World Andrew Garfield wants Spider-Man to be Gay?

[Boy Scout]

It's basically why I find the whole us vs. them thing ridiculous.

I agree that such a mentality shouldn't exist. Sure, we're all different, but at the end of the day, we're all people. We should embrace our differences.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Huh. Just looked that up. But still unsure. Because relationship-wise there really isn't anything different other than the fear. And I've seen gay guys who were more guy's guys than some of the straight guys I know, and some straight guys who were more flamboyant than gay guys.

That may be true for you, but you're not gay. See what I did there?

My point though is simply that sexuality, as well as sex goes a long way in defining a person. True, a lot of that is the result of society, but some of it is dictated purely by brain chemistry.

I suppose there are some gray areas, but overall, it's a big deal.

Obviously gay men simply having brains similar to women doesn't mean they'll all be foppish, since hardly all women qualify as that. Or vice versa.

 

[Ultimatehero]

That may be true for you, but you're not gay. See what I did there?

My point though is simply that sexuality, as well as sex goes a long way in defining a person. True, a lot of that is the result of society, but some of it is dictated purely by brain chemistry.

I suppose there are some gray areas, but overall, it's a big deal.

Well, actually to the first point - a gay guy wouldn't know if a relationship with a woman is the same just like a straight guy wouldn't know if a relationship with a guy is the same. For gay guys and straight guys, an opposite or same sex relationship is the last thing they'd want because they don't like that. So, in seeing how similar they are - you'd really need input from somebody in the middle who doesn't think either is disgusting and rather pleasurable. Basically the guy who doesn't wince about being intimate with either. So yes, a gay guy wouldn't see girls as pleasurable. A straight guy wouldn't see dudes as pleasurable. Or basically the exact same response. For the pleasurable side - you'd need to consult bisexuals, polysexuals, and pansexuals.

You're saying dictate by brain chemistry -- what exactly is dictated by brain chemistry? What traits?

 

[Thundercrack85]

In fairness, a lot of this is entirely societal. Though there is probably a biological basis for homophobia. But I don't want to derail this thread with a scientific analysis of human sexuality.

Well, the most obvious one would be who or what you find attractive, but even that is subjective. I.e. even straight men have radically different tastes in women. The second most obvious one is mannerisms, though again, there's considerable variation, just like there is in the sexes.

 

[The Infernal]

Logically? It would change quite a bit, because people of different races, genders, and sexualities experience different things. But in the context of a comic book or film, where you control everything that happens to the characters, probably not much.

Logical in the real world, but that is not the point. I'm not aware of any great examples that tie the character of Peter Parker down to a straight white male that couldn't be easily solved with a similar change and do little to no harm to actual characterisations of those involved.

It just seems like a pointless change to me. What is the purpose of making him gay? I wouldn't boycott the film or anything on that basis alone, but I would absolutely question the decision.

Which is a fair question. But does that mean it can never be attempted because some in the audience have trouble comprehending why someone may want to take an interpretation of the character in that direction? I expect you could level similar accusations to Ultimate Spider-man where it chose to deviate from the source material.

I should maybe reiterate what I've said elsewhere in this forum so I'm being honest. I personally do not want to see this happen. At least right now. I think it's an interesting idea and I don't see how it really change the character of Peter Parker, but I'd prefer the more traditional one first for a while.

 

[Ultimatehero]

In fairness, a lot of this is entirely societal. Though there is probably a biological basis for homophobia. But I don't want to derail this thread with a scientific analysis of human sexuality.

Well, the most obvious one would be who or what you find attractive, but even that is subjective. I.e. even straight men have radically different tastes in women. The second most obvious one is mannerisms, though again, there's considerable variation, just like there is in the sexes.

It is biological same as racism. Mankind fears and therefore hates what they don't understand. It's one of mankind's worst traits.

The mannerisms isn't one, that's a stereotype. As said, I've met gay guys that were more macho in mannerisms and very flamboyant straight guys.

 

[Boy Scout]

Logical in the real world, but that is not the point.

And I acknowledged that in my next sentence.

I'm not aware of any great examples that tie the character of Peter Parker down to a straight white male that couldn't be easily solved with a similar change and do little to no harm to actual characterisations of those involved.

Sure. But if you're not going to write the character (or characters) any differently, if an effort to reflect that change, then why change them to begin with? The changes would be cosmetic and pointless.

Which is a fair question. But does that mean it can never be attempted because some in the audience have trouble comprehending why someone may want to take an interpretation of the character in that direction?

