Everyway I look, there’s articles about Superman being gay, or all this subtext about him being gay.
WTF?
When the hëll did this happen? Are these people all stupid or something.
BATMAN is gay.
Superman was the one who was a symbol of totalitarianism. Batman was the one who was the gay icon, hanging out in his mansion, wearing lounging pajamas or a smoking jacket and having fun with Ðìçk. For a while there Bruce Wayne was so synonymous with homosexuality that the very name “Bruce” had gay connotations (“Match Game” always used “Bruce” to convey gay guys in their questions, and the network insisted Bruce Banner’s name be changed to David Banner for the Hulk TV series.)
But when “Batman Begins” came out, there was no discussion of whether Bruce Wayne was gay. I didn’t see any articles along those lines; certainly not in the mainstream media, which is where I’m seeing it everywhere. I guess when you dress in black leather and scare the crap out of people, you’re just too butch to have anyone question your sexuality. But poor Clark…suddenly he’s a gay icon.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
PAD
• 
Posted by: Micha at June 26, 2006 07:26 AM
Massianic messages are a very common aspect of Western culture and western stories. Jews living in Christian society are affected by that often.
Micha, I know you are a reasonable and good-hearted person, so I don’t want this to sound overly defensive. But your last comment leads me to wonder whether you believe that I view Jews as a monolithic group.
I’m aware that Judaism includes many denominations with divergent viewpoints. I’m also aware that being Jewish is also considered an ethnicity, and there are many Jews who are not religious.
Most important, I’m aware that every Jew is an individual and you cannot define an individual or predict their actions with any certainty simply based on their religion, ethnicity, nor any other broad category to which they belong.
So, yeah, I’m aware that Jews don’t automatically plug their ears and sing “la la la la, I can’t hear you,” every time someone mentions Jesus. And yes, Jews living in societies where Christianity dominates, or at the very least permeates, the culture will be affected by that just like the rest of us.
The mere fact that Siegel and Shuster were Jewish certainly doesn’t preclude the possibility of them deliberately creating a character with a Christian subtext. But Superman’s backstory as Siegel and Shuster told it is more similar to the story of Moses than it is to the story of Jesus. And I’ve never read anything to indicate that Siegel and Shuster had Jesus in mind when they created Superman. So I think it’s not unreasonable to say that it’s unlikely that they were trying to create a metaphor for Christ.
Of course, Superman has gone through many changes over the decades. Siegel and Shuster may not have intended a messianic subtext, but that doesn’t mean subsequent creators had no such intentions.
Anyway, I hope this post comes through in the spirit with which I intended it. I didn’t necessarily think you were accusing me of viewing Jews as a monolithic group. But I thought it would be worthwhile to clarify my point of view just in case.
Posted by: Peter David at June 26, 2006 10:02 AM
Yes, I read it. I was shocked by the lack of scientific methodology. He drew the most inflammatory conclusions based on piss-poor research and lack of evidence.
When I gave a presentation about Frederic Wertham and Seduction of the Innocent in college, one of my classmates asked me, “Did this guy ever do sny research that was actually, y’know, worthwhile?”
Believe it or not, I answered in the affirmative.
Wertham’s research about the harmful psychological effects suffered by children as the result of racial segregation was used as evidence in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education. And Wertham was actually an advocate for the rights of adults to read and enjoy pornography.
Unfortunately, Wertham flushed his legacy down the toilet by going on a tear against comics based on faulty conclusions drawn from research that was a textbook example of what the scientific method doesn’t look like.
Yeah…I don’t think Superman *initially* had the Messianic themes going on, it was something that crept in later. I am tempted to suggest somewhere areound the late 70’s when fears about the endof the world were popularized by guys like Hal Lindsey.
Hal, I read ‘Seduction’ a number of times as a teenager as well, as well as The great Comic Book Heroes and All in Color For a Dime, which were just about the only books about comics when I was a kid. I would also add Bill Gaines’ biography, which basically gave the flip side of the comic book hearings, which basically destroyed EC Comics. I would still recommend any of those books in terms of providing historical context for the industry.
Now that I think about it, I’ll bet somebody could make a nice bit of change by re-publishing Seduction of the Innocent. With the right marketing campaign, it would probably sell quite well.
“Micha, I know you are a reasonable and good-hearted person, so I don’t want this to sound overly defensive. But your last comment leads me to wonder whether you believe that I view Jews as a monolithic group.”
No, I didn’t intend to accuse you of anything like that or of anything else for that matter.
