DB/Fiction's Handling of Diversity

[Cipher]

There's always hope for BotamoxMagetta.

Steamy.

[Doctor.]

I'd be surprised if anyone had their day ruined by Otokosuki (or a Japanese kid grappling with his sexuality really did; I don't know), but I don't have an issue believing that Toriyama thinking to include gay characters, but only for punchlines, says something about his stance toward LGBT issues at the time. Probably not at all malicious, but certainly not viewing them as something that needs to be treated as anything more than a joke. So, you know, kind of just playing into the thoughtless dismissal of the time.

What I can infer from his portrayal of LGBT characters and his general persona and background, is that he probably holds a view towards LGBT very similar to the people his age. "Gays are icky, but they're still normal people. But they're also easy to make fun of, so let's throw in here some jokes at their expense." And this, from my perspective as a member of the LGBT community, is fine.

And I can't stress this enough: Toriyama is one of my favorite, if not my favorite, comic artists ever. I love his work. There are also some things about where I'm like, "Eeeehh. This isn't going to hold up super well."

People are oversensitive or maybe I'm the one who doesn't care enough, who knows.

People want Gohan to go Blue because it would be cool and they're miffed he's lame now. People want to see one or two LGBT characters because it would be cool and the series hasn't handled them well before. Kind of like how people wanted a female Super Saiyan for decades. If neither happens, oh well, but this isn't a story where either would be hard to work in. We're about to head into a vast fantasy setting with a hundred new characters. People can hope one of the gods of destruction is a cat for whatever weird personal reason they want, but they can't hope some character in the series is eventually a reasonably portrayed LGBT?

Again, I think there's a difference between the two things. People want LGBT characters because they want the series to be progressive in regards to social issues whilst neglecting the fact that, perhaps, well, the series and author may just not be, or trying to be, progressive. It's not about something being cool. It would be cool for Gohan to go Blue, because he's an established character people like. What is "cool" about the idea of having a reasonably portrayed LGBT character? People want it because they want the minority group to be better represented in the series. Thus, it's a political statement, not a plot or character-driven suggestion. If it happens, cool. But it shouldn't even be something the writers should think about including unwillingly.

[Dbzfan94]

In all seriousness Blue's sexuality never seemed like an issue to me. Yeah he was flamboyant but being gay was a minor part of his character. Like Bulma flirted with him and he was revolted. All she said was "Oh well. Must be gay." Or whatever.

First and foremost he was a threatening villain that showed real personality beyond the stereotype.

The pedo scene was different though. Kinda glad the dub changed that.

[Cipher]

What I can infer from his portrayal of LGBT characters and his general persona and background, is that he probably holds a view towards LGBT very similar to the people his age. "Gays are icky, but they're still normal people. But they're also easy to make fun of, so let's throw in here some jokes at their expense." And this, from my perspective as a member of the LGBT community, is fine.

I think we more or less have the same reading on that.

You know more about your experiences than I do. From others I know in then LGBT community, and I guess just thinking about others' experiences, I think it'd kind of get to me if I were younger and grappling with sexuality and everything around me, including my favorite manga, told me that was just kind of icky/there for jokes.

But I don't want to overstep, and I mean that.

Again, I think there's a difference between the two things. People want LGBT characters because they want the series to be progressive in regards to social issues whilst neglecting the fact that, perhaps, well, the series and author may just not be, or trying to be, progressive. It's not about something being cool. It would be cool for Gohan to go Blue, because he's an established character people like. What is "cool" about the idea of having a reasonably portrayed LGBT character? People want it because they want the minority group to be better represented in the series. Thus, it's a political statement, not a plot or character-driven suggestion. If it happens, cool. But it shouldn't even be something the writers should think about including unwillingly.

I think the desire for both is sufficiently out-of-universe. Dragon Ball is pretty heightened and fantastic, which makes its portrayals of real demographics hard to discuss, but moved into a more general realm, I don't think diverse casts are really at odds with realistic character portrayals. Introduce a hundred characters, and it's just a numbers game.

I think it's easy, too, to forget that at a certain point homogeny is just as political a statement as diversity. Get an enormous cast in a superhero world where almost everyone is white? That's not realistic; it's political and driven by outside standards of what's normal and marketable in genre fiction. Get a big cast full of relationships but there isn't a serious gay one in sight? That's a kind of non-realistic portrayal too; also political and influenced by outside standards; because one is normal/expected, and one isn't.

I'm not throwing either one of these at Dragon Ball, but I do want to uncouple homogeny from apoliticism a bit, and diversity from unrealisticness/politicism. I'd argue diverse casts do have positive real-world impact, and that's good, but I don't think obtaining diversify is always, or even usually, a case of trading away a commitment to cast and characters, or introducing outside influences where none were present before.

