Fictional characters who were developed as gay, then, censured and now there's only a queerwashing?

The creators of "Adventure Time" have indeed confirmed that Princess Bubblegum and Marceline had a romantic relationship, but it's important to note that the portrayal of LGBTQ+ characters in animation, especially at the time when the show was originally airing, was often subject to censorship or backlash from certain audiences. It's not uncommon for creators to face challenges in openly depicting LGBTQ+ relationships in media aimed at a younger audience due to societal norms and concerns from parents or networks. However, over time, there has been progress in representing LGBTQ+ characters more explicitly and authentically.

J.K. Rowling revealed after the publication of the "Harry Potter" series that she had always considered Dumbledore to be gay. Some fans were surprised by this revelation, while others appreciated the added dimension to his character. I don't know, but I didn't like Dumbeldore being Gay. I felt weird about it.

The response you mentioned, "everybody is gay?" may have been a reaction to the perception that LGBTQ+ representation was limited in the series, and Dumbledore's sexuality was not explicitly addressed in the books. I have read through all the books and seen the movies. It was not even once mentioned in the books and the reception to this revelation was mixed, with some feeling that it was a missed opportunity for more inclusive representation within the series.

It's worth emphasizing that public figures, including authors, can have a significant impact on public discourse and attitudes, especially when it comes to issues of identity, inclusion, and equality. The controversy surrounding J.K. Rowling's statements underscores the ongoing discussions and debates surrounding transgender rights and representation.

I want to note that LGBTQ+ representation in older sitcoms was often subtle or coded, as societal attitudes towards LGBTQ+ issues were different at the time. Carlton Banks in "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" may exhibit traits that some interpret as potentially indicative of his sexuality, but the show may not have explicitly addressed it due to the norms of the era. The lack of explicit representation or discussion of LGBTQ+ topics in older media can be seen as a reflection of the societal attitudes of the time.

The episode plot.

Spoiler

In this episode, Carlton's attempt to reconcile with his former girlfriend takes an unexpected turn when she arrives with a baby she claims is his. The ensuing events highlight the dynamics within the Banks family as they react to this surprising development, with Philip initially refusing to accept the baby as his grandchild and Vivian addressing the importance of communication and seeking advice. The episode also delves into Carlton's character, revealing his vulnerability and insecurity. His willingness to elope with Cindy reflects his desire to take responsibility, but ultimately, he realizes that they are not compatible for a lifelong commitment. The twist at the end, where it's revealed that Carlton is actually a virgin and would rather be accused of fathering a child than admitting his lack of sexual experience, adds humor to the storyline while also touching on the theme of societal expectations and pressures. "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" often used humor to explore deeper issues, and this episode is an example of how it tackled personal insecurities and societal norms within the context of a family sitcom.

You mentioned "queer coding" and "queerwashing." "Queer coding" refers to the practice of subtly implying a character's LGBTQ+ identity through stereotypes or traits without explicitly stating it. "Queerwashing" is often used to describe instances where a character's LGBTQ+ identity is downplayed or erased for various reasons. Both concepts reflect the challenges and nuances of LGBTQ+ representation in media, where creators and networks may navigate societal expectations, censorship, or differing audience opinions.

In recent years, there has been a growing awareness and push for more authentic and explicit LGBTQ+ representation in media, including positive portrayals and diverse storylines. Many creators and networks have become more open to depicting LGBTQ+ characters and relationships. However, these discussions also underscore the ongoing complexities surrounding representation in media and the importance of accurate and respectful portrayals of LGBTQ+ individuals and their experiences.

My mom for example watches a German soap opera called sturm der liebe and there have been a lot of gay couples, what is nice too see. Like many long-running soap operas, it features various romantic storylines, including LGBTQ+ relationships.

 

You're absolutely right. Queerwashing is a bad thing. Media has the power to shape perceptions and attitudes, so it's important for creators to approach LGBTQ+ representation with sensitivity, depth, and respect for the diversity of experiences within the community and you're already helping to advocating against it by talking about it and you can also support the creators in the community. The media industry is often dominated by large studios and corporations with significant influence and resources. Challenging established norms and practices can be daunting, and there may be resistance to change, basically media is a business. And in business money counts, but there is potential for positive change.

 

I'm confused. Queerwashing is the idea of taking a straight character and making them queer. Straightwashing is taking a queer character and making them straight (say hello to the Netflix adaptation of Archive 81).

I don't believe queerwashing exists. The idea of queerwashing as a concept assumes that any character that isn't explicitly queer is straight, even if their sexuality is never stated in the narrative. It's a culture of "Straight as default." It wasn't queerwashing when Willow came out as a lesbian in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (although I consider it bisexual erasure), it wasn't queerwashing when Alex came out as a lesbian in Supergirl, and it wasn't queerwashing when Sara Lance came out as bisexual on Arrow.

A half-assed, cliche, heavily-stereotyped queer character isn't queerwashing, it's just bad writing.

 

Queer representation in media has evolved over time, and the term "queerwashing" is sometimes used to criticize instances where LGBTQ+ characters or themes are handled poorly or insensitively.

 

I'm wondering if this is a regional thing or language barrier because I talked to some friends (including one who works in queer media) and no one has ever heard "queerwashing" used in that way. I tried googling it and all the results were either regarding rainbow-washing (which is a thing but tends to only refer to corporations who, for instance, roll out the rainbow flag during Pride Month while donating money to anti-LGBT causes) or homophobes complaining about the existence of queer characters. In fiction, "-washing" is typically used to refer to making stories more conservative, not less (straight-washing, white-washing).

 

It's actually intresting topic. The term itself can have many different meanings depending on the region or community. Urban dictionary for example says queerwashing has the meaning of to make everything gay. The meaning what you just said, but queerwashing is a term that queerpeople took from the term whitewashing. There is also terms like greenwashing. It's kinda like wordplay.

 

I can share a link in the PM to the article with you, if you wish. It explains it all more in depth and better than I ever could.