To clarify my point:
I’ve read somewhere that every story written in Christian culture is a variation of the Christ story (I hope I’m not oversimplfying it. I don’t remeber the details. I just stumbled on it. Maybe when I was studying Chauser). In any case, the story of Christ is a very important part of the collective subconscious of the Christian world, and has affected Jews living in that world too. So what I was suggesting is that Siegel and Shuster may have added Christ-like themes even without actually wanting to write an allegory. Although Jewish creators like Bob Dylan or Paul Simon for example have been known to consciously use Christian themes in their work.
As for myself, I am currently not writing a fantasy epic 85% of which is locked in my mind, 10% in notes in my computer and 5% (or less) actually written. At a certain point I noticed that there were several Christ themes in this story I was developing but not writing. I have no problem with that. I like these ideas.
I’m also aware that as a secular Jew I, and people like me, probably know more about Christian concepts of angels, devils etc from popular culture than we do about Jewish mysticism (I’ve ignored the Kabala fad). I am not saying this as a complaint just a statement of fact. Secular Jews living in Israel are reasonably versed in the Old Testament, less in the later stuff.
The other side of this whole story is the influence of the culture of Jews on Western culture. I’ve read somewhere that early westerns in Holywood were influenced by ideas and images of pogroms against Jews in Poland. Obviously, the story of Superman was influenced by the story of Moses, and probably other even more clearly Jewish themes. Although, I think the archtype of a lost child who grows up to be a king/prophet/hero exists in other sources. I wasn’t trying to say that you were wrong. There is room in Superman for Moses and Jesus and maybe a little Samson and Hercules.
It is also true that subsequent writers may have pushed further some Christian themes. Such themes of very clear with some creators.
—————
I haven’t read “Seduction of the Innocent,” although I heard that there wasa backlash against comics in the 50’s. Still, it is hard to imagine anybody at that time period not finding Superman wholesome. Batman I get, but Superman?
There is probably a case to be made for “Every Western story is a Christ story”. Western Civilization has come to define itself through Christianity after all, as opposed to the Eastern “Zen” and Middle Eastern Islam.
But in that same spirit of hyper-generalization:
“Ruler has prophecy that Baby X will dethrone him, plots murder. Minority baby escapes death through travels. Has trouble with authorities as a youth. When grown, is approached by G-d, performs some miracles, and leads ‘His People’ to ‘The Promised Land’.”
Some of these facts belonged to the historical Jesus. Some were added after the fact *specifically to make him more like Moses*. Jesus was, after all, The Jewish Messiah. And he was packaged very much in the role of Moses before him. It wasn’t until Theodosius made him official 400 years later that Jesus became a truly mainstream saviour, validating/adopting parallels to Mithras as well.
Every story may be a Christ story. But the Christ story is the Moses story, and even the least observant modern Canadian Jew would know that. Just as every post-Modern Lit major can point out the parallels to everyone from Gilgamesh to Shango to Buddah. But parallel themes does not a Christ make. And in the end, the loss of one set of parents and the adoption by another makes Moses the clear winner. Later writers may have made Superman Jesus. Just as later writers made Jesus Moses…
Posted by: Micha at June 26, 2006 11:01 AM
No, I didn’t intend to accuse you of anything like that or of anything else for that matter.
Understood. My response to you was probably a solution in search of a non-existent problem. And I certainly hope this won’t lead to a situation where you and I must walk on eggs around each other. I’ve enjoyed our frank and open exchanges, and I always learn something from you. I’d like that to continue.
It’s just that I have a few relatives who can be a bit anti-semitic. On the one hand, being Catholic, they’ll pay lip service to the idea of Jews being God’s chosen people. On the other hand, they obviously hold some stereotypes about Jews; for instance, they are prone to assume that Jews are greedy penny-pinchers. You couldn’t know that, of course, but it’s something that bothers me (as they well know) and I try to distance myself from it at every opportunity.
So what I was suggesting is that Siegel and Shuster may have added Christ-like themes even without actually wanting to write an allegory. Although Jewish creators like Bob Dylan or Paul Simon for example have been known to consciously use Christian themes in their work.
I think you and I are actually in complete agreement. It’s unlikely that Siegel and Shuster intentionally created Superman as a metaphor for Jesus. It’s entirely possible, however, that they unconsciously created a character with a Christian subtext.
That said, I still believe Superman as portrayed by Siegel and Shuster was far more similar to Moses than he was to Jesus. After all, according to the Gospels, Jesus allowed himself to be crucified so that our sins might be forgiven and we might have a chance at redemption. Superman has never been so passive. He pounds on bad guys.
