Are Tien and Chiaotzu a romantic couple?

[ABED]

It even more heavily reinforces the toxically masculine idea that it's impossible or worthy of mockery for two men to show platonic affection and love for each other. That the only reason two men would live together and be protective of each other is because "they has the sex, lolz!" It's such an emotionally stunted way of looking at the world.

Why the hell else would 2 unrelated men choose to willingly spend their entire lives together? I've never heard of any group of straight men from any culture doing that (and platonic love is a myth). So its common sense to assume that they're gay, not "toxic masculinity" (which is a stupid, misandrist concept).

How is platonic love a myth?

[ruler9871]

I don't like the idea of shows doing completely empty political pandering for no reason other than a subset of fans demanding it. It's a pretty awkward spot

The idea that including LGBT people in media is political pandering is just as absurd as saying that having black people appear in media is political pandering.

When you drop in something that has no relevance or meaning to the show at all just to say you did it, it does come off as pandering. As a black guy myself, white guilt fueled tokenism is very annoying. I'd rather see a new black character or series rather then "Hey we made this guy black now. But not too black!"

I'm also Black and I hate Tokenism too.

[ruler9871]

It even more heavily reinforces the toxically masculine idea that it's impossible or worthy of mockery for two men to show platonic affection and love for each other. That the only reason two men would live together and be protective of each other is because "they has the sex, lolz!" It's such an emotionally stunted way of looking at the world.

Why the hell else would 2 unrelated men choose to willingly spend their entire lives together? I've never heard of any group of straight men from any culture doing that (and platonic love is a myth). So its common sense to assume that they're gay, not "toxic masculinity" (which is a stupid, misandrist concept).

How is platonic love a myth?

The ideal of Platonic love is based on the unnatural falsehood that Romantic love can exist without sexual lust, even though we know through common sense & Biology that Romance itself is a spinoff/extension of sexual lust and only develops after it.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Wait wait WHAT? I'm gay and feel REALLY insulted that platonic love cant exist according to you. So you think there's no such thing as love without sex in mind?

[ruler9871]

Wait wait WHAT? I'm gay and feel REALLY insulted that platonic love cant exist according to you. So you think there's no such thing as love without sex in mind?

There are 4 different types of love: family love, friendship/empathy love, spiritual/religious love and romantic love (the last of which is inherently sexual).

Platonic love is based on the idea that romantic love can exist without sexual attraction, which is simply impossible regardless of a person's orientation.

[Cure Dragon 255]

Oh ok. That makes sense. I dont think Tenshinhan (Almost no one in the thread is saying it correctly) is in love with Chiaotzu. I think he is most likely Asexual.

[ABED]

Wait wait WHAT? I'm gay and feel REALLY insulted that platonic love cant exist according to you. So you think there's no such thing as love without sex in mind?

There are 4 different types of love: family love, friendship/empathy love, spiritual/religious love and romantic love (the last of which is inherently sexual).

Platonic love is based on the idea that romantic love can exist without sexual attraction, which is simply impossible regardless of a person's orientation.

Where'd you get that definition? Every definition I've heard of the concept is basically a very close relationship, but without sexual intimacy. It has nothing to do with romance. Of course you can't have romantic love without sexual desire. Close male-male relationships are what people would call a "bromance".

[ruler9871]

Oh ok. That makes sense. I dont think Tenshinhan (Almost no one in the thread is saying it correctly) is in love with Chiaotzu. I think he is most likely Asexual.

So do I.

[ruler9871]

Wait wait WHAT? I'm gay and feel REALLY insulted that platonic love cant exist according to you. So you think there's no such thing as love without sex in mind?

There are 4 different types of love: family love, friendship/empathy love, spiritual/religious love and romantic love (the last of which is inherently sexual).

Platonic love is based on the idea that romantic love can exist without sexual attraction, which is simply impossible regardless of a person's orientation.

Where'd you get that definition? Every definition I've heard of the concept is basically a very close relationship, but without sexual intimacy. It has nothing to do with romance. Of course you can't have romantic love without sexual desire. Close male-male relationships are what people would call a "bromance".

The definition I used was the one Plato himself used.

[Gaffer Tape]

It even more heavily reinforces the toxically masculine idea that it's impossible or worthy of mockery for two men to show platonic affection and love for each other. That the only reason two men would live together and be protective of each other is because "they has the sex, lolz!" It's such an emotionally stunted way of looking at the world.

