Children's Movies are starting to promote LGBT (Storks, Finding Dory& more)

[Seeka 12,372]

10 hours ago, Misaki said:

Isn't Disney making a movie called "Prince"? A same-sex main character, plus a royal to add to it.

 

EDIT: NVM there is a LGBT kids book, called "Princes" but Disney has made no word on making it into a movie.

One can still fanfic.

(Beauty and The Beast is still weird)

That is really cute~

Beauty looks like a precious uke who has no clue what he has gotten himself into.

 

[Letmelivemylife 8,715]

7 hours ago, Helxig said:

YES. It's sad, because more and more these days I see either really closed minded people, or totally incompetent people, or just total assholes having children, and the intelligent, open minded, and kind and caring individuals are the ones that seem to stay away from having children   so basically if things go badly we could end up with more people being brought up in awful environments, with awful world views, and awful personalities.

But hey... freedom...

It still disturbs me to think that Donald trump was chosen to make critical decisions for the US. Donald ****ing Trump. Just let that sink in for a moment. God help us. 

[StrawberryBlond 15,566]

I'm perfectly fine with LGBT representation in children's entertainment however, I'd rather if that was going to be the case that the orientation was made clear from the beginning. In the case of Elsa, I'm not the first to say that making her lesbian would potentially be forcing something that was never there to begin with. It seems almost like slash fan fiction, which is amateur and these studios are supposed to be professional. Making her a lesbian for the sake of being progressive rather than to have the film in its original conception just irks me. But it wouldn't bother me, even so. It's probably because a lesbian isn't the first conclusion that people should be jumping to. If someone is partner-less, your first thought should be 'maybe they just haven't met the right person,' and then work from there. I know it made me really annoyed when I was at school and all geeky looking and mousy that people assumed I was a lesbian because I didn't date. Having that assumed of you while being hopelessly, childishly obsessed with my male crush who my friend was dating at the time was an ironic, bitter blow. You'd think people had never heard of the concept of being physically undesirable or, you know, bad luck? I'd like to know what sexuality the people who assumed those things of me are now. Considering that a handful of people who I knew at school came out as gay later on.

But I feel for all the future asexuals watching this as kids thrilled that finally, there's a movie aimed at them that doesn't involve being romantically involved with anyone as the be all and end all. Remember that asexuals have to deal with being made to feel like a freak more than any other orientation. Reminders that they are different echo from everywhere. It's not just a gender that they have to change in a song lyric, they'd have to change the entire song to make it not about romantic love. It's not enough to imagine that a character was the opposite gender in a movie, they'd have to change the entire plot to not have a relationship formed at all. It's about feeling like they can't contribute when people talk about their crushes or about their dream weddings or have to endure conversations about sex. Asexuals grow up feeling like a freak and totally alien to everyone else. So, to see a movie where the main character doesn't need anyone to feel complete would be a welcome message to any kid or teen who just isn't feeling what their friends are.

10 hours ago, Letmelivemylife said:

She refuses to believe that my daughter is my biological child since apparently being a lesbian makes my uterus stop working lol. It's called a sperm donor asshole lol. Yeah I hope to adopt some kids in the future but being a lesbian doesn't mean I have to choose adoption lol. Not shading adoption at all. The scary thing is the principal has 3 kids. I swear there needs to be an application process to have children. Some people should NOT reproduce

That's really awful that this happened to you. Reminds me of a moment I read about in Everyday Sexism where a woman goes for an interview with a male boss. He notices that she's young and asks if she'd be interested in having children in the future. She replies with: "Possibly, but not right now. I'll probably adopt." The boss laughs and says: "I don't think so, every woman wants a man to provide her with her own children. I don't think adoption would suit you." And she replies with this zinger: "Actually, it would. I'm infertile. Also, I'm a lesbian."

That moment should be in the dictionary under the word "owned."