As for myself, I am currently not writing a fantasy epic 85% of which is locked in my mind, 10% in notes in my computer and 5% (or less) actually written. At a certain point I noticed that there were several Christ themes in this story I was developing but not writing. I have no problem with that. I like these ideas.
Sounds neat. If you ever finish it, send me an e-mail and let me know. I’d be interested in reading it if you’d be interested in sharing it.
The other side of this whole story is the influence of the culture of Jews on Western culture.
Oh, absolutely. Battlestar Galactica, with its premise of twelve human colonies being driven from their homeworld and forced to search for the “promised land” of Earth, seems to have very clear parallels with the story of the twelve tribes of Israel.
I read in Wikipedia, however, that original series producer Glen Larson is a Mormon, and that Battlestar Galactica’s mythology owes something to Mormon theology as well. Here’s a link to that article in case anyone’s curious:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlestar_Galactica
“I’ve read somewhere that every story written in Christian culture is a variation of the Christ story”
Actually the impression I’ve always had is every story in Christian culture–or at least if not every story, than certainly a good percentage of them–is a variation on father/son, mother/daughter, child/parent or mentor/student relationship. So on that basis, particularly considering Jesus’s reputed last words, the Christ story would actually fall into that broader category. As would, for that matter, the Jor-El/Kal-El aspects of the Superman story.
I remember seeing a fan parody of “Superman” at a convention shortly after the film came out. And Jor-El in the parody intoned, “And so…I give them you. My only son. The true Messiah. But don’t get a swelled head about it.” That’s what always goes through my head anytime I see Marlon Brando doing his thing in “Superman.”
PAD
I don’t want to tell you your business, PAD, but Aquaman was the gay one.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Anyone who’s ever read a Batman or a Superman Comic knows, UTTERLY KNOWS, that Batman and Superman are not gay.
I really don’t like the P.C. connotations of attaching a gay label to such an iconic character, and to top it off, being wrong about it.
Superman is not gay.
Batman is not gay.
Dammit, R2D2 and C3P0 aren’t gay either. They’re just British…..
Batwoman is gay.
One of the Kyle Rayner’s friends is gay.
Can we please call the people who are actually homosexual “gay”, and leave the ones who are straight alone? Seriously people….c’mon!
I thought it was Batgirl.
Can I be Batman’s fág hag?
Superman can’t be gay. What self-respecting gay man would choose to wear bright red and blue?
R2-D2 is not British. He’s from Wisconsin.
“Understood. My response to you was probably a solution in search of a non-existent problem. And I certainly hope this won’t lead to a situation where you and I must walk on eggs around each other. I’ve enjoyed our frank and open exchanges, and I always learn something from you. I’d like that to continue.
It’s just that I have a few relatives who can be a bit anti-semitic. On the one hand, being Catholic, they’ll pay lip service to the idea of Jews being God’s chosen people. On the other hand, they obviously hold some stereotypes about Jews; for instance, they are prone to assume that Jews are greedy penny-pinchers. You couldn’t know that, of course, but it’s something that bothers me (as they well know) and I try to distance myself from it at every opportunity.”
Bill, Any society, including the Jewish one, has to battle with the prejudices in it. But I prefer to think of people as well-meaning unless proven otherwise. I even prefer to consider people who have some level of prejudice to be decent people, unless proven otherwise. Since you have shown yourself to be decent, well-meaning and not prejudiced there is really no need to walk on eggs. Open exchange is always better.
As for Moses/Jesus/Superman. I think if we made compare and contrast kind of table we would find similarities and differences to both characters.
Sending Superman to earth is clearly a Moses theme. But Moses grew up with the Egyptians who enslaved his people and then returned to save the Israelities (This could make an intersting what if kind of story for Superman). Superman, like Jesus grew up with saintly adoptive parents and works to save humans. Superman is not completely human but takes n a human life as Clark Kent. But he was not required to die for humanity’s sin (at least until the 90’s), but, like Moses, is a fighter. We could go on, but it is not necessary. Superman draws from many sources. There is no need for a competition.
“Oh, absolutely. Battlestar Galactica, with its premise of twelve human colonies being driven from their homeworld and forced to search for the “promised land” of Earth, seems to have very clear parallels with the story of the twelve tribes of Israel.
I read in Wikipedia, however, that original series producer Glen Larson is a Mormon, and that Battlestar Galactica’s mythology owes something to Mormon theology as well.”
