Pretty, Fizzy Paradise

I'm back! And reading! And maybe even blogging! No promises!

Friday, March 16, 2007

Scattered Thoughts on Sexual Orientation in Comics:

This newsarama post is pretty interesting, linking as it does to a message board post that makes a very valid complaint. In the DCU, it mentions, there are quite a few more lesbian characters than gay male characters.

This is definitely true and it's definitely something that I would really like to see rectified with more gay male characters. Variety is a good thing after all.

However, and I hate to say this, whenever I see this argument, I end up bracing myself internally, because in my experience, it's very easy for this argument to be turned around as an attack on the lesbian characters in comics. As though it is the fault of the lesbian characters that they outnumber the gay male characters.

The first time I'd ever seen this argument was back during the Batwoman-is-gay kerfluffle. Admittedly it was phrased in the sort of "Why do we need another lesbian when gay men are so few! It's just pandering to the desires of the straight male creators." (This was also brought up by the fact that Batwoman is hot and sexy, rather than being dumpy and average looking. Which on one level I sympathize with, as hot lesbians are occasionally tricks used to titilate a male audience. But on the other hand: We are dealing with superheroes here, and if you can show me a "dumpy and average" looking superhero of any sex, race, creed, I'd be pretty surprised. Ted Kord at his heaviest was still more attractively pictured than most real people alive.)

The thing is, on one level it's definitely true. Lesbian characters are more common than gay male characters, and a lot of that really does have to do with the fact that the majority of comic creators and comic audiences are straight men. There is an element of pandering involved in these characters, whether we like it or not. And that's pretty awful.

But on the other hand, the alternative pretty much means no lesbian superheroes at all. It's a hard situation here, a lesser of two evils sorts of things.

In the meantime though, what we need is more lesbian AND gay characters in general, not less. We know that for every straight female hero that's character design is somewhat pandering, there are a number of straight female side characters at least that are given more normal, mundane, plain appearances. I think it'd help a lot if we had more lesbian side characters that are more normal/mundane/plain. After all, Batwoman's design is actually on the conservative end of the spectrum, heels aside, and is probably no more or less tawdry or pandering than say Manhunter. The difference is really that it's hard to think of, well, a lesbian Etta Candy, for example.

And honestly, I think there's an inherent flaw in the "there are more lesbians than gay men" argument, and that's that, in the end, it's targetting the wrong group. The scant handful of lesbians versus the miniscule numbers of gay men creates a false conflict. As though that scant handful of characters is the pool we have available for alternative sexualities period. If Kate Kane were straight, it wouldn't make Connor Hawke suddenly gay.

What the bigger issue is, what the bigger issue should be, in my opinion is that there are hundreds of straight superheroes out there. Possibly even thousands if we count all the one-shots or cannon-fodder types that have shown up for maybe an issue over the last half a century. Compared to those numbers, the portrayal of gay AND lesbian (as well as black, asian, hispanic, differently abled, and so on and so forth) is outright pitiful.

So how about we just have more? There are a lot of abandoned/inactive legacies out there that could shine with a new character behind them. There's still a lot of room for brand new heroes as well. There's lots of room for new supporting casts and even just one-shot people too. Why can't Diana's next studious scholarly liaison a.la Julia Kapitelis and Helena Sandsmark be a lesbian? Why can't one of Hal Jordan's brothers (I think there's one still alive we haven't seen) be gay? It'd allow for some interesting reactions, for one. It's always fun to see Hal brought face to face with his own unconscious bigotry, and we'd get a chance to learn a little more about Amazon society in general.

Heck, there are a few heroic characters ambiguous enough in sexual portrayal to be easily read as being "in the closet" a.la Obsidian. (Who was *actually* surprised that Todd turned out to be gay? I'm just sayin').

I just want to see more, you know? More variety of all types, in heroes AND supporting characters, would go a long way.

44 Comments:

  • At March 16, 2007 9:51 AM, Anonymous Matthew said…

    The problem with Batwoman isn't her appearence, it's that she has no character to speak of.

    Or to paraphrase a Casstoon "Don't you even have a favorite color?"

    "...lesbian?"

     
  • At March 16, 2007 10:01 AM, Anonymous david brothers said…

    The difference is really that it's hard to think of, well, a lesbian Etta Candy, for example.