Why the hell else would 2 unrelated men choose to willingly spend their entire lives together? I've never heard of any group of straight men from any culture doing that (and platonic love is a myth). So its common sense to assume that they're gay, not "toxic masculinity" (which is a stupid, misandrist concept).

As was said, there's a lot to unpack here. First off, I'm not terribly interested in a debate of how broadly reaching the term "platonic love" is since I never used the term to begin with. If we're really insisting on splitting hairs, I said "platonic affection and love." You might argue I'm using the word in a broader sense than its classical connotation. However, in the dictionary, the adjective "platonic" is defined as "Neither sexual nor romantic in nature," and that is how I meant it. Yes, you can express affection with friends. I'm sure, for example, you've heard of hugs. And you can love your friends without there being a romantic connotation to it. And two men can certainly live together without a sexual component. They're typically called roommates. Even in Dragon Ball, there are other examples of males who cohabitate. Yamcha and Pu'erh have spent their entire lives together. Kuririn lived with the Muten Roshi for years before he brought a romantic partner into the mix. God and Mr. Popo spent decades together, as did Dende and Mr. Popo. And Karin and Yajirobe. Just because your view of what masculinity and friendship can be and how it can be expressed is extraordinarily limited doesn't make that true for everybody.

As for the rest, while I actually do believe that misandry is just as valid a critique against certain societal norms and actions as misogyny is, toxic masculinity is not, not, not, not, NOT an example of that. It is a very valid set of belief and actions, adherence to which hurts both women and men.

[ABED]

There are 4 different types of love: family love, friendship/empathy love, spiritual/religious love and romantic love (the last of which is inherently sexual).

Platonic love is based on the idea that romantic love can exist without sexual attraction, which is simply impossible regardless of a person's orientation.

Where'd you get that definition? Every definition I've heard of the concept is basically a very close relationship, but without sexual intimacy. It has nothing to do with romance. Of course you can't have romantic love without sexual desire. Close male-male relationships are what people would call a "bromance".

The definition I used was the one Plato himself used.

I took philosophy courses and read Plato, but I don't recall him ever saying that. I could be wrong, but that's not how I recall his conception of it.

Regardless, whether that is his definition, the colloquial definition is that of an extremely close relationship without sex. Even if either or both have that desire, if they don't act on it, it's still platonic. It's like being married, but without physical intimacy. So while perhaps we're using the term incorrectly, the concept we are using is very real.

[SaiyamanMS]

A seemingly simple question is deceptively complex due to the various cultural and sociological baggage contained within.

[...]

To get off the deep trains of thought, though, I'd say evidence in the series suggests to me that Tenshinhan is probably asexual. I'd say Goku is as well...

I trimmed most of your post here because it was long, but the whole thing was magnificent. You have summed everything up perfectly, saying pretty much everything that needed to be said here.

A lot of the other recent posts in this thread have been a shit show, so let’s see if I can work with this...

There are 4 different types of love: family love, friendship/empathy love, spiritual/religious love and romantic love (the last of which is inherently sexual).

Platonic love is based on the idea that romantic love can exist without sexual attraction, which is simply impossible regardless of a person's orientation.

Uh, asexual people exist and they can have romantic relationships without sexual attraction.

When you drop in something that has no relevance or meaning to the show at all just to say you did it, it does come off as pandering. As a black guy myself, white guilt fueled tokenism is very annoying. I'd rather see a new black character or series rather then "Hey we made this guy black now. But not too black!"

Do Rhodey and Falcon in the MCU count as pandering because they’re black and the majority of other characters in the franchise (prior to Black Panther) are white? Or is being black just an aspect of the fact they’re multidimensional characters who happen to exist among other people who aren’t black? Same as LGBT people, except you can’t tell if someone is LGBT just by looking at them. You often can’t tell that someone is LGBT unless they outright state it to you.

Let’s say for arguments sake that Oob is gay (there’s absolutely nothing ever to indicate Oob’s preferences, so I’m using him as a blank slate to work with in this hypothetical) and we got a shot of him saying goodbye to his boyfriend before flying off to a fight in GT or something. Would that be pandering? Would that same thing be pandering if he was straight and there was a shot of him saying goodbye to his girlfriend?

[ruler9871]

It even more heavily reinforces the toxically masculine idea that it's impossible or worthy of mockery for two men to show platonic affection and love for each other. That the only reason two men would live together and be protective of each other is because "they has the sex, lolz!" It's such an emotionally stunted way of looking at the world.