Christianity in general and protestanism in particular likes to draw parallels between their own experiences to that of the ancient Israelites. The 17th century Dutch Republic used to do that. Spinoza wrote a book in which he used the story of the 12th tribes as a reference to the political situation in that Republic. It is not surprisng for a Mormon to do that. Orson Scott Card wrote a series of books that has clear biblical themes. I found it interesting at the beginning but disappointing at the end.
“Actually the impression I’ve always had is every story in Christian culture–or at least if not every story, than certainly a good percentage of them–is a variation on father/son, mother/daughter, child/parent or mentor/student relationship. So on that basis, particularly considering Jesus’s reputed last words, the Christ story would actually fall into that broader category. As would, for that matter, the Jor-El/Kal-El aspects of the Superman story.”
I once wrote a seminar paper on Arthurian movies, for which I read the book: Frank McConnell. Storytelling & Mythmaking: Images from Film and Literature. Oxford, 1979. This book speaks of four story archtypes and demonstrates them in sources from Beowulf to Star Wars. It is quite intersting. At the time I saw the archtypes everywhere, now less. The archtypes are: The king — who creates civilization out of Chaos (like Moses, Arthur, Jesus etc.); the knight — who fights to defend a civilization created by another (Luke Skywalker, Lancelot, St. Paul, Superman, Michael Corleone); the detective — who lives in a world where the founding ideas of the king are lost, and the detective must find them in order to deal with the internal corruption of civilization; the fool — who by presenting a current civilization’s faults helps to demolish and restore the basic ideals of civilization, and who often dies to restore civilization (Sir Percival of the holy grail, Cool Hand Luke, etc.)
“R2D2 and C3P0 aren’t gay either. They’re just British…..”
These characters (and to a degree the whole Star Wars movie) are based on an Akira Korisawa movie whose name I don’t recall. Something with Moon and a Princess.
“Can we please call the people who are actually homosexual “gay”, and leave the ones who are straight alone? Seriously people….c’mon!”
I agree. Apparently there is a whole fanfiction subculture of attributing homosexuality to many icons. I can’t help but feel there is something dishonest about labeling charaters that way. I doubt it is beneficial for the cause of gay rights either. There is another phenomenon in which gays make icons of certain icons without saying that they are gay. It is harder to object to that, but I do find it a little annoying.
I definitely think it’s because of the outfit. Batman’s armor from BEGINS looks cooler now that it doesn’t have the nipples but now Superman’s costume with the brightly colored tights and the red briefs looks more gay now to modern eyes. When they were talking about the original 1978 movie on VH1’s I Love the 70s guys gave props to how good Christopher Reeve’s performance was but especially wearing that supersuit. The black guy from SPORTS NIGHT asked “At what point does Superman say ‘I look like a fairy’?”
1I don’t think it’s fair to target fanfic. These are people’s fantasies about what they would like to see in their favorite book/movie/comic/tv show. My motto is “Fanfic: Inspired by the Impossible.” I like being able to take an idea that I know won’t ever happen on a tv show (or whatever) and bring it to life, while at the same time sharpening my writing skills.
I can see your point if people are insisting that a character is gay when all evidence is to the contrary. Otherwise, I think people are just indulging in harmless fantasies about characters they enjoy.
I wonder if anyone on this blog has actually read the book, or portions of it.
I not only read it, I did a term paper on it in college.
The proof that Batman is gay is:
1) He & Robin are often seen sitting on the same piece of furniture,
2) They often save each others lives (which would make a large percentage of firemen, policemen & military men gay),
3) He (Wertham) had a gay patient who said he fantasized about being either Batman or Robin).
KyleDasan posted, “Batwoman is gay.”
Emeraldax’s response: “I thought it was Batgirl.”
No, Batgirl (Cass Cain) has become the new leader of the League of Assassins. Batwoman is gay.
Talking about wussy names from the past that are considered tough now, you only have to see Back to the Future 3. “What’s your name Dude? ” “Eastwood, Clint Eastwood.” “What kind of stupid name is that!”
Darren J Hudak wrote: (in response to a comment about the Clark/Lex subtext on _Smallville:
“More evidience that our society is more homophobic then it use to be, (not less). Once upon a time in pop culture two male characters could be very close friends and no one would even consider they might be more then that…”
I agree. I don’t have any evidence to support this; it’s just a hunch; but I’d say that for most people today, one man referring to another as his “partner” would suggest a gay connotation. To me, it still connotates a business associate or teammate. People like Alexander Scott and Kelly Robinson; the Lone Ranger and Tonto; Jim West and Artemus Gordon; Napoleon Solo and Illya Kuryakin; Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark; Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble; Batman and Robin; Starsky and Hutch; Spenser and Hawk; Holmes and Watson; even Holmes and Yo-Yo. O.K., Yo-Yo was a robot, but still they were colleagues, not in a romantic relationship.