[Letmelivemylife 8,715]

3 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm perfectly fine with LGBT representation in children's entertainment however, I'd rather if that was going to be the case that the orientation was made clear from the beginning. In the case of Elsa, I'm not the first to say that making her lesbian would potentially be forcing something that was never there to begin with. It seems almost like slash fan fiction, which is amateur and these studios are supposed to be professional. Making her a lesbian for the sake of being progressive rather than to have the film in its original conception just irks me. But it wouldn't bother me, even so. It's probably because a lesbian isn't the first conclusion that people should be jumping to. If someone is partner-less, your first thought should be 'maybe they just haven't met the right person,' and then work from there. I know it made me really annoyed when I was at school and all geeky looking and mousy that people assumed I was a lesbian because I didn't date. Having that assumed of you while being hopelessly, childishly obsessed with my male crush who my friend was dating at the time was an ironic, bitter blow. You'd think people had never heard of the concept of being physically undesirable or, you know, bad luck? I'd like to know what sexuality the people who assumed those things of me are now. Considering that a handful of people who I knew at school came out as gay later on.

But I feel for all the future asexuals watching this as kids thrilled that finally, there's a movie aimed at them that doesn't involve being romantically involved with anyone as the be all and end all. Remember that asexuals have to deal with being made to feel like a freak more than any other orientation. Reminders that they are different echo from everywhere. It's not just a gender that they have to change in a song lyric, they'd have to change the entire song to make it not about romantic love. It's not enough to imagine that a character was the opposite gender in a movie, they'd have to change the entire plot to not have a relationship formed at all. It's about feeling like they can't contribute when people talk about their crushes or about their dream weddings or have to endure conversations about sex. Asexuals grow up feeling like a freak and totally alien to everyone else. So, to see a movie where the main character doesn't need anyone to feel complete would be a welcome message to any kid or teen who just isn't feeling what their friends are.

That's really awful that this happened to you. Reminds me of a moment I read about in Everyday Sexism where a woman goes for an interview with a male boss. He notices that she's young and asks if she'd be interested in having children in the future. She replies with: "Possibly, but not right now. I'll probably adopt." The boss laughs and says: "I don't think so, every woman wants a man to provide her with her own children. I don't think adoption would suit you." And she replies with this zinger: "Actually, it would. I'm infertile. Also, I'm a lesbian."

That moment should be in the dictionary under the word "owned."

I've always thought it was ironic that people can say that "oh I could never love someone that I didn't share DNA with" and yet they get married. If that's the way they feel, they better get divorced asap!!!  My oldest sisters coworker adopted a child from China and there's no doubt that she truly loves that child. She would jump in front of a train to save that child and just as quickly disembowel someone that dared to hurt her child. Giving birth doesn't make you a mother. A mom is someone who is your biggest fan and will always be rooting for you on the sidelines. Someone who loves you more than she loves herself. Someone who scolds you when you're wrong and hugs you when you're sad. Someone who is willing to die to protect you. Nothing is more powerful than the bond between a mama and her child  regardless of DNA 

[Regina George 59,387]

Why would Elsa be lesbian tho? I just don't feel like it's good for her carater. I don't want her to be lesbian and y'all can come for me..  

[Harry 26,836]

28 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm perfectly fine with LGBT representation in children's entertainment however, I'd rather if that was going to be the case that the orientation was made clear from the beginning. In the case of Elsa, I'm not the first to say that making her lesbian would potentially be forcing something that was never there to begin with. It seems almost like slash fan fiction, which is amateur and these studios are supposed to be professional. Making her a lesbian for the sake of being progressive rather than to have the film in its original conception just irks me. But it wouldn't bother me, even so. It's probably because a lesbian isn't the first conclusion that people should be jumping to. If someone is partner-less, your first thought should be 'maybe they just haven't met the right person,' and then work from there. I know it made me really annoyed when I was at school and all geeky looking and mousy that people assumed I was a lesbian because I didn't date. Having that assumed of you while being hopelessly, childishly obsessed with my male crush who my friend was dating at the time was an ironic, bitter blow. You'd think people had never heard of the concept of being physically undesirable or, you know, bad luck? I'd like to know what sexuality the people who assumed those things of me are now. Considering that a handful of people who I knew at school came out as gay later on.

But I feel for all the future asexuals watching this as kids thrilled that finally, there's a movie aimed at them that doesn't involve being romantically involved with anyone as the be all and end all. Remember that asexuals have to deal with being made to feel like a freak more than any other orientation. Reminders that they are different echo from everywhere. It's not just a gender that they have to change in a song lyric, they'd have to change the entire song to make it not about romantic love. It's not enough to imagine that a character was the opposite gender in a movie, they'd have to change the entire plot to not have a relationship formed at all. It's about feeling like they can't contribute when people talk about their crushes or about their dream weddings or have to endure conversations about sex. Asexuals grow up feeling like a freak and totally alien to everyone else. So, to see a movie where the main character doesn't need anyone to feel complete would be a welcome message to any kid or teen who just isn't feeling what their friends are.