If you're arguing that the inclusion of more diverse casts comes down to politics and social standards, just recognize that the reason we don't have more diverse casts in the first place is also politics and social standards. And of the two, given a big enough cast, the more diverse approach is actually more honest. This is mostly speaking in terms of a conversation bigger than Dragon Ball though.

[Pickle_Jar]

I admit the Queerness in DB thread slightly inspired this topic, but with Female Broly introduced - I was going to make this thread anyway. I apologize to the moderators and users for another serious topic being put on DB, but I just find it interesting. Also, if this ends up getting moved to the Queerness topic - I understand. So, obviously - While being a timeless series, Dragon Ball also has some dated aspects to it. It almost makes me surprised that Dragon Ball has so many fans of different races and sexual preferences when the series doesn't really feature characters like those fans. Although it took Marvel a while on film and in the comics, the company is beginning to see a shift in terms of its diversity. But Dragon Ball just has a charm to it that draws in a diverse fanbase. It amazes me how many rappers are fans of DB (RZA himself believes DB is the story of the black man's journey - which is ironic that he draws this deep parallel from the same series that features Commander Black). However, DB has proven it can correct its mistakes in terms of how it presents diversity.

In Path to Power, Black has his big lips removed despite his skin tone being significantly lighter (and I'm not sure if the long face means anything). I'm joking, but perhaps just like the new Power Rangers movie - Commander Black and Blue could have their colors traded (perhaps for a future DB remake OR a potential Super filler episode) to be even more politically correct? I wouldn't mind, but at the same time - The existing character of Black doesn't bother me too much. The introduction of Uub has also ALWAYS fascinated me because Toriyama chose to make Goku's only disciple and next protector of Earth - seemingly Indian? And many fans were led to believe Uub was black, but the Indian thing still holds my interest because this is still a really diverse decision on Toriyama's part. I know conventional race might not even exist in DB, but still - Race inspirations do and Toriyama could've easily chosen a character who resembled Goku and the main cast. But he didn't. AND NOW, I WANT MORE UUB IN THE SERIES!!! Such an underrated character nowadays (or always).

And then there's the new female characters being introduced such as: Vados, Female Broly, the new Angels and Gods of Destruction, as well as Pan and Bra potentially becoming more important characters down the road. Something I've always desired from Dragon Ball is having more than ten characters in a video game who are just female (I know shonen is aimed at boys, but that doesn't define the fanbase). I don't exactly know if that's happened yet (Usually - It's Pan, Videl, Zangya, and 18 - right?). I've always wanted Oceanus Shenron (her female form), but whatever. Still, with Vados coming to Xenoverse 2 and all these newer characters being introduced in Super - Maybe my "10 female characters in a game" will become a reality? Man, I feel like a Naruto fan waiting for the Seven Swordsman to become playable in the Storm games, back when it wasn't entirely done yet.

But yeah, long story short - It's interesting to look at the past of DB in terms of diversity and into the future, where it seems like it's becoming more and more of a reality. I know diversity in DB isn't something that's necessary, but it's definitely appreciated and I hope Toei/Toriyama recognize that. I mean, if you're married to a main character like Goku or Gohan, you usually immediately become a housewife. However, I respect that a main character like Bulma is still unusually relevant (not a housewife and still helps the main characters out).

Thoughts? I know this is similar to the Queerness topic. I'm saying this because I expect a lot of "Dude, this is too similar to that other topic" or "Stop with the serious DB threads" replies. Once again, my bad if this annoys you.

Honestly, I think the DB universe has done diversity in its own way. You've got animal people ("Furries" to some), you've got aliens with different skin colors and body shapes. Hell, there was a "fat" Saiyajin in the Bardock movie and I'm led to believe there are Saiyajins with dark skin that would make them POC here on Earth.

But my main guy is PIccolo. I jokingly call him my green husband. OH MYYYY GOOOD he is a fictional character who literally changed my life! I love Piccolo to absolute bits because I saw what kind of person I wished I could be.

I got introduced to DBZ somewhere in 2000, just two years after graduating from high school where I was severely bullied. So I was still very wounded as a person. I was a very brash, loud, impulsive, defensive and quick to get angry instead of thinking about it a little first.

I was channel surfing when I saw a "cartoon" that looked quite interesting. I'd only just learned about anime, so I figured out it was anime by the art style and decided to watch some more. I'd missed part of the episode, so my introduction to Piccolo was his deep voice shouting "You'll never succeed! You're too weak!" Then the shot showed this green fellow with pointy ears and I was a wee bit smitten! I got curious, so I kept watching and, well, I really came to like the green dude called Piccolo.

Piccolo stands off to the side a lot and isn't the most social person on the planet. He's an excellent strategist most of the time, he's very inside his own head (self-aware) and introspective. And he's asexual. Okay, granted, Nameks are asexual in a biological sense because they don't need two people to reproduce, they cough up eggs, and even then only specific types of Nameks can do that.