Why the hell else would 2 unrelated men choose to willingly spend their entire lives together? I've never heard of any group of straight men from any culture doing that (and platonic love is a myth). So its common sense to assume that they're gay, not "toxic masculinity" (which is a stupid, misandrist concept).

As was said, there's a lot to unpack here. First off, I'm not terribly interested in a debate of how broadly reaching the term "platonic love" is since I never used the term to begin with. If we're really insisting on splitting hairs, I said "platonic affection and love." You might argue I'm using the word in a broader sense than its classical connotation. However, in the dictionary, the adjective "platonic" is defined as "Neither sexual nor romantic in nature," and that is how I meant it. Yes, you can express affection with friends. I'm sure, for example, you've heard of hugs. And you can love your friends without there being a romantic connotation to it. And two men can certainly live together without a sexual component. They're typically called roommates. Even in Dragon Ball, there are other examples of males who cohabitate. Yamcha and Pu'erh have spent their entire lives together. Kuririn lived with the Muten Roshi for years before he brought a romantic partner into the mix. God and Mr. Popo spent decades together, as did Dende and Mr. Popo. And Karin and Yajirobe. Just because your view of what masculinity and friendship can be and how it can be expressed is extraordinarily limited doesn't make that true for everybody.

As for the rest, while I actually do believe that misandry is just as valid a critique against certain societal norms and actions as misogyny is, toxic masculinity is not, not, not, not, NOT an example of that. It is a very valid set of belief and actions, adherence to which hurts both women and men.

1. I never said that men can't be friends or have affection (there's not a single culture on the planet that actually says they can't.).

2. Those examples of man cohabiting in DB don't really count, because they're all tied to someother duty or purpose: Roshi was Krillin's martial arts master (same with Yajiobe & Karin) and he eventually moved out after hooking up with A18 (as did Yajiobe according to Super). Mr. Popo's duty is to be the mentor and right-hand of Earth's Guardian (he's not just there for the he'll of it). Puar is basically Yamcha's pet, etc. None of these were for life nor for just for the he'll of it.

3. "Toxic masculinity" is nothing more than an excuse for resentful women and self-hating, white-knight males just to hate men for being men, even for things & traits that aren't even excusive to males. Its a BS concept based on the disproven belief that most/all male-female differences in behavior & thought are culturally artificial (as apposed to being biologically innate).

[ruler9871]

A seemingly simple question is deceptively complex due to the various cultural and sociological baggage contained within.

[...]

To get off the deep trains of thought, though, I'd say evidence in the series suggests to me that Tenshinhan is probably asexual. I'd say Goku is as well...

I trimmed most of your post here because it was long, but the whole thing was magnificent. You have summed everything up perfectly, saying pretty much everything that needed to be said here.

A lot of the other recent posts in this thread have been a shit show, so let’s see if I can work with this...

There are 4 different types of love: family love, friendship/empathy love, spiritual/religious love and romantic love (the last of which is inherently sexual).

Platonic love is based on the idea that romantic love can exist without sexual attraction, which is simply impossible regardless of a person's orientation.

Uh, asexual people exist and they can have romantic relationships without sexual attraction.

When you drop in something that has no relevance or meaning to the show at all just to say you did it, it does come off as pandering. As a black guy myself, white guilt fueled tokenism is very annoying. I'd rather see a new black character or series rather then "Hey we made this guy black now. But not too black!"

Do Rhodey and Falcon in the MCU count as pandering because they’re black and the majority of other characters in the franchise (prior to Black Panther) are white? Or is being black just an aspect of the fact they’re multidimensional characters who happen to exist among other people who aren’t black? Same as LGBT people, except you can’t tell if someone is LGBT just by looking at them. You often can’t tell that someone is LGBT unless they outright state it to you.

Let’s say for arguments sake that Oob is gay (there’s absolutely nothing ever to indicate Oob’s preferences, so I’m using him as a blank slate to work with in this hypothetical) and we got a shot of him saying goodbye to his boyfriend before flying off to a fight in GT or something. Would that be pandering? Would that same thing be pandering if he was straight and there was a shot of him saying goodbye to his girlfriend?

1. It's not possible for an asexual person to have romantic feelings for anyone because romance itself stems from sexual lust.

2. Shoving in LGBT characters (and ones from certain ethnic backgrounds) just for the sake of virtue-signaling how "progressive" you are is pandering. Most of non-white characters in the Marvel franchise are not products of pandering (they were around for decades).

[SaiyamanMS]

2. Shoving in LGBT characters (and ones from certain ethnic backgrounds) just for the sake of virtue-signaling how "progressive" you are is pandering. Most of non-white characters in the Marvel franchise are not products of pandering (they were around for decades).

