• Welcome to Autism Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, High Functioning Autism and related conditions.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Private Member only forums for more serious discussions that you may wish to not have guests or search engines access to.
    • Your very own blog. Write about anything you like on your own individual blog.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon! Please also check us out @ https://www.twitter.com/aspiescentral

Sexual Orientation in Animated Disney films aimed at kids

Doesn't really fit, to be honest. Most people watching the movie would be too young to understand what sexual orientation even is.
 
True, but romance is romance regardless of sexuality, and movies have been showing straight romances for decades.
Yeah, but small children aged 7 and younger wouldn't understand love/romance/sexual orientation at the same level that a ten-year-old or a teenager would. 10 years is about the age where children even start to begin stopping seeing romance as something something that is simple. It doesn't really match up with the target audience.
 
Yeah, but small children aged 7 and younger wouldn't understand love/romance/sexual orientation at the same level that a ten-year-old or a teenager would. 10 years is about the age where children even start to begin stopping seeing romance as something something that is simple. It doesn't really match up with the target audience.

Right, but small children still see straight romances all the time in cartoons and movies aimed for them, so what I'm asking is why would it be any different for gay romances to be shown to them?

Also just because there's a romantic relationship doesn't mean that it has to take center stage. If Disney does decide to make Elsa gay, I highly doubt it will take up a big portion of the plot.
 
Walt Disney himself was pushing very mild romance and sexual identity some 90 years ago. Don't y'all think it's just a tad too late to eliminate such references in childrens' programming? Not to mention all those children who already legally reside in households brought up by two mothers or two fathers. For them it's just a very basic aspect of their family's existence.


Or are some implying that heterosexuals are inherently more equal than others? Personally I'd think implying prejudice and discrimination would be something far worse to impart to young minds than sexual orientation that may be different from your own.
 
Last edited:
That's actually not true about children!

Maybe it's being in LA, but I have heard children between the ages of 5 and 10 reference something gay (and not insultingly), usually in the context of knowing or hearing of someone who got married.

I had one child proudly explain to me what "gay" means, saying that it's when one boy likes another boy or when one girls like another girl.

I gasped and said, "Is that bad!?"

She said, "No, it just means they can't have babies!"

I'm so relieved that Hdphn33 went that route and this didn't dissolve into something that has to be locked!

And I'm so glad there's more to your opinion than what is apparent. :)
 
Right, but small children still see straight romances all the time in cartoons and movies aimed for them, so what I'm asking is why would it be any different for gay romances to be shown to them?

Also just because there's a romantic relationship doesn't mean that it has to take center stage. If Disney does decide to make Elsa gay, I highly doubt it will take up a big portion of the plot.
If Disney decides to make Elsa gay, it's just to make even more profits. They probably don't even care about representing the LGBT community at all. Disney is basically becoming a monopoly on animation. They even own a Japanese studio, so they are most likely doing it only because they want the money.

I really stopped caring about Hollywood along with movies altogether a while ago.
 
Maybe it's being in LA, but I have heard children between the ages of 5 and 10 reference something gay (and not insultingly), usually in the context of knowing or hearing of someone who got married.
Yeah, that is mostly being in LA. Most other states are most likely not going to have that sort of thing seen/heard on a regular basis.
 
That viewpoint isn't "advanced" @Hdphn33, by that statement you imply that we're incapable of understanding or accepting other arguments. I think I know the stance you are referring to. I saw some such opinions, some were regarding transgender children and the argument that exposing them to such ideas may make them believe that they are not the gender that they are assigned. I am aware of such research.

The thing is, if media influence could change someone's sexual orientation, wouldn't that mean, then, all children would lean towards being straight as they grow up as that is what they're always seeing? We know that this isn't the case, even in more closed circles where they are not exposed to any same-sex images or literature. You can't make someone believe they lean towards one way or another by exposure alone. You can't convince someone to be something they're not, or otherwise "gay-therapy" would be successful. We know it isn't.
As people grow up they know what they prefer, I've experimented with same-gender relationships, while I still like some girls, I know I prefer men. There is nothing wrong with experimenting and homosexuality in general. That is the point that is trying to be made. There is no promotion of anything further than implication and representation. It's not trying to convert, but simply show that it exists and that it's normal. It's then the parents job to be open-minded and explain that some people have those preferences and some people don't. We can't forget the role of the parent and general education as a whole after the fact. As the child grows up they can make their own mind up and see where that takes them. Any sexual undertones are not even picked up by little kids, I know I didn't understand or even notice it at all before the age of 11.
 
Last edited:
I don't have any strong feelings about the topic (Frozen 2) itself. Though if Disney wants to do that, it's their call. People should be allowed to make the stories they wanna make. I personally think it's wrong that people are trying to say what should and shouldn't be allowed to be represented in fiction.
 
My grandniece and grandnephew have two moms. The kids are both less than 6 years old.

Should we take them away from a stable lesbian home?

