Queerness in DB

[Jinzoningen MULE]

Someone's grasping at straws when it comes to Buu and Mark. Nuff said, stop looking for something that's not there.

That was a joke, but now that you've quite embarrassingly missed it, I'm doubling down. From now on, Boo and Satan are officially a couple in my unofficial head-canon.

[FoolsGil]

Someone's grasping at straws when it comes to Buu and Mark. Nuff said, stop looking for something that's not there.

That was a joke, but now that you've quite embarrassingly missed it, I'm doubling down. From now on, Boo and Satan are officially a couple in my unofficial head-canon.

You do you. Fire main head canon when ready.

[Kanassa]

I dpn't care if stereotypes are used and find little reason to get offended. He'll, most stereotypes flatter me. I wish I could be that flamboyant. I care for the entertainment value, so if a stereotype is all the character is, I won't be offended, simply unimpressed.

Now, I actually really enjoyed blue's character in the anime. Very entertaining. I''ll be in the minority here, but I care little if they have another gay character, just like how I treat a female super Saiyan as nothing of note. Though I am venoumously against the recent trend in the past few years of forcing in characters of specific characteristics simply for the diversity points. It often comes off as more annoying than admirable.

Also, a Milo character? Could dragonball handle such magnitudes of sexyness!?

[Jinzoningen MULE]

Also, a Milo character? Could dragonball handle such magnitudes of sexyness!?

If only. I'm not even gay, and I'd... well, not worth mentioning here. A fictional series could never live up to Milo.

Yeah, I don't really care about gay characters either, but they tend to be fun, so why not?

[VegettoEX]

I'm a bit concerned to see this Milo person brought up in the discussion. Granted, I'm not queer and my insight into that world is limited to my support of friends in living their lives to the fullest with every opportunity that should be rightfully available to them... so... you can probably understand my concern here, I think...?

What am I missing? What am I not following that would lead someone looking for better queer representation to identify with and find attractiveness in someone who's self-created an identity around harassment? Like, I guess you could get crazy with the comparisons and say Vegeta's a psychotic murderer and we sympathize with him... but... like... one's fictional, and one has truly disrupted the lives of actual human beings. I don't see the parallels, and I find it hard to place myself in the shoes of someone who would find delight in that.

People are difficult, complicated creatures, so I'm probably just missing something / unable to identify with something here. Help me out. Just let it be known that the administration will (again) draw a line in the sand if things get out of hand into active discrimination and harassment.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

What am I missing? What am I not following that would lead someone looking for better queer representation to identify with and find attractiveness in someone who's self-created an identity around harassment?

I'd disagree, a lot of people misconstrue Milo's snarkiness and willingness to go to extremes to make points with actively encouraging harassment. I haven't had much personal interaction with him, but from the little that I have, along with some other tidbits from the grape vine, he seems like an alright guy.

That's neither here nor there. We're just having fun, and his mischief tickles me in a way that sticks. That's all we mean by the "Milo type". His looks too, I guess.

[Kanassa]

What am I missing? What am I not following that would lead someone looking for better queer representation to identify with and find attractiveness in someone who's self-created an identity around harassment?

I'd disagree, a lot of people misconstrue Milo's snarkiness and willingness to go to extremes to make points with actively encouraging harassment. I haven't had much personal interaction with him, but from the little that I have, along with some other tidbits from the grape vine, he seems like an alright guy.

That's neither here nor there. We're just having fun, and his mischief tickles me in a way that sticks. That's all we mean by the "Milo type". His looks too, I guess.

Really, he's simply a guy who firmly allows his accusers to fuck themselves over. To me he acts like a git, but one with a point.

[dbgtFO]

What am I missing? What am I not following that would lead someone looking for better queer representation to identify with and find attractiveness in someone who's self-created an identity around harassment?

I'd disagree, a lot of people misconstrue Milo's snarkiness and willingness to go to extremes to make points with actively encouraging harassment. I haven't had much personal interaction with him, but from the little that I have, along with some other tidbits from the grape vine, he seems like an alright guy.

That's neither here nor there. We're just having fun, and his mischief tickles me in a way that sticks. That's all we mean by the "Milo type". His looks too, I guess.

Who is "Milo" anyways?

[rereboy]

I think queerness is basically irrelevant in Dragon Ball. It's only rarely present as stereotypical humor, like other kinds of stereotypical humor are also present (for example, Roshi's perverted ways).