    Up until recently, Holly from Catwoman fit this bill. Now, though, she's kind of a Catwoman, too, though Selina has taken the reins back for a bit.

    We are dealing with superheroes here, and if you can show me a "dumpy and average" looking superhero of any sex, race, creed, I'd be pretty surprised.

    D-Man from Marvel is pretty dumpy and average!

    That may be because he is homeless, insane, and doesn't have any fans, though.

    Semi-relevant image: 4thletter is for D-Man dot j p g.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 10:47 AM, Blogger SallyP said…

    You do make a very valid point. The number of gay characters of either gender, is really ridiculously small...unfortunately, I don't really see much change coming.

    On the other hand, Hal Jordan with a gay brother would be a hoot, but I do believe that Jim is married with kids...although I suppose that wouldn't make much of a difference.

    On the other hand, wouldn't it be interesting if Guy Gardner's brother Mace was gay? Now THAT would have been a kick in the head for their old goat of a father! Even better than the pot-smoking!

    I am so evil.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 11:09 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Heh...actually, considering Hal, it could be a gay son. :-)

    Hal's been catting around for quite a while after all. And maybe he'd be forced to go to Alan with advice on how to deal with suddenly getting a gay son.

    And he can put his foot in his mouth, as he always does, and Alan can school him old-school style. :-)

     
  • At March 16, 2007 11:27 AM, Blogger ticknart said…

    While I'm all for more diversity in comics, I want each new character to be a (fictional) person first and then gay or Asian or disabled (or whatever) second. I don't want any of them to be created simply to be a gay, Asian, or disabled person. In many ways, I think that's worse than leaving those groups in the small numbers they're already in.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 12:26 PM, Blogger Mark Engblom said…

    Maybe we can create a Central Board of Approved Diversity Levels, which can monitor the precise levels of comic book diversity at any given moment, and make recommendations on which areas of diversity need augmentations, then monitor their implementation. Following that, monthly polls can be taken of all possible interest groups within comic book fandom to make sure they're comfortable with their level of representation.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 12:27 PM, Blogger Mark Engblom said…

    "On the other hand, wouldn't it be interesting if Guy Gardner's brother Mace was gay?"

    Which would make him Gay Gardner?

     
  • At March 16, 2007 12:49 PM, Anonymous green with wheelpower said…

    "...differently-abled...',Kalinara you just made my day :) (Does magician pass to huge dozen roses). Please email a link so I can forward to my mother and her universal design students. And A big thank you tictnart!

    Alan vs. Hal I love it! John could ref! Guy/kiliog as corner men! Ganeth annoucing! Jack T. Chance as the bookie! Kyle & Katma in bikini w/ round cards! yes I did say Kyle:) Sorrnic decrying the brutality! It could be "The Rumble on Mogo!

    Sallyp: You are!

     
  • At March 16, 2007 1:13 PM, Blogger Your Obedient Serpent said…

    The difference is really that it's hard to think of, well, a lesbian Etta Candy, for example.

    ...not when you've read as many Golden Age reprints as I have. It's kind of hard for me to picture ANY of the Holiday Girls as straight.

    Woo woo!

     
  • At March 16, 2007 1:18 PM, Blogger Your Obedient Serpent said…

    ...I am embarassed and apologetic about ending my previous comment with "woo woo!"

    It was meant strictly as an Etta Candy quote, not as a comment comment about an entire college of lesbian cheerleader sorority girls with a bondage fixation.

    ...I'm not helping matters, am I?

     
  • At March 16, 2007 1:50 PM, Blogger The Dane said…

    I kinda-sorta loath the idea that we need more of Character Type X. I personally like the idea of my books being story and character-driven rather than agenda driven. More gay, lesbian, black, Guatamalan, libertarian, anarchist, abortionist, or hermaphrodite characters? No, just give me characters. I don't use characters as role models or cultural touchstones, so why should I want a character of a particular cultural niche to be represented? The characters can have any kind of attribute (gay, black, Guatamalan, etc.), but a character who is defined by such superficial characteristics? Blech.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 2:06 PM, Anonymous wonderfish said…

    You know what I really want, and what I think went wrong with the Batwoman thing? For an established character to be gay or bi. There are tons of characters floating around who aren't married, and if you go for bi (and come on, nobody in fiction is bi, and how much sense does that make?) it's not as though a history of dating the opposite sex makes it implausible.