That's really awful that this happened to you. Reminds me of a moment I read about in Everyday Sexism where a woman goes for an interview with a male boss. He notices that she's young and asks if she'd be interested in having children in the future. She replies with: "Possibly, but not right now. I'll probably adopt." The boss laughs and says: "I don't think so, every woman wants a man to provide her with her own children. I don't think adoption would suit you." And she replies with this zinger: "Actually, it would. I'm infertile. Also, I'm a lesbian."

That moment should be in the dictionary under the word "owned."

Not that I disagree with your overall point re: asexuals and the implication that romance should be aspired too, but asexuals can still fall in love...

[StrawberryBlond 15,566]

15 minutes ago, Letmelivemylife said:

I've always thought it was ironic that people can say that "oh I could never love someone that I didn't share DNA with" and yet they get married. If that's the way they feel, they better get divorced asap!!!  My oldest sisters coworker adopted a child from China and there's no doubt that she truly loves that child. She would jump in front of a train to save that child and just as quickly disembowel someone that dared to hurt her child. Giving birth doesn't make you a mother. A mom is someone who is your biggest fan and will always be rooting for you on the sidelines. Someone who loves you more than she loves herself. Someone who scolds you when you're wrong and hugs you when you're sad. Someone who is willing to die to protect you. Nothing is more powerful than the bond between a mama and her child  regardless of DNA 

Yeah, I'd like to conceive naturally is all is possible but adoption is still valid if all else fails. If you love someone, it doesn't matter that you're not related and certainly, if you adopt a child very young, they'll feel like they're related. I remember I once read a story about a girl who'd gone through so many foster homes and she's finally got a solid adoption deal. And she said that she never considered her biological parents to be her parents at all because they didn't love her or look after her properly. She believed that your real parents are the people who care and that's what her adoptive parents give her, so she considers them her real parents. So sweet.

2 minutes ago, Harry said:

Not that I disagree with your overall point re: asexuals and the implication that romance should be aspired too, but asexuals can still fall in love...

Yes, but this concept has always alluded me. Asexuals, as the name suggests, are people who have no sexual or romantic desire, end of. Certainly, anyone who ever claimed to be an asexual, when I first became aware of the term, fitted this description. But over time, I've started to see a subsection emerge who call themselves 'aromantics,' meaning that they are perfectly fine with romantic relationships but not sex. Which seems legit, but then there was another subsection who claim that they're asexual despite the fact that they masturbate, have relationships and even have sex occasionally to keep their partner happy and they reasonably enjoy it into the bargain. I'm sorry, but that is not an asexual. That's someone who merely has a low sex drive. Some people are just determined to label themselves as something different just because they're not having it off or want to have it off 24/7. So, the term 'asexual' seems a bit flexible these days. I just go by the official definition of it. Yes, they could fall in love, but anything more than that and I'm just not buying it.

[Harry 26,836]

27 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Yes, but this concept has always alluded me. Asexuals, as the name suggests, are people who have no sexual or romantic desire, end of. Certainly, anyone who ever claimed to be an asexual, when I first became aware of the term, fitted this description. But over time, I've started to see a subsection emerge who call themselves 'aromantics,' meaning that they are perfectly fine with romantic relationships but not sex. Which seems legit, but then there was another subsection who claim that they're asexual despite the fact that they masturbate, have relationships and even have sex occasionally to keep their partner happy and they reasonably enjoy it into the bargain. I'm sorry, but that is not an asexual. That's someone who merely has a low sex drive. Some people are just determined to label themselves as something different just because they're not having it off or want to have it off 24/7. So, the term 'asexual' seems a bit flexible these days. I just go by the official definition of it. Yes, they could fall in love, but anything more than that and I'm just not buying it.

What part of the name asexual suggests anything of romance to you? You say "as the name suggests" but literally only the world "sexual" is in there. You've got it mixed up. An aromantic is not someone that is 'fine' with romantic relationships, it's actually the complete opposite. The clue is really in the names of these terms. 'A' as a prefix = without/not. Asexual = not sexual, aromantic = not romantic.