This spring there was a cop show called _The Evidence_ on ABC. It aired for a few weeks in _Invasion’s_ time slot. It’s set in San Francisco, and one of the cops (a plain-clothed detective) mentioned his partner in casual conversation with a gay man. He didn’t identify himself as a cop. A conversation just got started, and the cop said something about waiting for his partner. The gay man thought he meant relationship partner, and lamented that “all the good ones are taken.” The cop started to correct him about the definition, then just let it rest.
While my first inclination is to still think of the word partner (with regard to someone of the same sex) as referring to a colleague, not a romantic interest, when someone refers to their partner, I sometimes wonder which context they mean.
Speaking of Superman, I bought the documentary _Look Up in the Sky, the Amazing Story of Superman_ last week, and at one point they show a cereal commercial from the George Reeves’ TV series that show Clark and Jimmy eating breakfast together. On that DVD (as well as on the _The Adventures of Superman_ Vol. 1 DVD) the point was made that Lois Lane would never be in those commercials because it would suggest certain things if Lois were seen eating breakfast at the same table as Lois and Jimmy.
On the _Look , Up in the Sky_ DVD narrator Kevin Spacey pointed out that no one thought it odd that Clark and Jimmy ate breakfast together.
And there’s no reason why they should. It wasn’t unusual for people to save money by sharing an apartment, and it’s entirely conceivable that there was a housing shortage (or at least a shortage of _afordable_ housing in the early 1950s, with GIs having just returned from World War II in 1945 (maybe 1946 for some), and the subsequent baby boom.
And Lois could easily have been shown at the table if it had been established in the commercial that they all lived in the same rooming house. On the other hand, that would involve having other women, including, presumably the owner of the rooming house, who would have nothing to do with the _Superman_ TV series. Probably a bit too much for the sake of a commercial.
Speaking of suggestions of gayness, I still find it kind of… interesting that some people claim Dr. Smith in _Lost in Space_ was gay. That never once entered into my mind. I didn’t analyze it to this degree as a kid, I just enjoyed the show; but to me, since Will, a boy, evolved into the main protagonist, the already irresponsible Dr. Smith became more childish, to provide a sort of counterpoint to Will. Dr. Smith simultaneously became both Will’s fun-loving “uncle” and immature “younger brother” in terms of his attitudes and behavior.
And Dr. Smith’s exaggerated bouts of panic made Will look even more mature and self confident by comparison.
But I never once considered him gay. Even looking back in retrospect when I knew what the term meant.
Rick
1 I read about half the first chapter of Seduction of the Innocent before I could stomach no more. It is funny that I got a copy through my local library region. I figured it would be this scarce non carried title in this small region of North Carolina, WRONG. Should have known it was still an active title. I checked it out and it is such trash.
I hold a Master of Divinity in Christian Education, so I have had to endure the Developmental Educational blah blah stuff. Wertham was so backward and off base. Afro American kid kills someone. Kid reads comics, was raised by an elderly grandmother with many health problems, and a string of other factors that make his life going down the cracks, and it is the comics that caused him to kill.
The scary thing is that the current powers that control the Republican Party and Protestant Denominations would love and agree with Wertham. Comics would equal Culture.
As for Superman as Moses, if I remember, Moses was tied in with the Messianic prophecy. It is not a great leap to see Christians attach the Messiah characteristics to Supes. Jesus was a person of great power that had to use it wisely as well. I am just glad that they are attaching Messiah characteristics and not decrying the evils of comics.
I bet Focus on the Family picks up on the Superman is gay thing. I mean they already proclaimed the movie A Shark’s Tale was a hidden homosexual recruitment video.
Somebody mentioned that they thought that you could make a lot of money publishing a new edition of Seduction Of The Innocent.
Sorry, but you can’t.
Wertham left his papers and books to Harvard.
So they own the rights to Seduction.
Harvard did allow a limited edition of 220 books to be printed by:
Main Road Books, Inc.
PO Box 632
Laurel, New York 11948
I found a copy online a few years back, and there are probably others available for those that are interested.
I personally had thought (before finding out the details of who has the rights,) that the CBLDF should do a printing so that Wertham’s otherwise destructive book could do some good.
Matt
Lex and Clark on Smallville? Seriously? I just don’t see it. I’ve been seeing the Lex/Lana subtext since season one, but I don’t know where anyone’s getting a homosexual vibe from Lex and Clark. I’ll admit that there’s always been a stalkerish intensity about Lex’s interactions with Clark, but that’s the actual text of the show. Lex really has been stalking Clark.