    Throwing in a new character just to be "the gay one" makes it hard for them to be established and respected. Taking someone people already like and having them also be queer seems like a much better way to establish some important, respected queer characters. Which is why I'm happy about Obsidian.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 10:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "In the meantime though, what we need is more lesbian AND gay characters in general, not less."

    Why?

     
  • At March 16, 2007 10:46 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    matthew: I actually thought Kate's characterization was particularly strong for the four issues or so she's been in so far. (And in one segment of each). She's strong, hot-tempered, fiery, independent, somewhat sheltered, and carries a grudge.

    And she flaunts new girlfriends in front of her ex.

    That's not a lot, but for four issues, it's pretty good.

    And by the way "red" is the answer. :-)

    david: Well, I meant less conventionally attractive. Holly's been minor but is also pretty conventionally cute.

    ticknart: Well, ideally the personality does come first.

    But the thing is, that line of thinking quickly becomes an excuse for no variety at all.

    And sometimes characters are created to fill a quota but actually do move beyond that. It's all in the amount of effort.

    Mark: Or we could just try to make more characters that aren't white-washed rich men?

    serpent; Heheh, sadly, post-Crisis, she's straight. (I thought honestly, lesbian Etta would be awesome.)

    dane: But why can't we give you characters that are these things as well as strong characters?

    Sometimes even forced variety makes way for a lot of really really good characters. Why make a girl Superman after all? Because Supergirl ends up awesome...

    But she was first conceived as "girl Superman".

    wonderfish: Totally, more bi characters would be a fantastic step. Constantine is bi, but...almost no one else. I feel under-represented. :-P

    anonymous: Why not? Variety is good and interesting.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 10:51 PM, Blogger Ragnell said…

    kinda-sorta loath the idea that we need more of Character Type X. I personally like the idea of my books being story and character-driven rather than agenda driven. More gay, lesbian, black, Guatamalan, libertarian, anarchist, abortionist, or hermaphrodite characters? No, just give me characters. I don't use characters as role models or cultural touchstones, so why should I want a character of a particular cultural niche to be represented? The characters can have any kind of attribute (gay, black, Guatamalan, etc.), but a character who is defined by such superficial characteristics? Blech.

    Sounds like your problem is with the attempt to characterize by those traits, a problem which would be solved with more diversity.

    Think about it, on a superteam full of women, is any one character "The Girl"? With enough gay characters around, how can sexual orientation be a defining character trait? Can't fall back on stereotypes when you have more of Group X than there are stereotypes of Group X, in that case you need to make characters.

    More diversity would force writers to have to put more thought into distinguishing their characters from each other, rather thank falling back on "She's a lesbian," "He's a black guy"..etc...

    You're arguing on the wrong side, man.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 11:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Why not? Variety is good and interesting."

    Not necessarily. Often it's just confusing and/or superfluous.

    Again, why, in your opinion, should there be more homosexual characters in comics?

     
  • At March 16, 2007 11:49 PM, Blogger Ragnell said…

    Anon -- Variety is confusing and superfluous? What a dreadfully boring viewpoint.

     
  • At March 16, 2007 11:51 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Again, why, in your opinion, should there be more homosexual characters in comics?

    Excuse me, but why, in your opinion, should I even have to justify myself on my own blog?

    However, I'm going assume that you're asking out of genuine interest and that the arrogant and entitled tone that I'm reading in your comment is not actually intended, so I'll answer you:

    I personally believe that variety, when it comes to the portrayal of individuals, is never merely confusing or superfluous. (And if it is, it's a problem with the writing and the introduction, not within the concept itself).

    There are gay people in our society. There are black people in our society. There are Islamic people in our society. There are differently abled people in our society.

    Given the inherent adolescent power fantasy that superhero comics are designed around, there's no reason that they can't represent a wider variety of people.

    Besides, it's the sort of thing that helps make the comic book universe feel more real. We all know people that are in some way different from the straight white majority. I believe that there's no reason comics can't reflect reality.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 12:17 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Excuse me, but why, in your opinion, should I even have to justify myself on my own blog?"

