Without sex they are merely close friends, right? A man can have a girlfriend and vice-versa, and although you may suspect they are sexually active, their status as girlfriend and boyfriend does not indicate it.
.

"Sex" is also in the word HeteroSEXUALITY. Without sex, a straight couple are merely close friends as well. I don't see how that is relevant.

The reason everyone attributes sex to gays is due to the sheer "turn on" or "turn off" factor. It's the only part of a gay relationship society talks about. Why don't we talk about a lesbian couple having a nice breakfast in the morning while reading the paper? Because it's BORING!! It's not a topic anyone cares about. Sex is more interesting.

Everyone has breakfast...and more to the point...EVERYONE has sex.

What you see as protecting children from bad stimulus, I see as sheltering. However I know these are MY morals, and I know that there is no universal right or wrong, so I don't think you're a bad person for keeping your kids from such material. (And you definetly have a right to be able to keep your children from such material)

 

[mingez]

I agree that it may be conveinient to call morals relative, they are not. Thoughts are relative. Opinions are relative.

Morals are a standard by which our free society governs itself.

Morals are a standard by which many societies govern themselves. All with differing ideas of what is moral.
What's more convenient than thinking that there is a perfect universal moral code? It makes a person feel comfortable that they stand on some sort of high ground, and those who don't are to be considered bad, dirty and ostracized. Whether you label them heathens, infidels, pervs whatever. The problem is that everyone else, with other such standards also feel as though they stand on a similar high ground. The only solution to that way of thinking is to battle it out.

That said, when DC Comics introduces lesbianism to a comic book, they are presenting a sexual situation to their audience: Children. That is wrong. That is immoral. If that doesn't agree with your beliefs, your God, your opinions, or what's in your back pocket then you need to take inventory.

No it doesn't. It's only a sexual situation if the lesbians are shown having sex in the comic. Just as if the couple was heterosexual, it's not a sexual situation until the couple jumps in bed.

I find it funny that everyone thinks it's a foregone conclusion that lesbians and gays even have sex. I know of celibate gays. Or lesbians who are saving themselves for the one they love. I think much of America has a picture in there head of gays as beings that are more sexually active than straights, and running amok humping everything it their path. They are just people all with different sex drives, and standards of right and wrong as well....just like you and me.

Sex is a natural thing, and a beautiful thing that everyone experiences. Why must it be so vilified? Have our puritanical roots so severely grasped our psyche that we must be chaste at every angle. There is more public outcry toward what is deemed sexual deviancy than there is toward violence. Why are some people so scared of exposing children to sex? The rest of the world looks at us on this subject and just shakes their heads, and I agree with them.

 

[TwistedCU]

"Sex" is also in the word HeteroSEXUALITY. Without sex, a straight couple are merely close friends as well. I don't see how that is relevant.

Heterosexual does too, I agree, and it5 does infer sex. Would DC comics bother mentioning that Superman is heterosexual? No.

The reason everyone attributes sex to gays is due to the sheer "turn on" or "turn off" factor. It's the only part of a gay relationship society talks about. Why don't we talk about a lesbian couple having a nice breakfast in the morning while reading the paper? Because it's BORING!! It's not a topic anyone cares about. Sex is more interesting.

No, Mingez, it's because it refers to their SEXUALITY. The homosexuals in our society want us to view the word as a reference to lifestyle, but all it means is that they have sex with the same gender.

FWIW, I enjoy reading the paper while eating pancakes and having coffee with my wife on weekend mornings. It's not boring it is relaxing.

Everyone has breakfast...and more to the point...EVERYONE has sex.