It's because of Piccolo that I discovered my own asexuality. I thought I was messed up somehow because I didn't have the same interest in sex as just about everyone around me who was my age. I looked the word up and discovered asexuality is a real sexuality just like being gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual and so forth. I'm pretty sure Piccolo would be considered ace/aro by human standards. (Asexual/Aromantic)

I gained a new understanding of myself that explained a lot of things. I'm also a professionally diagnosed autistic person; I was diagnosed when I was fifteen and it was one of the main reasons I got bullied. So you can imagine I was a mess in my 20's because I still hadn't stopped hurting from all of that. I'm one of those "visibly" autistic people. I can talk, but I'm awkward, have a ton of sensory issues and I stim a lot because I can't stay calm if I don't.

I watched Dragon Ball Z and saw how Piccolo changed because of Gohan. I watched him go from somebody everybody feared to an accepted member of the Z-fighters. I actually cried after the DBZ finale because I was going to miss him.

But Piccolo changed me just like he was changed by Gohan.

I'm more self-aware, I'm introspective and a little more strategic about approaching social situations. I'm still socially awkward and geeky-- which got me bullied in the past-- and those traits are now things people love about me. I'm okay with standing off to the side sometimes because I know I'm welcome even if I need my space. I understand my sexuality and how my brain is a bit different from other peoples'.

I don't think I would be the person I am now if I didn't turn DBZ on precisely when I did in 2000. I saw somebody I wanted to be like.

I did it. I've become a lot like PIccolo.

While I don't headcanon PIccolo as autistic like I do other characters* and in other fandoms, I feel represented by him. Piccolo showed me that it's okay to be a loner and not fit in. Most of all, watching an outcast like him slowly find acceptance gave me hope that I would find the same.

And I did. I sing in a church choir full of people who accept me exactly like I am. I can finally be myself after years of healing from being repressed by social pressures, emotional abuse and bullying.

I feel like Piccolo saved me from staying stuck behind my high school scars.

So thanks, Piccolo, thanks for representing me and saving me.



*I've got some invisible disability headcanons for DBZ, and some aren't conditions that I have myself. Sometimes it's fun to give characters a twist that can add to their depth.

[Doctor.]

I think we more or less have the same reading on that.

You know more about your experiences than I do. From others I know in then LGBT community, and I guess just thinking about others' experiences, I think it'd kind of get to me if I were younger and grappling with sexuality and everything around me, including my favorite manga, told me that was just kind of icky/there for jokes.

But I don't want to overstep, and I mean that.

If people are expecting tolerance, then they must know how to be tolerant first. As long as someone isn't being offensive, I can easily understand their relative disgust regarding the subject. I can only imagine it's the exact same feeling I have when talking about some kind of sexual fetish and thinking "wow, this isn't for me." I know they -- and, in this case, Toriyama -- aren't thinking "You're disgusting." They just can't imagine themselves in a gay person's place during intercourse or in a romantic relationship, so they think it, the act, not the person, is gross.

I think it's easy, too, to forget that at a certain point homogeny is just as political a statement as diversity. Get an enormous cast in a superhero world where almost everyone is white? That's not realistic; it's political and driven by outside standards of what's normal and marketable in genre fiction. Get a big cast full of relationships but there isn't a serious gay one in sight? That's a kind of non-realistic portrayal too; also political and influenced by outside standards; because one is normal/expected, and one isn't.

This goes back to the same debate that was being had in this thread a few pages back. If it's a fictional world, then having a cast that is completely white would still be realistic, I feel. If we're talking about a fictional world, then there's no rule as to how many ethnicities or different sexual orientations should be portrayed. Obviously if you write a movie that takes place in Africa, and your cast is all white, then that's going to raise some doubt. But if you write a movie on an alien planet and decide that all of the aliens, who happen to look like humans, have a white skin tone, then I don't see how that's a problem.

It also doesn't have to be a conscious decision. Since the norm is for people to be white and straight, sometimes those kind of characters are written or those casts are chosen out of pure coincidence, not of a conscious desire of exclusion. And since the norm is to be white and straight, the argument of it being unrealistic to have an all-white cast doesn't hold up again. I don't know about the US, but I'm going to see a non-white person, in the second biggest city of the country, an average of twenty times a day, at best, compared to the thousands of whites I pass by on the street or on campus. I'd argue that it's more unrealistic to try to portray these groups as equal in number (because portraying them as equal in character is a whole different matter, of course) when that's not the case.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

I guess I'll be the one to throw this tidbit in the mix; Toriyama isn't very good at drawing black people, probably they tend to have thicker features. His women are nothing to write home about, either. Doesn't it follow that his best characters would be soft-featured (a.k.a. asian/white) men?