    Why not? If your views are such as may be justified in good conscience, why fear to do so?

    "There are gay people in our society. There are black people in our society. There are Islamic people in our society. There are differently abled people in our society."

    And?

    "I believe that there's no reason comics can't reflect reality."

    There's always the reality of the fact that homosexuals comprise a negligible fraction of the general population, and are therefore proportionately less likely to be superhumans, put it that way

     
  • At March 17, 2007 12:37 AM, Anonymous Loren said…

    I have to admit that I've sometimes compared the number of lesbians to gay men in comics and I, myself, hate when I do that because it sounds like I'm saying lesbians are bad. I am glad that there are a number of lesbian characters. I think the reason why I make the comparison sometimes is because straight men, the bulk of creators at DC and Marvel, tend to go for lesbian rather than gay men and I have to wonder if it's because of the titilation factor or an unease in writing or drawing two men in love. But, I'm totally with you. I just want to see MORE! There's so much room for more diversity of all kinds in comics.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 12:40 AM, Blogger Ragnell said…

    There's always the reality of the fact that homosexuals comprise a negligible fraction of the general population, and are therefore proportionately less likely to be superhumans, put it that way

    There's also the reality of the fact that American citizens comprise a negligable fraction of the total world population, but that hasn't stopped the majority of the superheroes from being in the United States rather than China.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 12:41 AM, Blogger Ununnilium said…

    If Kalinara is anything like me, there's no fear, only annoyance at answers being demanded as if she was a wayward student. >>

    Anyway. Yes, variety is awesome. We need more weirdoes, both in real life and in comic books.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 12:48 AM, Blogger Sinspired said…

    There's always the reality of the fact that homosexuals comprise a negligible fraction of the general population, and are therefore proportionately less likely to be superhumans, put it that way

    Wow. Beyond your incomplete grammar, I take issue with your use of "statistics" that have no cited source, as well as your use of the word "negligible", which requires a judgement call based on more things than should safely be used.

    Perhaps alternative lifestyles are not a facet of your stunted existance, but surely you must admit there is a sizable vocal community out of the closet, with even more staying in, or not recognizing the closet they are in.

    Many of them use actual names or handles, as well.

    Come back with some real facts and we'll talk, but your positioning is currently laughable.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 12:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "There's also the reality of the fact that American citizens comprise a negligable fraction of the total world population, but that hasn't stopped the majority of the superheroes from being in the United States rather than China."

    Not a valid comparison.

    America comprises, what, five percent of the world population? That doesn't seem like a lot, but try to find a nation that represents, say, ninety-nine percent of the human populace, and things come into perspective a little better.

    "If Kalinara is anything like me, there's no fear, only annoyance at answers being demanded as if she was a wayward student."

    Answers must be demanded of arguments based upon unexplained assumptions.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 12:57 AM, Blogger Ragnell said…

    Anon -- Its not a valid comparison because there's no country that represents 99% percent of the population. You really think the world, hell, even the country is 99% Heterosexual.

    Answers must be demanded of arguments based upon unexplained assumptions.

    You're absolutely right on that sentence, though. So show us your population statistics.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:10 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Its not a valid comparison because there's no country that represents 99% percent of the population."

    Exactly.

    "You really think the world, hell, even the country is 99% Heterosexual."

    Haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. Have you?

    "You're absolutely right on that sentence, though. So show us your population statistics."

    Thanks for the invite, but it's Kalinara's turn to justify (statistically or otherwise) her world-view at the moment, though feel free to contribute if you like.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:24 AM, Blogger Ragnell said…

    Thanks for the invite, but it's Kalinara's turn to justify (statistically or otherwise) her world-view at the moment, though feel free to contribute if you like.

    Sweetie, who's turf do you think you're ON? You're the intruder, you're the stranger. You have to justify.

    If you want people to justify their opinions, get your own fucking blog.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:25 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Thanks for the invite, but it's Kalinara's turn to justify (statistically or otherwise) her world-view at the moment, though feel free to contribute if you like.

    No, actually. It isn't.

    The topic of this post is not "the percentage of homosexuals within the United States or abroad".

    If you want to debate that topic, create your own blog or do it elsewhere. This is not a message board, nor is it an open forum. This is my comments section, and I would like you to refrain from trying to debate real world issues only tangently related to the topic at hand.

