>>90904336>This is, lets not play games, intentioned inclusionWell of course the inclusion is intended; it's art! There's an artist (or artists) making it!
The part I'll agree with you on is that especially in comic books a lot of this is not coming from the artists themselves but from the executives who bankroll the end product. But that ties into my personal beliefs about art as an artist and the value creative control.
>Because a lack of it is the natural default.But what is defined as natural is a group consensus, that what one defines as human nature is a product of upbringing. This is what I'm trying to state here. I think that disrupting that group consensus is intellectually healthy.
>Whatever is 'nature' is fine and dandy, however, unless you have a reason to intentionally nurture a trait, why do so? That doesn't mean to supress it or counter it but it does mean not to encourage it. I think I get what you mean here. I would agree that one should not encourage a child to be homosexual necessarily, but at the same time I would say that one should not encourage a child to be heterosexual in this case.
My issue with your argument is that it seems to state that positive portrayal of homosexual characters or other 'deviant' sexuality groups in children's entertainment necessarily means encouraging it. Perhaps it will encourage more children to become gay, but does not the existence of people like this, if they are good, friendly people? Are these cartoons not simply reflecting more and more the reality that these children step out into with each passing day?
I have to go now, because I've got shit to wake up for in 6 hours, but I will thank you for a fairly stimulating debate here. I guess my closing statement is that culture is a constant struggle between pessimists and optimists (both of whom would likely describe themselves as realists). I think that I'd describe you as a pessimist in outlook and myself as an optimist.