[Doctor.]

I guess I'll be the one to throw this tidbit in the mix; Toriyama isn't very good at drawing black people, probably they tend to have thicker features. His women are nothing to write home about, either. Doesn't it follow that his best characters would be soft-featured (a.k.a. asian/white) men?

I don't think he writes them unfavoribly because he can't produce a good design, though.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

I guess I'll be the one to throw this tidbit in the mix; Toriyama isn't very good at drawing black people, probably they tend to have thicker features. His women are nothing to write home about, either. Doesn't it follow that his best characters would be soft-featured (a.k.a. asian/white) men?

I don't think he writes them unfavoribly because he can't produce a good design, though.

Certainly not. I was just explaining why there aren't many.

[Cipher]

It also doesn't have to be a conscious decision. Since the norm is for people to be white and straight, sometimes those kind of characters are written or those casts are chosen out of pure coincidence, not of a conscious desire of exclusion. And since the norm is to be white and straight, the argument of it being unrealistic to have an all-white cast doesn't hold up again. I don't know about the US, but I'm going to see a non-white person, in the second biggest city of the country, an average of twenty times a day, at best, compared to the thousands of whites I pass by on the street or on campus. I'd argue that it's more unrealistic to try to portray these groups as equal in number (because portraying them as equal in character is a whole different matter, of course) when that's not the case.

I'm thinking of it mostly from a U.S. perspective. A high-balled 63% of the country is white (don't worry; I had to look that up), but we produce these enormous superhero worlds where the demographics of the characters don't represent that at all. When they get closer, the "forced diversity" cries start up. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the DC and Marvel worlds are technically global in scope.

Similarly, something like Star Wars is a big, vast universe in which we know non-white-appearing people exist, so isn't it strange to expect every story to foreground them? Disney still gets flack in non-miniscule circles for adding female main characters to both its first two films, because that's somehow ... more cynical than just using the default traditional-looking white guy? I don't really get that.

In terms of Dragon Ball, because of its context, I don't bring the same sorts of expectations into it. But I don't often see people saying that requests for its female characters to do more are "too political" (and I think Toriyama's generally decent approach to female characters is something that really sets his work apart from contemporaries). It's a huge made-up world with plenty of overt straight relationships, in which gay characters definitely exist, so I don't see why it's beyond the pale to talk about wanting to see a reasonably portrayed gay one at some point if it keeps going. It's about to dump 100+ new characters on us. If the series weren't receiving new material, we wouldn't be talking about it in such active terms, but it'd still be fair to say Toriyama could have been a bit less tone-deaf in certain areas, and it would only have improved the experience.

There's also this weird assumption (getting outside the realm of Dragon Ball again) that including gay characters or devoting a certain percentage of a cast in a genre piece to non-straight white guy characters has to be politically motivated, whereas not doing so is just the normal choice. Which, like, I don't know, strikes me as really problematic and inauthentic about the creative process? When Takeuchi included two well-rounded gay characters in her '90s popular superhero comic, was she being political, or just creating two new characters she thought would add to the story? Was she just creating two new characters who could have had any sexuality, and she decided for whatever reason they might as well be gay? If you're crafting a cast of characters, you always wind up making a decision about their demographics at some point. Does it really make a difference whether someone was just going with the norm or thinking a little more critically? Why do we portray the latter as more inauthentic and political?

His women are nothing to write home about, either.

This is kind of off topic, but I don't follow. Maybe they get a little binary between "cute" or "old" (then again, you can break his male characters all down into repeated archetypes as well), but I think his designs for female characters tend to be pretty good and are as widely varied as can be expected within a consistent style. He comfortably gives us a middle-aged Bulma and Chi-Chi toward the end of the original run without exaggerating anything too, which Nakatsuru continues in GT.

Over on the Dragon Quest side of things, his body-types for women get a little more varied. He isn't shy about putting them in the spotlight either. "Pink" is one of his best one-shot mangas, and it features a teenage girl who's also a capable action hero. Pink, Tomato, Akane and Bulma all look completely different from one another. That's four distinct designs despite all falling into the category of "cute teenage girl," all early in his career. (They aren't the only female characters around, but I'm drawing them out as evidence that he's comfortable enough drawing women to vary designs without needing to exaggerate elements or switch to totally different ages/demographics.)

Thinking about it, actually, if his female characters feel a bit more samey than his male ones, I'd say it's because he isn't willing to go as free-form cartoony with them as often (Arale is a rarity in that regard). Maybe that is an issue of comfort, or simply expectations, but regardless he's capable of drawing them effectively and variably for relatively serious roles. I don't think it stands out as a weakness.

But that's Toriyama art talk; maybe it belongs in the design thread.