[Kanassa]

What am I missing? What am I not following that would lead someone looking for better queer representation to identify with and find attractiveness in someone who's self-created an identity around harassment?

I'd disagree, a lot of people misconstrue Milo's snarkiness and willingness to go to extremes to make points with actively encouraging harassment. I haven't had much personal interaction with him, but from the little that I have, along with some other tidbits from the grape vine, he seems like an alright guy.

That's neither here nor there. We're just having fun, and his mischief tickles me in a way that sticks. That's all we mean by the "Milo type". His looks too, I guess.

Who is "Milo" anyways?

Think of the gayest stereotype you can imagine. Times it by 20. He's famous for holding talks where he rips on thing like feminism and blacklivesmatter, constantly accused of being a harasser. His talks are usually interrupted by aggressive people who disagree with him.I think recently there was a shooting or something, but i'm not sure.
He also likes to constantly remind everyone that he loves big black dicks.

[Juub]

I found the portrayals of General Blue and Otokosuki offensive and they are the only characters stated to be gay. People think that Whis is gay and I think Mr Satan and Majin Buu like each other in that way. The canonly gay characters' portrayals are somewhat justified by cultural differences and the time period, but I would be pleased to see a LGBT character not portrayed offensively to redeem Dragon Ball's reputation. They made a female SSJ, why not a LGBT one?

Making a female SSJ is completely different from an LGBT one. Sexual orientations and genders aren't remotely the same thing.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

I found the portrayals of General Blue and Otokosuki offensive and they are the only characters stated to be gay. People think that Whis is gay and I think Mr Satan and Majin Buu like each other in that way. The canonly gay characters' portrayals are somewhat justified by cultural differences and the time period, but I would be pleased to see a LGBT character not portrayed offensively to redeem Dragon Ball's reputation. They made a female SSJ, why not a LGBT one?

Making a female SSJ is completely different from an LGBT one. Sexual orientations and genders aren't remotely the same thing.

He wasn't saying that they were the same, he's noting a possible sequence. Although I doubt sexuality will be heavily referenced in modern Dragon Ball, it's just too touchy nowadays.

[Juub]

I found the portrayals of General Blue and Otokosuki offensive and they are the only characters stated to be gay. People think that Whis is gay and I think Mr Satan and Majin Buu like each other in that way. The canonly gay characters' portrayals are somewhat justified by cultural differences and the time period, but I would be pleased to see a LGBT character not portrayed offensively to redeem Dragon Ball's reputation. They made a female SSJ, why not a LGBT one?

Making a female SSJ is completely different from an LGBT one. Sexual orientations and genders aren't remotely the same thing.

He wasn't saying that they were the same, he's noting a possible sequence. Although I doubt sexuality will be heavily referenced in modern Dragon Ball, it's just too touchy nowadays.

Not saying he/she was saying they were the same. I was stating that they were so far apart you couldn't even compare them or use one to justify the other.

I think if Toriyama treated it with respect and some accuracy there wouldn't be too much backlash. Problem is to introduce a character's sexuality, you'd have to delve into aspects of the character Toriyama just isn't used to exploring and he's also admittedly bad at portraying romance. Most of his characters aside from old perverted dudes like Roshi act asexual. Almost no one shows an interest in the opposite gender. If Vegeta and Goku didn't have kids, I would honestly view them as asexual.

Portraying LGBT characters just wouldn't fit within the context of Dragon Ball. Only times he's referenced LGBT was decades ago and it was for comedic purposes which fitted within the series but are now very outdated.

[dbgtFO]

Think of the gayest stereotype you can imagine. Times it by 20. He's famous for holding talks where he rips on thing like feminism and blacklivesmatter, constantly accused of being a harasser. His talks are usually interrupted by aggressive people who disagree with him.I think recently there was a shooting or something, but i'm not sure.
He also likes to constantly remind everyone that he loves big black dicks.

Reminds me of a local celebrity in my country.
Thanks for clarifying

[DBZfan29]

I think if DB were to have gay characters other than the stereotypical ones depicted in the manga, it would have to be something that just is. These characters just happen to be gay, and the writers shouldn't do anything to try to make it obvious. I remember a while back JK Rowling shot back at a person on Twitter for saying Dumbledore didn't seem gay by responding, "maybe because gay people just look like... people?" A user pointed out that sometimes shows introduce certain characters just to be diverse and it doesn't really add to anything. I couldn't really tell that there were gay characters in The Legend of Korra and the recent Star Wars. And I think that's a good thing. It's hard to try to be diverse without resorting to stereotypes to make it clear, but if DB were to ever go that route, it would be pretty interesting. That being said, I don't think it will happen. While in Japan, a friend of mine told me that homosexuality is still not taken that seriously there, so I'm sure a show like DB would not handle it properly or even attempt to.