It’s not like I’m incapable of seeing this kind of subtext. I mean, Doctor Bashir and Garak on Deep Space Nine–the slash fans didn’t make that up. I saw it too. But Lex/Clark, though, seems like a stretch.
Of course, there IS the whole coming back from the dead thing. Of course, I don’t recall Jesus getting into a giant fistfight with Pilate that collapsed buildings all over Jerusalem, so the parallels are kinda scarce…
Well, there was that bit of violence where he was overturning tables in the temple to drive out the moneychangers. H. Michael Brewer touches on the Superman/Christ parallel as well as the Christian virtues of other comic book characters in his Bible study book, Who Needs a Superhero, reviewed here.
I bet Focus on the Family picks up on the Superman is gay thing.
I doubt it. Superman is too much of an American icon for them to attack him as / for being gay.
At the Toronto Pride Parade this weekend, two marchers were dressed as Superman, while only one was dressed as Batman. Therefore, Superman is twice as gay as Batman. QED.
“At the Toronto Pride Parade this weekend, two marchers were dressed as Superman, while only one was dressed as Batman. Therefore, Superman is twice as gay as Batman.”
But only in Canada. In Brazil they’re both bisexual and Mickey Mouse is a parrot named José.
Somebody mentioned that they thought that you could make a lot of money publishing a new edition of Seduction Of The Innocent. Sorry, but you can’t. Wertham left his papers and books to Harvard. So they own the rights to Seduction.
I miss why that means that someone couldn’t make good money publishing it. One would simply have to license the rights to it – and as you note, Harvard licensed those rights in the past.
I think it has less to do with Superman’s “gayness” than with super-heroes as a whole.
If you read the article in The Advocate that pretty much started the discussion, the writer talks less about whether or not Superman is gay and more about how gay people are able to relate to super-heroes. Super-heroes are largely characters who are one thing in public, and another thing in secret. And there’s a sense that the person they are in secret, the super-hero side, is the more genuine side of who they are.
And, you know, super-heroes are largely very muscular men in tight clothes who tend to get sweaty with one another. In fact, I remember an interview with Dan Clowes on Fresh Air where he said that, because of the tight clothes, from an artistic perspective drawing super-heroes is pretty much the same as drawing nudes. So, you’ve got a lot of naked muscular guys who tend to get sweaty with one another. The connection is there and it ain’t subtle.
And I think the discussion has focused on Superman because of the hype surrounding the movie, and because Superman is basically the Alpha Male of super-heroes.
And it’s not like it’s something new. There were scenes in X2 and X3 that seemed specifically designed to mirror homosexual experiences. Iceman “coming out” to his parents in X2 and his mother asking “Have you tried NOT being a mutant?” as well as a number of scenes from X3 with Angel and his father, and the very notion that being a mutant is something other people in the films think is a disease, something that can and should be cured.
And, I might add, when I came into work the other day a couple of co-workers, who aren’t comic book readers but who had read the articles regarding Spider-Man in Civil War, said, “Hey Mick, I heard Spider-Man CAME OUT OF THE CLOSET.”
Just had to say: Just finished Fall of Knight and it was AWESOME! Just had to say it.
// The black guy from SPORTS NIGHT asked “At what point does Superman say ‘I look like a fairy’?” //
IF memory serves, The TV show Lois and Clark Actually addressed this in a tounge and cheek way, Superman had caught a bad guy who proceded to make fun of his costume. At which point Supes picked the guy up, flew up in the air a bit, and said with a little bit of menace, “My mother made it for me”, At which point the crook looked like he had just peed himself started going “it’s a very nice suit, great suit, love the suit”.
Context of time is everything, when Superman was created his outfit was based on that of a circus acrobat, something people would have been quite familar with, nowadays not so much. Bottom line, Supes costume looks much sillier today then it probably did in 1938.
Call me a conspiracy nut but I think the whole “Superman-is-gay” has been blown out of proportion by rival media companies looking to put a dent in Superman’s/TimeWarnerAOL’s summer movie blockbuster franchise. This story first came to my attention not from The Advocate but from News Corp.’s New York Post, which is the sister company of 20th Century Fox. My world-weary and cynical mindset tells me this is a typical business competition brought forth by some well-oiled corporate synergy.
