Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

Okay, on topic. How do I calm the fuck down about Catholicism?

The whole institution makes me IRRATIONALLY ANGRY. So angry that other atheists are asking me to be reasonable.

Could we please not go here again?

Yeah. I just wanna try and get rid of this personal vendetta I seem to have against it.

I am not very good at being moderate.

It's sad what some people in the religious community do to children.

Oh, and there is a petition for the Frozen sequel to give Elsa a female love interest, and almost everyone on Facebook (even one of my real life friends) is angry about it because "GAY LOVE IS BAD DURRRRRRR".

edited 3rd May '16 7:32:58 PM by SatoshiBakura

because it'll "confuse [straight] kids". why don't we remove all heterosexuality because it'll confuse gay kids

Yeah, they simply don't want it acknowledged in cinema that the LGBT even exist.

Honestly, I believe the idea of telling writers what they should write basing on petitions or current hot social topics is as nuts as telling them what they should not write basing on your irrational fears. So, the very existence of that petition sort of baffles me. Still, opposing it on the basis that "gay love is bad" is definitely an antismart move.

@trash: The answer to your question depends on the reason why you have these exaggerated feelings. For me it was mostly about accepting (which is a whole lot harder that logically "acknowledging") that it's not reasonable to expect everybody else to share my views, even if I feel very strongly that my views are better. It's sort of like... I'm playing basketball and I will do whatever I can to lead my team to victory because I honestly believe my team is the best team, but I can't get angry because the guys on the other team aren't just folding and letting me win.

It seems nowadays any inclusion of LGBT or POC characters unleashes the fury to varying degrees. Look how some reacted over Finn being in Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

I also don't think asking to include them is somehow "nuts", and definitely not on the same level as this.

Yeah, I apologize about the "nuts", I definitely went too far there. I agree that it's perfectly reasonable to make it known to the people who produce media that a big part of the public desires the inclusion of more insert category here characters. It's the idea of creating a petition to retcon an existing character into being tied to a social issue that makes me unconfortable.

That's okay. Yeah, I wouldn't go that far. Existing characters shouldn't to change just to make a point. I'm not familiar with Frozen however. Do they really show Elsa's sexual orientation (much as can be in a kid's movie)?

No, Elsa doesn't have any Love Interest, not even a potential one. Her Character Arc is based around her being "different" and facing guilt and isolation because of that, though, which is probably the reason why many people associate her to LGBT issues.

Yeah, well, lots of people get that, not just the LGBT.

Maybe just keep her without a love interest. That'd be nice. Leave it up to interpretation and keep everyone happy.

Or maybe just don't make forced sequels of movies that have nicely completed their natural story arcs and character arcs aaaaaaaaaaaaa.

But yes, if they need to make a stupid sequel, I think your suggestion is for the best. :P

Unfortunately, if they were to make something that "drastic", overprotective parents all over the world would be complaining about the representation of an LGTB character in a Disney movie. So I don't think that really is an option for them.

edited 7th May '16 10:44:44 AM by Grafite

Just make her ace, damn it! Seriously, am I the only one who thinks Elsa is ace?

True, you don't see a lot of assexuality representation on the media, when it could actually fit really well some characters (namely Elsa now that you mention it). I think most writers, however, don't even realise it exists.

edited 7th May '16 10:50:04 AM by Grafite

Why does everyone have to listen to the so called 'moral guardians'?? It's not like they can actually do anything. Maybe they'll picket the movie, but that'll only make it more popular. They're in the end, a very small group of people who's opinions have no bearing on the overwhelming majority.

That said I think romance has been overplayed in Disney movies to an unhealthy degree.

At least they went from the Princess Classic trope to more indepedent and intelligent women depictions. I think Disney's on the right track.

edited 7th May '16 10:58:40 AM by Grafite

I think one of the difficulties with asexual representation is that it's characterised by not doing something. Now, in some cases that can be obvious by way of contrast, but in romance-light media it's easy to miss.

It's a bit like depicting someone who legitimately doesn't have bodily functions in a series where Nobody Poops. Unless the writers go out of their way to highlight it, you just don't notice.

This. You can imply asexuality, but you can't really depict it without falling into Have I Mentioned I Am Assexual?

edited 7th May '16 5:42:50 PM by Aetol

You can. Or at least aromanticism. In a high school flick for example, a group of friends are all trying to get dates. Some have boyfriends. But then they notice, one of their number just isn't interested. It is weird.

You can do it in any setting where not having romance is noticeable. All you need is other characters to notice.

In a setting where not having romance is noticeable, sure. In a setting where it isn't, it falls under And, as always, context matters. Even if it's expected that the female lead of a Disney movie will have a male romantic interest by the end of the movie, when her arc is centered around opening up to social interactions, starting with her own sister, you don't expect that. Or perhaps because you, the audience, consider Anna the lead, not Elsa, and she obviously has a male romantic interest available, so you don't think too much about it. Compare to bissexuality in a show in which the character will only undergo one relationship at most.

tl;dr: I'm repeating what Elfive and Aetol said.

I'm now thinking how would you go representing an assexual but not aromantic character in a context you would never even mention [CENSORED], er, I mean, the birds and the bees. Saying a heterossexual couple adopted their child would not cut it, at least not explicitly.

And, of course, I guess the conclusion is that they'd never depict an aromantic but not assexual character in a Disney movie. Unless it's implied as parental bonus... but I can see that being done very poorly. Or not, really.

Well, in a setting where sex is essentially not a thing, asexuality (separate from aromanticism) isn't either...