When there are other options available? Like creating another character? Kind of.

I expect you could level similar accusations to Ultimate Spider-man where it chose to deviate from the source material.

Not really. That Spider-Man isn't Peter Parker.

I should maybe reiterate what I've said elsewhere in this forum so I'm being honest. I personally do not want to see this happen. At least right now. I think it's an interesting idea and I don't see how it really change the character of Peter Parker, but I'd prefer the more traditional one first for a while.

I respect that.

 

[The Game]

I like how everyone is quick to assume he was joking.

or 1/4 Joking

 

[Thundercrack85]

Racism has no basis in biology.

These traits (i.e. mannerisms) aren't random. Obviously there are going to be degrees - not every straight woman is into flowers, and ponies, and not every straight men is into - whatever the stereotypical opposite is (football and beer?) But those traits aren't coincidental.

Though the disagreement now seems to be over whether or not women and men are fundamentally different, and how that relates to homosexuality.

 

[jonathancrane]

It is biological same as racism. Mankind fears and therefore hates what they don't understand. It's one of mankind's worst traits.

The mannerisms isn't one, that's a stereotype. As said, I've met gay guys that were more macho in mannerisms and very flamboyant straight guys.

This.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Racism has no basis in biology.

These traits (i.e. mannerisms) aren't random. Obviously there are going to be degrees - not every straight woman is into flowers, and ponies, and not every straight men is into - whatever the stereotypical opposite is (football and beer?) But those traits aren't coincidental.

Though the disagreement now seems to be over whether or not women and men are fundamentally different, and how that relates to homosexuality.

If you see things in that way - no and it would be ridiculous to say people are born homophobic. How are you born to hate someone so specific like that? That makes no sense. People are born to fear what they don't understand though. That's been with us since the caveman probably and can clearly be seen throughout history for anyone different.

No. Because many straight guys have limp wrists, I've seen them. I've seen gay guys who are a heck of a lot more "straight" with mannerisms than a lot of the gay guys I know. So, if you were using mannerisms as being an indicator - lol - you'd be wrong about a heck of the straight guys I know. So if that is something that comes with a different brain - how come straight guys act that way too? Are part of the straight brains slightly more like gay guy brains than straight guys who don't act that way? And if that's the case - are some gay guys brains more like straight guys brains? If there weren't so many flamboyant limp wristed straight guys, okay - but since there are... I really don't know how brain comes into play.

And now I see you're claiming gay guys are women....

 

[Thundercrack85]

You're not big on evolutionary psychology, are you?

You keep oversimplifying what I say, it gets tiresome.

Gay peoples' brains are structured like those of their opposite sex counterparts, - that does not make them identical. Hence why I said "degrees". There is a difference between stating that, and saying that "gay men are women".

You should study data, not just personal experiences.

 

[Ultimatehero]

You're saying it's 'biological' to be homophobic. It's completely societal. Or if you want to look at something being born in people that would be fearing what one doesn't understand. In the age of the Greeks, all our greatest warriors were boinking each other. It's more of a "modern" thing for some guys to be afraid of two guys getting it on. Before the whole notion of sodomy - you had your Spartan warriors getting it on. It was about the manliest thing you could do before battle lol. So if something was to evolve biologically, I'd highly doubt it could happen that fast and for not a majority.

You're saying mannerisms is dictated by one's brains. And you are avoiding the fairly simple question about this. What does this say about straight guys who have those mannerisms? Are their brains so different too? I also looked at the reports - they say that the brains are similar, but nowhere in those reports do they state what is similar or what traits are similar. For all we know that difference could just be in who they like getting into bed with. And if it is mannerisms - as you are proposing - why do straight guys have limp wrists?

 

[The Infernal]

And I acknowledged that in my next sentence.

I got that part, it was just the use of the term logical and juxtaposing that with the context of a fictional setting. I read into that you may have thought that was illogical whereas I was trying to say you can't really apply the same rules. Though I could have misread into that.

Sure. But if you're not going to write the character (or characters) any differently, if an effort to reflect that change, then why change them to begin with? The changes would be cosmetic and pointless.

Well personally if they were to change it then I would argue that those traits be built upon. It need not betray the core of the character and could be another layer to the character. I think similar things could be said about Ultimate Spider-man (original) and other interpretations of Spider-man/Peter Parker beyond that.

When there are other options available? Like creating another character? Kind of.