You can be asexual and fall in love. I'm sure there are asexuals that don't have romantic feelings as well, but I've always understood and observed that asexuals are perfectly capable of forming romantic relationships. There isn't really any reason to suggest that they couldn't.

[StrawberryBlond 15,566]

7 minutes ago, Harry said:

What part of the name asexual suggests anything of romance to you? You say "as the name suggests" but literally only the world "sexual" is in there. You've got it mixed up. An aromantic is not someone that is 'fine' with romantic relationships, it's actually the complete opposite. The clue is really in the names of these terms. 'A' as a prefix = without/not. Asexual = not sexual, aromantic = not romantic.

You can be asexual and fall in love. I'm sure there are asexuals that don't have romantic feelings as well, but I've always understood and observed that asexuals are perfectly capable of forming romantic relationships. There isn't really any reason to suggest that they couldn't.

But considering that terms like heterosexual and bisexual and homosexual also have this word in their titles but we consider romantic feelings to be a part of it too, then why should asexual be any different? And aromantics is the term that people with these feelings are calling themselves, their words, not mine. Yes, it doesn't quite make sense, but they're likely using the word because when people hear that 'a' before it, they automatically start thinking that 'sexual' is going to follow it, so 'aromantic' suggests that we're talking about a certain kind of asexual. But as I said, their words, not mine.

Of course an asexual could fall in love. Just like how straight people have fallen in love with someone of the same gender and gay people have fallen in love with someone of the opposite gender. But I'm just talking about the definition of the term as we know it. Literally every dictionary definiton says it's about a lack of sexual desire and attraction.

[Harry 26,836]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

But considering that terms like heterosexual and bisexual and homosexual also have this word in their titles but we consider romantic feelings to be a part of it too, then why should asexual be any different? And aromantics is the term that people with these feelings are calling themselves, their words, not mine. Yes, it doesn't quite make sense, but they're likely using the word because when people hear that 'a' before it, they automatically start thinking that 'sexual' is going to follow it, so 'aromantic' suggests that we're talking about a certain kind of asexual. But as I said, their words, not mine.

Of course an asexual could fall in love. Just like how straight people have fallen in love with someone of the same gender and gay people have fallen in love with someone of the opposite gender. But I'm just talking about the definition of the term as we know it. Literally every dictionary definiton says it's about a lack of sexual desire and attraction.

Good point. I don't know. Semantics, I guess. No, they're not... I don't know where you heard that. A quick Google search of the term 'aromantic' and every description puts it as a person that doesn't have romantic feelings. 

Yes, you're right, the definition of asexual is a lack of sexual desire and attraction. But neither of those things are always connected to romance. You are failing to establish the distinction between the two.

"Many asexual people experience romantic attraction even though they do not feel sexual attraction." - http://wiki.asexuality.org/Romantic_attraction

"Sexual identities and romantic orientations are not linked and therefore a person could be asexual, aromantic, neither, or both asexual and aromantic." "Aromantic: individuals who do not experience romantic attraction toward individuals of any gender(s)" - https://lgbtq.unc.edu/asexuality-attraction-and-romantic-orientation

"Many asexuals can feel the full range of romantic emotions, from a slight crush to true love.  It’s just devoid of a sexual component.  Asexuals are not limited to platonic love, either.  When an ace feels love, it can be every bit as complex and deep as the romantic love that anyone else feels." - http://www.asexualityarchive.com/asexuality-misconceptions-and-mistakes/

The definition of the term as 'we' know it is as we've said. I think you've just mistaken the meaning.

[StrawberryBlond 15,566]

10 minutes ago, Harry said:

Good point. I don't know. Semantics, I guess. No, they're not... I don't know where you heard that. A quick Google search of the term 'aromantic' and every description puts it as a person that doesn't have romantic feelings. 

Yes, you're right, the definition of asexual is a lack of sexual desire and attraction. But neither of those things are always connected to romance. You are failing to establish the distinction between the two.