// Well, I don’t think the messianic subtext (not to mention the more up-front aspects, like having worsipers) to Superman is so much in the sense of being a Jesus figure, but being perceived as a savior in his own right. //
A savior with the power to perform miricles, (including coming back from the dead) sent to earth by his dad in the sky, and raised by an unassuming God fearing couple to go out and save the world, yeah there’s nothing in there that would make people think of the Jesus story.
Point taken. However, I think the distinction I see is not between the stories, but the characters themselves. Superman is a much more reluctant messiah figure than most representations of Christ. That, and Supes knocks heads in far too often to be compared TOO closely to the much more pacifist Jesus.
Of course, the biblical tale of Jesus borrows heavily from other messiah stories, so it may be more accurate to say that in many ways Superman is an archetypical messiah figure rather than correlating directly to Jesus.
-Rex Hondo-
Superman: Jesus
Batman: Vampire
Aquaman: Author of Camelot
Green Arrow: Robin Hood
Wonder Woman: I was about to say “amazon” before I thought, “duh!”
“Context of time is everything, when Superman was created his outfit was based on that of a circus acrobat, something people would have been quite familar with, nowadays not so much. Bottom line, Supes costume looks much sillier today then it probably did in 1938.”
Poor Superman. Everybody makes fun of his costume, but it is so iconic any attempt at change would result in outrage. He can’t even pull a Batman and change it just enough so it would look contemporary. Not much leeway. It seems Brian Seeger chose an in your face approach and instead of trying to make the costume look modern he made it look very 50’s.
“Superman is a much more reluctant messiah figure than most representations of Christ.”
I saw a comment that said if Superman is a messianic character, he is more in the vein of the Last Temptation of Christ.
Superman Gay?! Good God I hope not. It’s bad enough us gals have to compete for the hot male models, don’t take away our super heros as well!
(All right, You can have Batman- Robin’s had him from the beginning anyway.)
‘Not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
No, of course not!
Lot of really good comments here, but I think that there’s a reason that something like this gets so much momentum going. Any time the People Against Something want to take something down a notch, they try to link it with something equally vile and disgusting. To them, anyway. That’s one of the reasons I can’t take groups like Focus On the Family seriously. There are bigger, more solvable problems out there than whether or not Spongebob or Superman is gay. I wonder if it’s just the fact that they’re trying to overcome a sense of inadequacy that rather than trying to do something constructive with their time and energy, they try to point out the Evils Of The World That YOu Must Keep Children Unware Of.
Besides, if ANY character is gay, it’s Green Arrow. Serious Cupid complex going on there.
A weird thought just occurred to me. What if somebody wrote up an Eleseworlds book where all of the crap from Seduction of the Innocent was actually true?
-Rex Hondo-
Speaking of suggestions of gayness, I still find it kind of… interesting that some people claim Dr. Smith in _Lost in Space_ was gay. That never once entered into my mind.
Wow. Denial really ain’t a river in Egypt.
But it actually never really entered my mind either until some stand up comedian went on a Dr Smith riff and it was like Holy crap! They let Will hang out with a mincing pedophile! One who, I hasten to point out, tried to kill them all in the first episode and is an agent of a foreign government! He’s a pinko commie in every sense of the phrase!
I also never picked up on the subtle clues that Paul Lynde used to throw out either. I’ll never make detective.
Dr. Smith? (Shrug.) Mr. Belvedere? (Shrug.) Jo on Family Ties? (Shrug.) Superman? (It’s not his problem, it’s our problem– and what’s with the whole airbrushing his crotch thing?)
Batman? (Double Shrug.) The biggest Batman fan I know is the most openly gay in my circle of friends, and am told on his authority that Batman is SO gay– although Bats might be one of those guys who has sex with women but bonds with guys– you know, like football fans.
I’d put Bruce in some asexual category as an Apsberger’s victim who doesn’t bond with ANYBODY except Alfred, Clark and Diana, and that’s a whole weird i-trust-don’t-trust-them-i-don’t-need-them-but-i miss-them-when-they’re-not-there kind of thing. We had a cat like that once.
I am thinking about this WAY too much.
Ladies and gentlemen, the most closeted gay man in popular culture?
Astronaut Major Anthony “Tony” Nelson.
The guy opens the bottle to Hetero Heaven and spends the next four years saying “No, Jeannie. No, Jeannie! Jeannieee, let me out of here–?”
Puh-LEEZE.
It’s not just that fiction used to show guys paired up together, real-life same-sex bonding used to be a lot more intense–some of it, yes, homosexual, but even straight guys could hang out together with few women around and it was considered normal. Likewise, women in the 19th century would speak of their friends in frankly romantic tones, even when both were hetero.