Could be an option (something we could arguably already have in Ultimate Spider-woman in a way). Though not knowing what future creators motivations could be I think it would be unfair to rule out an honest reason for them to just stick with changing Peter.

Not really. That Spider-Man isn't Peter Parker.

Currently. I don't mean the change to a different character. I was actually referring to Ultimate Spider-man (Peter Parker) who wasn't exactly beholden to the 616 mythology either.

I respect that.

Thank you.

 

[blalex620]

Canon is changed all the time, but more often than not, there are things about the character (whether they be characteristics or people or locations) that have consistently stuck with that character for the majority of their existence. Those things are typically considered sacred (for lack of a better word) and shouldn't be changed without very good reason.

Is Spider-Man being heterosexual one of those things? Hmm...I suppose. I mean...his love interests have all been women. The love of his life is a woman. The character has been understood to be heterosexual for the majority of his existence. So...why change that? For what reason? To make a statement? Why can't they simply create a new character? Why does an already existing character have to be altered just to prove a point?

I'm not against change. I think change is good. Sometimes, it's necessary. But, honestly, it depends on the character and the change you're making to that character. It also, I think, depends on what you, as in individual, are comfortable with, and how much you care about the character in question. I mean, despite everything I just said, I wouldn't blink if the next Spider-Man was black. On the other hand, I would be upset if the next Superman wasn't an alien from Krypton.

I don't know...when it comes to things like this, I don't think there's one right or wrong answer. However, it should be said that intent should play a huge factor in the response these decisions receive.

I agree with most of this. I have no problem with homosexuality, I may not agree with it personally but I think everyone has a right to feel how they feel. That being said to me there are a few things that you just don't change about a main character: ethnicity, gender, and sexuality. I don't say this to be insensitive towards other people (I'm a black man who cringes at the idea of a black Johnny Storm). I just think you shouldn't change something established about a character unless it's for a good reason and it's to help the character grow. I don't agree with changing for the sake of appeasing one group of people. If they want a gay superhero make a new Spider-Man be gay not Peter Parker. They wanted an ethnic Spider-Man so they made Morales.
To me there would be no good reason to change Peter's sexuality and MJ's gender and ethnicity other than they believe it would appease a particular group of people.

 

[Wams]

He said he was half-joking/half-serious about it.

And you know what, I would be 100% okay with it if they did it, mostly because the fanboy backlash would be both a hilarious and sad thing to watch. Of course it would never happen because the studio/producer wouldn't have the balls to do it.

Why does it take balls to ruin Spider-man?
It's shows that they have brains not to do that.

How about demand Marvel to create a new original gay characters...
then see if it could stand on it's own merit.

Why do you think it would be funny to see
fans pissed off? Not cool.

 

[Primal Slayer]

Seems like he wouldn't mind if the character was bisexual which is totally fine. I say make it happen (know it wont but in some alternate earth it could)

 

[Boy Scout]

I got that part, it was just the use of the term logical and juxtaposing that with the context of a fictional setting. I read into that you may have thought that was illogical whereas I was trying to say you can't really apply the same rules. Though I could have misread into that.

Nah, I wasn't trying to imply any of that. Sorry for the confusion.

Well personally if they were to change it then I would argue that those traits be built upon. It need not betray the core of the character and could be another layer to the character.

That's actually a fair point, but I would argue that there are other ways that a writer could achieve (more or less) the same result in much less unnecessary and controversial ways.

Could be an option...

It should be an option, I think.

Though not knowing what future creators motivations could be I think it would be unfair to rule out an honest reason for them to just stick with changing Peter.

What do you mean?

Currently. I don't mean the change to a different character. I was actually referring to Ultimate Spider-man (Peter Parker) who wasn't exactly beholden to the 616 mythology either.

Oh, sorry about that. I thought you meant that because the current Ultimate Spider-Man is black, that was ample excuse to make major changes to his 616 counterpart. My mistake.

Anyway: I'm not saying that every little thing has to stay the same. I like change. Change is good. But there are some things that don't need to be (and perhaps even shouldn't be) changed.

Thank you.

No problem. I'm very glad we can have this conversation without resorting to personal attacks. You seem like an intelligent fellow and I'm enjoying this exchange of ideas.

 

[Thundercrack85]

You're saying it's 'biological' to be homophobic. It's completely societal. Or if you want to look at something being born in people that would be fearing what one doesn't understand. In the age of the Greeks, all our greatest warriors were boinking each other. It's more of a "modern" thing for some guys to be afraid of two guys getting it on. Before the whole notion of sodomy - you had your Spartan warriors getting it on. It was about the manliest thing you could do before battle lol. So if something was to evolve biologically, I'd highly doubt it could happen that fast and for not a majority.