    And I'll thank you not to dictate to my audience exactly who has the right to chime in to any discussion on my blog. Kindly consider yourself warned.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "If you want people to justify their opinions, get your own fucking blog."

    I can't help it. When people post their opinions, and then expect that the reasoning, and justification, behind them, is going to be taken for granted, and then become hostile when it isn't, I get suspicious.

    "The topic of this post is not "the percentage of homosexuals within the United States or abroad"."

    I know. Unfortunately, it just seems to have devolved in that direction.

    Now, can I just get an explanation as to your reasons and justifications for wanting to see more homosexual characters in comics? Given the tone of your original post, it seems to be something that you very much seem to think goes without saying, and I'm curious to know why.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:39 AM, Blogger Dorian said…

    There's always the reality of the fact that homosexuals comprise a negligible fraction of the general population

    Ah, it's always the ones without the courage to put their names behind their opinions who come up with the really stupid arguements, isn't it?

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:39 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Now, can I just get an explanation as to your reasons and justifications for wanting to see more homosexual characters in comics? Given the tone of your original post, it seems to be something that you very much seem to think goes without saying, and I'm curious to know why.

    No, actually, you can't. You've used up my goodwill this evening quite a while ago.

    There may be a time when I choose to blog about why I feel this way. Until then, you can feel free to wait and wonder.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:44 AM, Blogger Ragnell said…

    Kali -- Seriously, you and everyone else on this thread answered that question a billion times, and he can't seem to understand that most of us would find the stories more interesting that way.

    I say if he comes back, we break out the cat macros.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:49 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "No, actually, you can't."

    Well then, I can't say that I'm really surprised, though I am rather disappointed. It weakens the credibility of your convictions, refusing so steadfastly to explain or debate them.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:56 AM, Blogger Ragnell said…

    Well then, I can't say that I'm really surprised, though I am rather disappointed. It weakens the credibility of your convictions, refusing so steadfastly to explain or debate them.

    Actually, everyone told you their reasons earlier.

    If we explained it any further, we'd have to kill you.

    See, its a secret that only those with special reading comprehension skills can know.

    Go forth, and build your reading comprehension, young grubworm, and then you shall be privvy to the secrets of the blog!

     
  • At March 17, 2007 11:33 AM, Blogger SallyP said…

    Kalinara, I've said it before, but you and Ragnell get some of the most INTERESTING trolls! Why a desire for a little more diversity would bring some anonymous comments about population statistics and being scolded for having an opinion on your OWN blog, just baffles me.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 1:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Actually, everyone told you their reasons earlier."

    Near as I can tell, it seemed that they merely insulted my inetlligence.

    "Why a desire for a little more diversity would bring some anonymous comments about population statistics and being scolded for having an opinion on your OWN blog, just baffles me."

    Why someone would resolutely refuse to explain or defend her opinion baffles me.

    You want "diversity"? Fine, but I'd expect that you'd be willing and ready to explain exactly WHY you feel that "diversity" is such a pressing issue.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 4:09 PM, Blogger kalinara said…

    To Anonymous:

    You want "diversity"? Fine, but I'd expect that you'd be willing and ready to explain exactly WHY you feel that "diversity" is such a pressing issue.

    As Ragnell pointed out, did and done. Now, your last few comments were basically variations of a theme: trying to steer/dictate the conversation present here in the comments section, as well as taking a very arrogant and entitled tone in your demand for answers from me. Answers that, I may add, I already gave.

    I don't feel the need to make allowances for another person's lack of reading comprehension ability at this time.

    Now, if you'd like to continue to comment here, you may, however I will very likely ignore any attempts to further this conversation.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 6:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "As Ragnell pointed out, did and done."

    Pardon me for saying this, but you've done nothing of the sort.

    Essentially, what answers you've given me have been "there should be more homosexual characters" because comic books are a power-fantasy, or because there are non-white, non-Christian, non-physically fit people in our society (or at least, such is the obvious implication), thereby rendering the issue of comic-book characterization into one of (perceived) victims' rights and affirmative action above and beyond any other concerns.

    That's not giving me a reason.

    That's giving me excuses.