Does your answer change if they are adopted or the natural offspring of one or the other partner?

Disney is noted for having lgbt days at their amusement parks. It makes sense to me that Disney would also be willing to take a risk on a non-straight character or two.

Plus, same gender male couples traditionally (in the usa) have lots of disposable income. Some of those men are raising children together. What revenue Disney might lose in parents who object to non-het couples will be more than made up by same gender couples taking their kids to the movies. And yes, by some of us non-het people who will go to the film to support Disney. One of those non-het people without kids is me. I intent to go see that movie.

I knew very early that I wasn't straight. Like first grade early. I didn't have the words for it until much later-- fifth grade-- when I found the magazine article at my aunt's house that informed me that not all grown ups paired off into opposite sex couples.

Yes, homosexuality does occur in nature-, ask any farmer who had had the misfortune of getting a bull that turned out to be gay. Not a good scene for the farmer or the cows but it does happen.

And we ourselves are animals.

Now, in these days can a company afford to ignore us (the non-straights) and the reality of our lives and our purchasing power?

Representation in entertainment and in the media is critical for any marginalized societal group. It is critical for us as autistic and critical for some of us as autistic who are not straight. Also, within the autistic population, we have MORE than our share of asexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, aromantic, biromantic, and trans per population than would be expected.

So yeah, Disney is taking a risk. It was probably a calculated well-planned risk. And it is about time.

Let's not split ourselves into warring segments here those. Honest disagreements happen and that is healthy. Calling each other homophobic is rather Othering and I have had enough of being an Outsider and Outlier in my own life to not want that to happen in this forum.

With respect,
china
 
If Disney decides to make Elsa gay, it's just to make even more profits. They probably don't even care about representing the LGBT community at all. Disney is basically becoming a monopoly on animation. They even own a Japanese studio, so they are most likely doing it only because they want the money.

I really stopped caring about Hollywood along with movies altogether a while ago.

Fair enough.
 
If Disney decides to make Elsa gay, it's just to make even more profits. They probably don't even care about representing the LGBT community at all. Disney is basically becoming a monopoly on animation. They even own a Japanese studio, so they are most likely doing it only because they want the money.

I really stopped caring about Hollywood along with movies altogether a while ago.

Luckily, motivation is irrelevant, and the positive impact will happen no matter what the people doing it had in mind! :)
 
My grandniece and grandnephew have two moms. The kids are both less than 6 years old.

Should we take them away from a stable lesbian home?

Does your answer change if they are adopted or the natural offspring of one or the other partner?

Disney is noted for having lgbt days at their amusement parks. It makes sense to me that Disney would also be willing to take a risk on a non-straight character or two.

Plus, same gender male couples traditionally (in the usa) have lots of disposable income. Some of those men are raising children together. What revenue Disney might lose in parents who object to non-het couples will be more than made up by same gender couples taking their kids to the movies. And yes, by some of us non-het people who will go to the film to support Disney. One of those non-het people without kids is me. I intent to go see that movie.

I knew very early that I wasn't straight. Like first grade early. I didn't have the words for it until much later-- fifth grade-- when I found the magazine article at my aunt's house that informed me that not all grown ups paired off into opposite sex couples.

Yes, homosexuality does occur in nature-, ask any farmer who had had the misfortune of getting a bull that turned out to be gay. Not a good scene for the farmer or the cows but it does happen.

And we ourselves are animals.

Now, in these days can a company afford to ignore us (the non-straights) and the reality of our lives and our purchasing power?

Representation in entertainment and in the media is critical for any marginalized societal group. It is critical for us as autistic and critical for some of us as autistic who are not straight. Also, within the autistic population, we have MORE than our share of asexual, bisexual, gay, lesbian, aromantic, biromantic, and trans per population than would be expected.

So yeah, Disney is taking a risk. It was probably a calculated well-planned risk. And it is about time.

Let's not split ourselves into warring segments here those. Honest disagreements happen and that is healthy. Calling each other homophobic is rather Othering and I have had enough of being an Outsider and Outlier in my own life to not want that to happen in this forum.

With respect,
china

Excellent points!

I will definitely refrain from doing so again, now that I see that. The first time was a correction because the OP had a contradiction.

I honestly don't see it as an insult, just a descriptive term. If someone is against this Disney thing, it is a matter of fact that they are homophobic, but if this is considered a derogatory term then I completely agree about not using it.

If someone says, "I don't think a black person should be in this movie, kids shouldn't see that, they might become black."

Not only is it an obviously silly notion but it also has the implication that it's bad to be black and we must do what we can to avoid it.

And so if I say, "You're racist," then I don't think that would be insulting.

So that was my thinking, but I understand the other side, too!
 
The exact same fear and resistance to social change came with racial discrimination as it does for sexual discrimination against the LGBTQ community. I still remember all the gasps and outrage when Captain Kirk was forced to kiss Lieutenant Uhura on primetime network television in late 1968.