You're saying mannerisms is dictated by one's brains. And you are avoiding the fairly simple question about this. What does this say about straight guys who have those mannerisms? Are their brains so different too? I also looked at the reports - they say that the brains are similar, but nowhere in those reports do they state what is similar or what traits are similar. For all we know that difference could just be in who they like getting into bed with. And if it is mannerisms - as you are proposing - why do straight guys have limp wrists?

I wouldn't compare the homosexuality in Greek militaries to modern homosexuality for several reasons... But, let's not go into that. I would argue that homophobia is a mix of nature and nurture, hence why almost all cultures have it. There are a number of theories.

But moving on, to your second paragraph. Why do you think women behave the way they do, and men behave the way they do? Why do boys play with action figures, and girls with dolls? Now before you say I am stereotyping (and granted, I am oversimplifying, for the sake of expediency), there will of course be boys who want to play with dolls, and girls who want to play with action figures, but they will be a minority.

The point is, we got the gender roles we have today for a reason, biology. Now why are there limp-wristed straight men? I guess it could be for any number of reasons. Could be an estrogen imbalance, an evolutionary tactic (rather clever, that one), nurture... or a mix of all of the above.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It wasn't about homosexuality because certainly straight dudes were getting it on back then. It was about the fear or lack there of it being born into people. Straight dudes back then had absolutely no fear about getting it on with another dude. If you say they were gay, nope. It was the belief that if you had sex with the guys you were going into battle with you would fight harder to keep each other alive. So, even straight guys participated.

So now you're saying mannerisms isn't connected to the brain but possibly other things which could effect straight and gay guys...

 

[Thundercrack85]

Why must it be everything or nothing?

Degrees, man. I've been stressing that the whole time.

Biology will dictate mannerisms, but it is always a mix of nature and nurture.

 

[blalex620]

There's honestly no reason to change Peter's sexuality. The only reason it would be done would be to appease the gay community. Yet, it would piss off everyone who doesn't want his sexuality changed. If they want to make a statement of support instead of doing something that would piss off other people do something that would make the gay community happy while doing nothing to any other community i.e. creating or bringing an established gay character to the forefront.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Why must it be everything or nothing?

Degrees, man. I've been stressing that the whole time.

Biology will dictate mannerisms, but it is always a mix of nature and nurture.

Nature -- fear what we don't understand
Nurture -- brought up to fear gay people

That I do understand. The thing is you're saying the ways racism and homophobia are instilled into people are completely different. How are they different? Yes, you'll probably state skin color and sleeping with. No, that's not what I'm getting at. You're saying people are born to specifically hate gay people whereas people aren't born to specifically hate those who are black. So how exactly does sexuality come into play with nature if it's not "fearing what they don't understand" and is just hate gay period (since evidently, according to you - it is not instilled the same way racism is)?

Okay, so biology dictates. Not brain - not flamboyant mannerisms accompany a gay brain as you were implying before. Straight guys and gay guys are just as open to it. So it isn't something cemented as a gay thing since straight guys are that way too. Or is it that gay guys who aren't flamboyant are just going against their nature and straight guys who are flamboyant are going against their nature - rather than everyone just going to their nature and it isn't solitary.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Well it's worth mentioning that it's been demonstrated that people feel safer with (and more attracted to) people who look like them. So, there is a biological aspect to racism. Homophobia is a bit more involved, and there are competing theories. But fearing what you don't understand is probably part of it.

The brain is biology. If a female brain produces effeminate behavior, then it stands to reason that a male brain structured like a female brain could produce something similiar. And of course, vice versa. But, obviously, if society doesn't... go for that (or if your parents teach you to be masculine), then men (gay or straight) who are effeminate, will attempt to act more masculine.

 

[The Infernal]

What do you mean?

Essentially. Why do it.

Whatever creator would hope to achieve by making their interpretation of Spider-man gay/black/whatever, I would personally hope that the change be meaningful. That it be motivated by something more than simply for the sake of it. I wouldn't pinpoint it down to any particular motivation myself, but I'd at least hope that anyone choosing to make that change honestly saw a compelling reason why it is worth pursuing in their case.

You seem like an intelligent fellow

That's a coincidence, I swear. Ask anyone here.