[Cipher]

Who is "Milo" anyways?

A shock jock whose inflammatory rhetoric constantly appears on alt-right platforms. Maybe he's having a laugh, but he puts out content belittling social issues that his followers eat up and that contributes to a culture that has a real, negative impact for people affected by them. Loves playing the victim card when venues don't want to become a platform for his hate speech too. (Call it another perspective if you want, but if your main platforms include consistently belittling causes that question the fairness of the social status quo, spearheaded by marginalized groups, maybe you don't stand for anything worth backing. Women and blacks should shut up about systematic problems? What a bold stance.)

I'm glad VegettoEX came down on that.

[ABED]

Who is "Milo" anyways?

A shock jock whose inflammatory rhetoric constantly appears on alt-right platforms. Maybe he's having a laugh, but he puts out content belittling social issues that his followers eat up and that contributes to a culture that has a real, negative impact for people affected by them. Loves playing the victim card when venues don't want to become a platform for his hate speech too. (Call it another perspective if you want, but if your main platforms include consistently belittling causes that question the fairness of the social status quo, spearheaded by marginalized groups, maybe you don't stand for anything worth backing. Women and blacks should shut up about systematic problems? What a bold stance.)

I'm glad VegettoEX came down on that.

Whether someone agrees with him or not, the principle of matter could be at stake. If someone on private property doesn't want to give Milo a platform, that's one thing, but if it's say a public university, then that's different. Just for the record, I don't agree with his philosophy.

My feelings about these sorts of issues in art is that it all depends on execution. Generally I prefer that the unchosen aspects of a character such as race, gender, and sexual orientation, shouldn't be a big focus. However, in some cases, the writer can make a point of it, like with Buffy being explicitly about female empowerment. But none of this should come at the expense of character and story. Far too often I see people in Hollywood patting themselves on the back for having a minority in their story regardless of the actual quality of the story. I feel thinking in terms of "representation" is dangerous. Instead of the characters being the characters, they become representatives. Instead of a character being a character that is gay, he/she now represents all gays?

[Cipher]

If someone on private property doesn't want to give Milo a platform, that's one thing, but if it's say a public university, then that's different. Just for the record, I don't agree with his philosophy.

Public universities pay their speakers. A land-grant university will generally have free-speech zones anyone can use as a public forum without courting harassment charges, and the campuses are open to the public, but they're under no obligation, implied or otherwise, to not be selective with their guests.

If Milo cares about showing up and speaking at universities who rescind their offer of an organized, advertised event, he has every write to hold his forum on the quad.

[ABED]

If someone on private property doesn't want to give Milo a platform, that's one thing, but if it's say a public university, then that's different. Just for the record, I don't agree with his philosophy.

Public universities pay their speakers. A land-grant university will generally have free-speech zones anyone can use as a public forum without courting harassment charges, and the campuses are open to the public, but they're under no obligation, implied or otherwise, to not be selective with their guests.

They absolutely are. If they get money from the government, they shouldn't be basing who gets the fee on what the speaker's views are. The entire university should be a free speech zone.

[Cipher]

They absolutely are. If they get money from the government, they shouldn't be basing who gets the fee on what the speaker's views are. The entire university should be a free speech zone.

A university doesn't have to fly David Duke out, pay him for a speech, and advertise his event. That's nuts. Speakers are intended to inform and challenge students, and that thinking is likely what leads to offers to Milo and co. in the first place, but they're under no obligation to bring someone out if they don't feel the rhetoric is of value or they feel it belittles the student body. I amended my post above, but there's nothing stopping anyone from showing up and making a speech to students at a public university if they forgo the checks, bells and whistles.

Despite all this, you'll still find some debate on the merits of bringing borderline hate-speech speakers out, and this is drifting off-topic. I meant only to imply, as small, small subpoint, that playing the victim in terms retracted of speech offers is really just another shallow way of trying to drum up controversy and imply that marginalizing hate speech is somehow equivalent to or worse than marginalizing groups of people. It's smokescreening, it's petty, and it ironically uses a rhetoric of victimhood its practitioners claim should be without merit.