I think part of the change is not just that we’re aware of homosexuality but that male-female relationships have changed a lot. A book on London men’s clubs suggested the reason membership has dwindled so much since the Victorians is that it’s no longer so acceptable to eat out with your friends seven nights a week rather than your wife.
I guess it shows how little awareness there is of what goes on in the comics themselves (y’know, the source material for the whole series of movies?) that, in all the discussion of whether Superman is gay or how gay he is, no one seems to be pointing out that he’s been married to Lois for ten years now (however much that works out to in the compressed time of the comics).
And as for Batman, well, just this month in “Legends of the Dark Knight,” Bruce Wayne offers an attractive young lady a ride home from a party and ends up spending the night with her.
“Astronaut Major Anthony “Tony” Nelson.”
The Man Show did a scit about that several years ago. Jeannie kept dropping bigger and bigger hints. Then she popped out of the bottle in her underwear. Then naked and in the Major’s lap. Finally she got him to whisper in her ear what he really wanted. She disappeared and a naked guy appeared in the Major’s lap. 🙂
1 >
This is what I call the “pink Elephants” effect. Once somebody puts the thought in your head it’s hard not to see it that way.
>
I don’t think Dr Smith was a Pedophile, but everything else you said is absolutly true. It should be noted that Dr Smith’s character changed drastically after the first half dozen or so episodes. The original plan was for Smith to be the villian for the first story arch and die. So early on he was menacing and homicidal. But the character was so popular they found they couldn’t kill him, but to keep him around they had to soften him up a bit. Gone was the homocidal tendancys, in were the more comedic ones, menace was replaced with cowarness. (This happens in serial fiction every once and a while, For another example see Spike on Buffy.) Of course even with the softening of the character it still didn’t make sense that the Robinson’s didn’t just leave him on the first available planet or though him out an airlock, but sometimes you just got to go with it.
I’d put Bruce in some asexual category as an Apsberger’s victim who doesn’t bond with ANYBODY except Alfred, Clark and Diana, and that’s a whole weird i-trust-don’t-trust-them-i-don’t-need-them-but-i miss-them-when-they’re-not-there kind of thing.
Dayum….that’s…too perfect of a description. Batman doesn’t have homosexual tendancies, but his only true love is Gotham City, so any female attention he attracts is a temporary fix…at best. And that’s too messed up. I mean the boy had Talia, Catwoman, and Wonder Woman. Yea…there’s something seriously wrong with him…
Kyle, I don’t thunk his first love is Gotham. His ONLY love seems to be for his parents, and that’s why he does it. Anybody else is an ally, an enemy, or a distraction. Or maybe I’m overthinking it again.
Well, I wouldn’t say that his parents are his only love. I think he loves Alfred (the surrogate father) and the Robins (the surrogate sons). This is why once in a while somebody trots out a panel of a villain threatening the heroes’ loved ones and Batman automatically thinks of Robin. Then everybody has a good chuckle at Batman being gay, because only a queer’s first and primary concern is for his son, right? But I digress…
It’s how he expresses that love that becomes problematic. Anybody to whom he truly feels any emotional attachment becomes a member of not the Wayne family, but the Bat-Family. And what a disfunctional family it is.
He knows on some level that he needs people around him who love and support him, but he tries to hold the at arm’s length also, since so many people close to him seem to get hurt or dead.
-Rex Hondo
Regarding Bruce’s love life, I’m reminded of a line in “Mask of the Phantasm” where he’s contemplating not becoming Batman and tells his parents’ grave, “I never expected this–I never thought I’d be happy.”
Darren J Hudak wrote:
Of course even with the softening of [Dr. Smith] it still didn’t make sense that the Robinson’s didn’t just leave him on the first available planet or though him out an airlock, but sometimes you just got to go with it.
Remember the short-lived mid-’90s SF series, “Earth II?” One of the characters on that show was a little girl who simply wouldn’t listen to anything that any of the adult protagonists told her, and this persistent disobedience put the entire colony at risk again and again and again. They’d tell her not to wander off because the local fauna were dangerous, so she’d wander off AT NIGHT. When the colonists discovered that there were other humans on the planet, and that they were all dangerous convicts whose ship had either crashed or dropped them there, the little girl CONTINUED TO WANDER OFF AND HANG AROUND WITH THE CREEPY CONVICT SHE’D MET (played by Tim Curry, incidentally).
After three or four episodes, I commented that if that colony was going to survive, that little girl needed to not be part of it anymore (actually, I put it a bit more harshly than that, but I just typed what I actually said at the time and decided I didn’t need the flaming that might result).