    "Now, your last few comments were basically variations of a theme: trying to steer/dictate the conversation present here in the comments section, as well as taking a very arrogant and entitled tone in your demand for answers from me."

    My interest is in understanding your reasons (if any) for an increase in the exposure given homosexuals in comics, not in "dictating" the discussion here, though sadly it seems impossible to raise such questions without attracting knee-jerk, unthinking vitriol from all comers.

    As for arrogance, well, may I again remind you that my basic question of why there should be more homosexual characters remains imperiously unanswered.

    "I don't feel the need to make allowances for another person's lack of reading comprehension ability at this time."

    If you can't reasonably defend a contention, you may as well admit as much.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 6:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    And with that said, I may as well take my leave, I suppose.

     
  • At March 17, 2007 9:55 PM, Blogger Centurion said…

    Hmph...

    I read what appears to be a post commenting on a general observation, and Anon here attacks Kali on that observation.

    Both sides of the pointless fight demand statistics, when the only party really in need of them is this Anon person. When you want to win an argument it's best to use logic and documented sources - those are hard to fight against.

    Kali never needed to provide sources of any kind, as she was *commenting* with her observations of a post *that she linked* - her source was posted for anyone to check out at the very beginning of the post. Sorry, but that defaulted the strength of any argument to Kali.

    That being said, what was the point of arguing anyway? Discussion is one thing, and I'm sure Kali loves people talking about things she posts and comments on no matter what side they may take. As long as they remember that Kali is just a fan of the material, has opinions and a wild imagination, and writes about all the above because she has an interest in the topics. She shouldn't have to defend herself or her opinions in the comment section when her opinions and argument exist already in her original post.

    Anyway, I'm just a little frustated over the idiocy of Anon posters sometimes - using their cloak of shadows to rile people up so no one can really note who they are.

    As for the actual topic at hand, I'm aware of only a handful of characters with alternative lifestyles. I don't care one way or another about the actual percentage or ratio of them to the total superhuman community, except for one issue that I can only remember the first poster actually bringing up.

    Homosexual characters should have personality, and not defined by their nature as a publicity stunt. Takes the handful of characters they have, make them memorable, and then I don't see why more could be introduced. Frankly, I'm more interested in adding depth to the ones we have. In otherwords, I *want* to like Batwoman, but I have no reason to like her - yet.

     
  • At March 19, 2007 12:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sorry to de-rail the discussion here, but could you please not use the term "differently abled"? As a disabled woman, I find it really insulting.

    Other than that, I agree with your point and I'm sorry about all the anon trouble.

     
  • At March 19, 2007 12:28 AM, Blogger kalinara said…

    Hi! Thanks for speaking up and I apologize for inadvertantly causing offense. I can be occasionally insensitive with my word choice but it's out of ignorance rather than malicious intent.

    Thank you for calling me on it, it's the only way I can improve. :-)

     
  • At March 19, 2007 8:33 PM, Blogger Joel Bryan said…

    I think it's best to leave the argumentative Anonymous alone.

    They say give me reasons, you give perfectly valid reasons and they declare them to be excuses. How can you have a logical debate with someone who demands endless proofs of you, but then narrowly defines the terms of what's acceptable or non-acceptable proof based solely on what supports their own thesis...

    Which has been much more nebulously stated than Kalinara's original observation.

    And this, "Oh I'm sorry... whenever I see someone making an observation, I'm just driven out of the goodness in my heart and a simple altruistic desire for logic to come in and start an argument and then get huffy about it and start complaining about being attacked and insulted. It's not like I really WANT to do these things... Truth compels me!" response towards the end...

    Wow... What an interesting world view being presented. Pretzel logic, attempting to define the parameters of the argument so only they can make points, a bit of a martyr's complex... and a bizarre belief that homosexuals comprise 1% or less of the population.

    What a waste of time.

    Pretty soon it'll be "You said/I said" and the final, "Well, that's just my opinion and everyone's entitled to their opinions!"

    I guess that's scoring points or winning an argument in the Anonymous book but in terms of actual intellectual debate, it's meaningless.

     
  • At March 20, 2007 12:45 PM, Blogger Scott said…

    I'm not sure there really are more lesbians than gay men in comics. Check this out:

    http://gayleague.com/gay/characters/index.php

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home