Jade Kitsune, on 01 July 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:
Bugs clearly has sexual deviency issues, or is possibly transgender.
To exclude sexuality as a whole from the equasion is to take away a key part of what motivates a person.
Also the "Hurr Ponies" thing wasn't specifically aimed at you Major.
As for the "Dash is a Lesbian" debate... there is more within the show to support this, as well as other lesbian pairings, than there are for heterosexual parings. Ontop of this, a society with a 15% male population, to expect there NOT to be same sex couplings is simply insane. However I was trying to keep things clean, and away from sexuality as a whole in these discussions as the show does not outright state that there is homosexuality, to conclude that there is none, despite the population split, just doesn't make sense.
I hate to break it to you but MLP:FiM is far from the 'loving and tollerating' ideal we wish it was, there's plenty of hate, flat out raceism, and bullying within the show to prove otherwise.
Yes it's a cartoon, but if you're going to think and discuss the show critically... everything that makes up a person, has to be considered... to exclude even one of those things... it's to cause a flaw in your debate.
But apon reviewing your information regarding these things... You DO think about the shows, you simply do not put forth the effort to defend your statement generally, and simply settle at "I like it because I do." And that's fine... but if you're going to critically debate with someone on their view of said show... you have to come at it form a similar perspective... if you're going to try to support that Dash isn't a lesbian, you have to bring to the table the reasons, beable to cite from episodes things that support your claim.
Because again, if you cannot do this, then it's similar to saying "The Earth is Flat because I say so." you've brought nothing to the table to prove why, just simply your statement that the Earth is Flat.
Excuse me for picking this up again, but I actually find that discussion quite interessting...
I think what Fatboy (and I) were trying to point out is, that there can be a huge difference between
explaining why you like something, and analising it.
I could explain why I like the show without analising the story, or characterising the protagonists. On the other hand there's all that literature we had to analize, where you can litterally (and I chose these words on purpose) analise a
metric fuckton of bullshit into it, yet I never liked those stories or the people in them. I also don't go through live characterising everyone I meet to determine whether I like them or not, that would be very creepy!
When you actually want to critically debate something, I agree, you better be prepared to make a point and defend it, but this aint a piece of high literature we're talking about, it's a kidsshow... I used to laugh about the idea of people in 100 years trying to interpret and analise Harry Potter, and then make schoolkids read it and all that crap we had to put up with. I would be rather upset about people trying to analise too much of my work, instead of just enjoying the freaking story, which was what I wanted in the first place.
Back to my point, I would really like to know how people try to analize Harry Potter in 100 years, but it's actually already happening with MLP right now.
About that though, when do you actually need to critically debate it with someone?
The Haters will usually not care, and at a certain point your analisation cannot really explain why you like it, because that's actually where psychology starts, unless you're a psychologist that is. To me it all just sounds like you're trying to tell me or anyone else, that the show is good because it has sooooo much depth to it, that you can analise and interpret the **** out of it. That's the exact same logic my german-teachers tried to apply with all the literature they made me read, but you know what? Most of that crap still sucked ***! (Sry for language)
The only time I'd agree that all those analisations have anything to do with why you like it, is if you actually enjoy deconstructing things like this, looking for the very source of a "problem". (congratulations, that pretty much qualifies you as a potential scientist (<--- I'm serious about this!))
Now, for the sexuality of RD, or any pony for that matter, my first question is:
Does it actually matter? It's a kids-show, I don't think they had even really thought about that aspect when creating it, so.... well....
What makes you think RD in particular is "different"?
I'm curious, what is it that makes people come up with that assumption?
To be perfectly honest, I could see why you may think that she is homosexual, or even "transgender", but what are those ideas based on?
I don't have proper examples, to back my claims, and I have no intention of digging them up, but I think it's save to say that RD usually acts like, and likes the things you would actually expect a boy to do or like.
That's actually why I thought that the idea of her being lesbian made sense at first.
Thinking more about it though, I came to the conclusion that you cannot judge someone's sexuality based on that.
It's true that characters in the TV-shows and movies are often characterized similar to RD, because it's easy to recognize.
A female homosexual is usually depicted as somewhat masculine in her behaviour and character, while a male homosexual is usually depicted as overly feminine despite their actual gender.
However, while it seems to make sense, and is very easy to recognize, most of the time it doesn't reflect the truth. The character of a person, and the things he or she likes have nothing to do with their sexuality!
I know some women who enjoy playing/watching football (soccer for you amreicans) and other activities that are usually considered "boys-stuff", who are all heterosexual. There are also plenty of women in the military which is still considered a male's job by the majority of our society. Sure, there are homosexuals that actually match the medias depiction of them, but many of them cannot really be recognised that way, because their character isn't notably different from that of a heterosexual person.
Being able to judge about someone's sexuaulity by their "non-sexual" preferences (simply put the things they like/enjoy), is something we ourselves actually proved wrong! Most fans of MLP, most bronies are actually heterosexual males who have a girlfriend or wife, despite liking a girls-cartoon, so why do some of these very people claim to be able to do exactly what they have proven wrong, to someone else? Especially if the one in question is a fictional character from the show this all originated from.
So, unless you can give me a trait that is characteristic to at least 90% (sry, arbitrary value) of all homosexuals, or at least 90%of all homosexual women, and also prove that RD or any pony in the show has that trait, I claim that you cannot prove that the subject in question is actually homosexual.
Thinking about the whole "Is RD a lesbian?"-problem for a while, I'm under the impression that most of the claims, which say that she is, are actually based on popular assumptions, and the way the topic is depicted by the media. Simply put, it seems to me, that all people are doing, is to apply the stereotype of a homosexual woman to Rainbow Dash, and then conclude that she must be homosexual too, which doesn't do the show, or the character itself (actually the ones who created her) any justice.
I mean sure, there are a few facts about the MLP-universe, which you already pointed out, that make it hard to believe that there aren't any homosexual relationships, if you think about it logically. However, you also pointed out, that never in the show there are any indications for such things, so it is equally valid to assume that there are actually plenty of colts for a 50:50 split of the population which you just don't happen to see for whatever reason... ...maybe most of them serve in the royal guard.... or..... gee, i dunno
Because this post doesn't have enough pony yet;
Edited by Sesambrot, 03 July 2012 - 08:09 AM.