"Many asexual people experience romantic attraction even though they do not feel sexual attraction." - http://wiki.asexuality.org/Romantic_attraction

"Sexual identities and romantic orientations are not linked and therefore a person could be asexual, aromantic, neither, or both asexual and aromantic." "Aromantic: individuals who do not experience romantic attraction toward individuals of any gender(s)" - https://lgbtq.unc.edu/asexuality-attraction-and-romantic-orientation

"Many asexuals can feel the full range of romantic emotions, from a slight crush to true love.  It’s just devoid of a sexual component.  Asexuals are not limited to platonic love, either.  When an ace feels love, it can be every bit as complex and deep as the romantic love that anyone else feels." - http://www.asexualityarchive.com/asexuality-misconceptions-and-mistakes/

The definition of the term as 'we' know it is as we've said. I think you've just mistaken the meaning.

Well, I remember the first time I read an informative article describing what asexuality was and when bringing up the feeling of love, it mentioned that some asexuals can fall in love - "'aromantics,' they call themselves." But that was a good while ago. Maybe the term has since changed. Admittedly, I haven't researched it since. I just assumed I didn't have to, I thought it wouldn't change its meaning.

Yes, I do think asexuals can fall in love. Love can manifest from any orientation and just like everyone else, an asexual could even have their orientation change as time goes on. I'm not arguing that. I'm just criticising this concept that there's some asexuals out there who claim to have nothing against a bit of occasional sex. An asexual looks at sex in 4 possible ways - something to be scared of, something to be upset about, something to be disgusted by or something to be completely disinterested in. Or a combination of all these things. I have never heard of an asexual who said that they force themselves into having sex occasionally and think it's ok and/or enjoy it. Any asexual who has ever talked themselves into having sex said that they found it a horrible, scary, upsetting, disgusting, etc. experience that they regret. So, to hear some of them say that they find it ok for something occasional, I think they've incorrectly labelled themselves. If you find sex halfway enjoyable, no matter how infrequent, then you're not asexual. You just have a low sex drive.

[Harry 26,836]

24 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Well, I remember the first time I read an informative article describing what asexuality was and when bringing up the feeling of love, it mentioned that some asexuals can fall in love - "'aromantics,' they call themselves." But that was a good while ago. Maybe the term has since changed. Admittedly, I haven't researched it since. I just assumed I didn't have to, I thought it wouldn't change its meaning.

Yes, I do think asexuals can fall in love. Love can manifest from any orientation and just like everyone else, an asexual could even have their orientation change as time goes on. I'm not arguing that. I'm just criticising this concept that there's some asexuals out there who claim to have nothing against a bit of occasional sex. An asexual looks at sex in 4 possible ways - something to be scared of, something to be upset about, something to be disgusted by or something to be completely disinterested in. Or a combination of all these things. I have never heard of an asexual who said that they force themselves into having sex occasionally and think it's ok and/or enjoy it. Any asexual who has ever talked themselves into having sex said that they found it a horrible, scary, upsetting, disgusting, etc. experience that they regret. So, to hear some of them say that they find it ok for something occasional, I think they've incorrectly labelled themselves. If you find sex halfway enjoyable, no matter how infrequent, then you're not asexual. You just have a low sex drive.

I think you're either misremembering the article, misread it or they were misinformed. The meaning wouldn't simply change, let alone to suddenly mean the literal opposite.

Okay that's fine but nothing I said was ever anything to do with asexuals having sex? I'm really not sure why you keep on bringing this up as I've not mentioned this once. This exchange began with me saying: "asexuals can still fall in love" in response to your post where you said that asexuals can't relate to songs or movies about romantic relationships, or can't contribute to conversations about "dream weddings", implying that romance is alien to them - which is incorrect and not what asexuality is. Then in response to that you said point blank that asexuals have "no romantic desire". So it kinda seems like you are/were arguing that? A few posts in you changed your mind and now you're saying they can fall in love so... wyd

[Xoxo Adriana 15,040]

19 hours ago, GagaXCupcakke said:

Call me when they have a main LGBT character.  And not just a 5 second glimpse of one. 

Lets hope Elsa is gonna stand out against all the other Disney princesses

[Xoxo Adriana 15,040]

19 hours ago, merlot said:

religious people will be pressed af 

Girl this made me cackle, you said it

[Xoxo Adriana 15,040]

18 hours ago, VenusAsABoy said:

Send flowers and a copy of BTW to Disney then

Disney stans and little monsters will soon be merged into one gay mess 

Spoiler

by mess i mean party