Not some little kid who wants to read about Superheroes in a comic book

What you see as protecting children from bad stimulus, I see as sheltering. However I know these are MY morals, and I know that there is no universal right or wrong, so I don't think you're a bad person for keeping your kids from such material. (And you definetly have a right to be able to keep your children from such material)

Then when and if you have children, go ahead and let them read about homosexuality at an early reading age. My daughter was reading pretty well at 4 years old. It is not sheltering, Mingez. Why on Earth would you want to have to explain a sexual reference to someone who is as young as that?!?!?!
It's called letting a kid be a kid. Believe you me when they are old enough they will know. My oldest knows what homosexuality is, and you can be damn sure he knows the truth.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Everyone has breakfast...and more to the point...EVERYONE has sex.

Speak for yourself.......
















I have sex more often than breakfast........and I rarely ever have breakfast.urple:

 

[Sparky-Watts]

To be honest, I don't think DC comics has targeted children as their main reading audience for several years. I haven't read comics since I was a kid, and even then all I read were the Casper the Friendly Ghost, Richie Rich, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, Donald Duck, Archie and the Gang type stuff. Never got into the whole Batman, Superman, Superhero stuff. When I was in high school, I had a good friend who was into those.....a bit too much into them, in fact. As it turns out, he was also gay.....odd coincidence, but nothing to do with the comics, I'm sure. I picture the target audience for these comics now as mid-life geeks living with their mothers, eating Cheetos in their basement bedroom next to their Cheryl Tiegs posters.....picture the guy in the Simpsons that owns the comic book store, and that's what I see as the target audience. The level of writing and storyline has far surpassed that which a young impressionable kid would see as intriguing.

Incidently, does anyone here think that Casper is really the ghost of Richie Rich? Look at the two side by side.......yeah, there's a connection there, for sure!!

 

[GreenReaper93]

To be honest, I don't think DC comics has targeted children as their main reading audience for several years. I haven't read comics since I was a kid, and even then all I read were the Casper the Friendly Ghost, Richie Rich, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, Donald Duck, Archie and the Gang type stuff. Never got into the whole Batman, Superman, Superhero stuff. When I was in high school, I had a good friend who was into those.....a bit too much into them, in fact. As it turns out, he was also gay.....odd coincidence, but nothing to do with the comics, I'm sure. I picture the target audience for these comics now as mid-life geeks living with their mothers, eating Cheetos in their basement bedroom next to their Cheryl Tiegs posters.....picture the guy in the Simpsons that owns the comic book store, and that's what I see as the target audience. The level of writing and storyline has far surpassed that which a young impressionable kid would see as intriguing.

Incidently, does anyone here think that Casper is really the ghost of Richie Rich? Look at the two side by side.......yeah, there's a connection there, for sure!!

I have to agree with you Sparky. My wife is/was an avid reader of the 'Storm - X-Men' comics, as well as some others. Reading some of the comics she had (even the one's where Ororo [Storm] was young) I find it somewhat hard to believe that they are still targeting the same audience that they used to. Walking into the comic book shop with my wife I am always surprised to find the vast majority of customers in their mid-20's to early 40's. Even the comic book forums my wife frequents are compiled of mostly adults.

As far as the decision to make Batwoman a lesbian - I think that both Marvel AND DC are trying to readjust their marketing for a wider base. Marvel just pulled a fairly big SNAFU with their Storm/X-men fan base with the surprise wedding of Storm to Black Panther (please don't ask - this is what I've been hearing from my wife), but they did this mainly for a readjustment of their marketing.

 

[90Xjay]

If a particular standard of morality was a universal truth, then everyone and every religion or belief system would have the same standards of morality. This simply is not so.
For example, "It's immoral not to sacrifice a virgin to the Chac gods in ancient Mesopotamia inorder to insure a good crop." "It's immoral for a woman to work." "It's immoral to steal." "It's okay to steal if you need it." "Thou shalt not kill."
All of these demonstrate different ideas of good and bad throughout different cultures present and past. No one culture is inherently evil.

Each one of these belief systems has decided that it is the correct one. And it's "Truths" to be finite. This is why morals can only be judged within the context of it's own culture.

Lacking such relativity is a huge reason there are cross-cultural conflicts and war.

I don't consider any form of paganism as a good source for a moral compass.