Okay, so Rhodey was introduced in the Iron Man comics in 1979. Do you think people 40 years ago were making the same complaints that having a black character introduced was “pandering”? He hadn’t been around for decades at the time, so obviously they were just shoving in black people to virtue signal how “progressive” they were back then.

[ABED]

Not really on topic, but as far as we know, Karin isn't actually Yajirobe's teacher. We never see them train nor do I recall that even being implied. The only reason they meet is because he took Goku to see Karin after Piccolo Daimao nearly killed him. He just stayed there ever since. And even though Karin can talk like a person, he's still a cat.

[Polyphase Avatron]

It's annoying when they take a character with an established orientation and change it, but if there is no evidence either way, revealing said character's orientation isn't 'pandering'.

When J. K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore was gay, was that pandering? There was nothing in the original books indicating his preferences at all, she just said 'btw, he's gay' afterwards.

[ABED]

It's annoying when they take a character with an established orientation and change it, but if there is no evidence either way, revealing said character's orientation isn't 'pandering'.

When J. K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore was gay, was that pandering? There was nothing in the original books indicating his preferences at all, she just said 'btw, he's gay' afterwards.

It depends, because I've seen a number of shows where their story is realizing they are homosexual. They did a pretty good job with it in Supergirl and Buffy.

[Cure Dragon 255]

JK Rowling had always intended Dumbledore to be gay and this detail was made before the "Representation Frenzy" . In fact, while Rowling's attempts at having Dumbledore be gay leave much much much much much much MUCH to be desired you cant really pin it on "SJW's" or whatever. Otherwise one would seem to be opposed to almost any LGBT presence.

[JulieYBM]

#LetSamAndBuckyFuck

Yeah it all happens all the time. Another example, there was Battlefield 5, the developers decided to add female characters as soldiers who were on the frontline to be inclusive and diverse.

Game received a ton of backlash, massive because it made no sense for that game. The staff ended up commenting on it, that only made it worse.

So what happened? The games sales dropped by over half, they failed to meet sales figures and EA's stocks dropped to the worst in a decade.

That is what happens when you try to pander to people. You lose more than you gain.

So what you're saying is that the staff of Battlefield 5 are idiots because they can't do the basic homework of saying "We included these characters for diversity, fun and because we're horny!"? Because that sounds like the actual issue here, not that diversity is bad.

You only want something like this to be included because of your own selfish desires and insecurities.

Seven billion people exist on this planet, of course the statistics are going to point to me having a vested interest in this shit. Hell, even before I realized I was a girl I was still in support of having so-called 'tokenism' in media because it's a simple and easy thing to do to lessen the demonization of perfectly valid sentient beings from being immorally violated. If you think that this is bad then I dare you to say it plainly. Go ahead and write "It's bad to include marginalized groups in media so as to normalize positive representations of them in corporate media." Again, I dare you. You're behind a computer screen, no reason to be scared.

You're not thinking whether it actually makes sense within the concept of the series. It's a series where any relationships are practically glossed over and the only physical attraction shown of any note is with Master Roshi as a gag.

Dragon Ball started out as a series about poop jokes, titty jokes, pussy jokes, child molestation jokes and kicking a talking fish to death so the main character could cook it and eat it. Now the characters are running around destroying mountains and planets while having super-serious pride-fueled martial arts combat against aliens and cat gods. Give me a fucking break on 'concept of the series', the series can be about whatever the fuck the staff of any given series, special, movie, game comic or episode feel like creating.

To then just randomly shoehorn in characters with different sexualities would only turn the fan base against it for trying to pander and be "woke".

Tien and Chiaotzu having a romantic relationship when one is practically a child? That itself is a warped kind of thinking and would never even be allowed on TV.

So, your argument is that the financial security of Dragon Ball lies in a bunch of bigots and any reflection of the diverse fandom outside of the acceptable white cishet male base is unacceptable? You agree with the statement "You can't include anyone who isn't white and cishet, it'll quantifiably harm the profits of The Corporations!"

Corporations are just entities made up of people, same as you and me. If you don't own a share, you don't get a say. The most you can do is vote with your wallet. The customer can't do whatever with a product they don't own. You're free to imagine it, but that's it.

And for the record, DB isn't a relationship show. What few they've shown aren't that great. The only one that's marginally good is Gohan and Videl. I understand the importance art has and seeing ones self on screen, but it doesn't have to be shoehorned into every single series especially one where even heterosexual relationships aren't the focus or done well. I get why you and others would take a stance on the issue, but I don't understand why you would take a seemingly hardline stance on this case.