How dare they show that to children, let alone all the decent white folks! Unacceptable! :eek:

We survived. Time marches on. So did most of society.

-Perspective. It matters. ;)
 
Like the OP I'm a Brit in my 40s and I was aware of homosexuality before I even went to school. British TV & movies were full of gay characters. Most comedies had gay characters at some point. Mr Humphreys in Are You Being Served, many of the characters portrayed by Charles Hawtrey and Frankie Howerd in Carry On Movies and more, characters on The Two Ronnies, The Dick Emery Show, Stanley Baxter. I know many of those names will mean nothing to many people outside the UK or younger than myself, but they were all mainstream entertainment that kids watched with their families.

There were gay people all over TV and in the movies, but they all shared certain characteristics:
They were all men.
They were flamboyant dressers.
They were weak and effeminate.
They spoke in a camp voice.
They flounced.
Most disturbingly of all, they were often portrayed as desperate and predatory. They were feared lest they kidnap other men and rape them.

Only last week I found some old Dave Allen shows from 1971 on YouTube. One sketch features a postman viewing a sign on a garden gate which instead of saying "Beware of The Dog" said "Beware of Them". The postie shakes his head as if it's a misprint and rings the doorbell to deliver a parcel. He is answered by two flouncing men wearing floral shirts and chiffon cravats who drag the postman into the house, kicking and screaming whilst they cried "Ooh Ducky!"
That was considered humour in 1971 but viewed today it's shocking and could be considered homophobic propaganda.

Dave Allen was for slightly more mature audience back then but it's fresh in my memory.
My point is that many of us, including the OP, grew up with gay characters all over the place, but few people complained when they were being negatively stereotyped other than gay people themselves.

The major difference between what I grew up with and now is that the stereotypes have been dropped and we accept that lesbians exist too. If it was OK to feature gay characters when they were being played as effeminate and predatory, why are we fussing about them being portrayed in a more realistic and less damaging fashion?
 
Last edited:
Like the OP I'm a Brit in my 40s and I was aware of homosexuality before I even went to school. British TV & movies were full of gay characters. Most comedies had gay characters at some point. Mr Humphreys in Are You Being Served, many of the characters portrayed by Charles Hawtrey and Frankie Howerd in Carry On Movies and more, characters on The Two Ronnies, The Dick Emery Show, Stanley Baxter. I know many of those names will mean nothing to many people outside the UK or younger than myself, but they were all mainstream entertainment that kids watched with their families.

There were gay people all over TV and in the movies, but they all shared certain characteristics:
They were all men.
They were flamboyant dressers.
They were weak and effeminate.
They spoke in a camp voice.
They flounced.
Most disturbingly of all, they were often portrayed as desperate and predatory. They were feared lest they kidnap other men and rape them.

Only last week I found some old Dave Allen shows from 1971 on YouTube. One sketch features a postman viewing a sign on a garden gate which instead of saying "Beware of The Dog" said "Beware of Them". The postie shakes his head as if it's a misprint and rings the doorbell to deliver a parcel. He is answered by two flouncing men wearing floral shirts and chiffon cravats who drag the postman into the house, kicking and screaming whilst they cried "Ooh Ducky!"
That was considered humour in 1971 but viewed today it's shocking and could be considered homophobic propaganda.

Dave Allen was for slightly more mature audience back then but it's fresh in my memory.
My point is that many of us, including the OP, grew up with gay characters all over the place, but few people complained when they were being stereotypes negatively other than gay people themselves.

The major difference between what I grew up with and now is that the stereotypes have been dropped and we accept that lesbians exist too. If it was OK to feature gay characters when they were being played as effeminate and predatory, why are we fussing about them being portrayed in a more realistic and less damaging fashion?

Yeah, they made one of the Sons on Mrs Brown's Boys a gay, Rory, OK the character himself is literally camper than a row of tents, but there's nothing wrong with that.
 
Just a little pedantic point. Gay is an adjective not a noun. The character is gay, not "a gay" ;)

Personally I don't like seeing gay men portrayed as camp flouncers. Yes there are camp men, some of whom are gay, but most of the gay men I've met are not camp,nor are all the lesbians I've known "butch" - some are but the majority are not.
 
Hmmm. I don't think they should promote gayness (is that a word?) in any way. I believe same sex marriage and romantic relationships are a sin, and portraying it in a positive way will mislead children.

I don't hate or fear gay people, I just don't approve of same sex romantic relationships. As a Christian, I can love and be friends with gay people. I just don't have to support or encourage their gayness.
 
Hmmm. I don't think they should promote gayness (is that a word?) in any way. I believe same sex marriage and romantic relationships are a sin, and portraying it in a positive way will mislead children.

I don't hate or fear gay people, I just don't approve of same sex romantic relationships. As a Christian, I can love and be friends with gay people. I just don't have to support or encourage their gayness.

But isn't Disney a secular company?
 

New Threads

Top Bottom