If you truly believe they are heartless and soulless, wouldn't it stand to reason that representation from their products would be pandering as opposed to artful?

Corporations are not democracies in which the majority has any say in the production of said corporation. Corporations are undemocratic extensions of modern aristocracy. "No share, no say" is a perfect example of this fact as 84% of all stocks are owned by the wealthiest 10% of Americans. To say that they are in any way anything like your average individual creator is laughable, especially given the unrestrained power corporations exert over not only their private sector dealings but in the public sector, too.

The customer cannot profit using a corporation's registered intellectual property but they can still easily so with it as they please for their own satisfaction. This is how fan discussions and fan productions come into existence.

Like I said earlier in this post, Dragon Ball is whatever the fuck the production staff feel like making it at any given time. At one point Dragon Ball made rape jokes, most recently it's thrown in same-sex chemistry in Zamasu-Black and Caulifla-Kale. Clearly the range of content allowed is not so easily predictable.

'Pandering' is not an argument, it's not a gotcha word and it's not a big deal. "Oh, no, a show that panders to combat enthusiasts is also pandering to The Queers. The horror!!"

Why the hell else would 2 unrelated men choose to willingly spend their entire lives together? I've never heard of any group of straight men from any culture doing that (and platonic love is a myth). So its common sense to assume that they're gay, not "toxic masculinity" (which is a stupid, misandrist concept).

Platonic love is a thing that exists. If I can deign myself the sole decider of the parameters of my gender and sexuality cishet men can, too.

'Toxic masculinity' does indeed exist. That you would say that men can only be one way and even if that one way is harmful to the culture that men are raised in is okay 'just because' then 'toxic masculinity' most certainly does exist and is a problem. The institutionalization of one manner of living for any individual is criminal.

That's such a ridiculous thing to say.

Again, seeing as they've only included two gay characters in the entire 35 year old franchise, one a child paedophile from all the way back in the 1986 and the other a completely throwaway gag character most people couldn't name, then for them to start randomly shoehorning them in now in 2019, an era where everyone is already trying to be as PC and woke as possible is exactly what pandering is.

So as opposed to 'pandering' to minorities they should pander to a rigid, restrictive system without trying anything new? Why don't you assign that rule to anything past the first three chapters of the original comic, since those were the only things completed prior to publication began. No more serious martial arts! No more Kamehame-Ha! No more transformations! No more Chi-Chi! No more Vegeta, Gohan, Trunks and Piccolo! No more anything that fans love dearly!

Like, wowzers, how the h*ck do y'all make "Hey, maybe they're in a romantic relationship! That'd be interesting!" into controversial thing?

3. "Toxic masculinity" is nothing more than an excuse for resentful women and self-hating, white-knight males just to hate men for being men, even for things & traits that aren't even excusive to males. Its a BS concept based on the disproven belief that most/all male-female differences in behavior & thought are culturally artificial (as apposed to being biologically innate).

Your argument is that it is innately the tribute of manhood to dehumanize women and other men whom deviate from the "It's Just the Way it is" dogma of a couple of assholish men? If that were true then so man cisgender men, non-binary AMAB and transgender men would not be moving against that dogma. The parameter of one's gender is to be set by the individual and the individual alone. Buffoonish assholes labeling themselves the ideal of manhood and using that as an excuse to simply be assholes does not make those traits innately part of a gender.

It is the unfortunate reality that those assigned male at birth (AMAB) are being nurtured in a hostile environment and like racism and sexism this is a social issue that needs to be amended in all non-violent ways. Being AMAB I have been subjected to others deciding the parameters of my gender my entire life. This endless experience is in direct contradiction to my own self-realized identity and is the greatest source of my health issues. This goes the same for any AMAB or cisgender person and has continued throughout history. That our continual refinement of media and human studies have allowed us to finally actualize the plague of toxic masculinity so much as to give it a name is a great first-step and really helps set forth the path for our society's next cultural revolution.

2. Shoving in LGBT characters (and ones from certain ethnic backgrounds) just for the sake of virtue-signaling how "progressive" you are is pandering. Most of non-white characters in the Marvel franchise are not products of pandering (they were around for decades).

Mocking simple strives for the normalization of progressive viewpoints like "Hey, maybe there's no default for human beings" is silly. There is no unironic context left for the use of 'pandering'. 'Pandering' is dead.