http://www.vogue.com/13433421/elsa-lesbian-frozen-2/ As an asexual-aromantic who is a complete outsider on all of this: I wish people would stop calling it "sexuality." There is a romantic/emotional side of orientation, there is a sexual/physical side, but they are not the same thing, they don't even overlap a lot of the time. The most common pair is heterosexual-heteroromantic, the next most common is homosexual-homoromantic, but you can find plenty of people who are bisexual-homoromantic, people who are heterosexual-aromantic, people who are asexual-biromantic... Why can't people just call it "orientation"? Focusing on sexual orientation specifically and ignoring the fact that romantic orientation is a completely different thing just gives more ammunition to the lunatics who believe "every heterosexual and bisexual person is also heteroromantic, every homosexual 'person' is also aromantic" (granted, they never claim it in those words, they prefer to phrase it as "straight couples love each other, gay couples screw each other") Am I the only one who has this problem with that specific word?
At this point the idea of separating sexual and romantic orientation is too complex for the majority to grasp. The general public are only just starting to accept the gender spectrum. The term "sexuality" is a strong catch-all that even the most closed minded can understand. When you are trying to make a point, trying to educate people on a certain aspect of the issue, you're better off using the simplest terms, even if they are not the most accurate. The inclusiveness is implied, and while that is only a consolation, I believe it is only a short term solution. As discourse surrounding the transgender issue is proving, the willingness of the general public to seek and receive education on these issues is on an upwards trend. In the context of the article, I feel "sexuality" was a perfectly appropriate term as it related specifically to who Elsa might potentially have (implied/off screen) sexual intimacy with.
Well yes, lets use an article of a poorly adapted version of a much better, to discuss a topic that matters why? Though I agree that orientation would be the best choice of word to use, when discussing who/what you want to intrude/be intruded by. Or whatever people do these days. O_O
I've actually read The Snow Queen, and I've watched the animated film narrated by Sigourney Weaver. I happen to think Frozen had the better plot, themes, writing, character development Because there are still LGBT people in the world who are being socially and/or physically hurt by the assumption that "gay = sex" even though everybody also assumes "straight = love". A random straight man is twice as likely to be a pedophile as is a random gay man, but people equating "gay" with "sex" in a way that they don't for "straight" means that a lot of men are fired from teaching positions and publicly shamed because "You're trusting a homosexual not to molest my children?" (despite trusting heterosexuals, who are objectively more likely to be pedophiles, because they don't think of straight people as heterosexuals, they think of straight people as heterosexuals).
I don't think people assume straight = love. I mean... there are lots of straight people who aren't in romantic relationships, and we still consider them straight...? I agree that there's still prejudice against gay people and a tendency to see gay sex as somehow kinkier or "dirtier" than straight sex, but I'm not seeing the connection to the sexual/romantic terminology. Honestly, I think the vast majority of people match up with their sexual and romantic orientations. It's fairly rare, in my experience and understanding, for someone to be attracted to one sex physically and the other sex romantically. I know, it happens, but I'm not sure it happens often enough to justify an entire shift in terminology. And if we are going to shift, I don't think it should be to just "orientation" - this could mean sexual, romantic, geographic, political... too vague to be useful, I think.
I am actually more concerned why someone would be wanting to have a children's book character sexuality revealed. As it is a Disney film, you can be certain that they won't. That is the way it should be.
Reasonable people certainly notice the double standard, but there are still a lot of people who will insist that straightness is "more loving" than gayness even when you do try to show them the straight couples who are just "hooking up." I haven't been on the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network forums (aven.org) in a while, but I'm pretty sure I remember a lot of people being "Aces of Hearts" (asexual, hetero/homo/biromantic) in addition to the "Aces of Spades" (asexual, aromantic). Speaking of asexuality specifically: in the original Kinsey survey, only 1% of people said that they had no interest in sex because asexuals didn't know that they were a specific thing that could be represented by a survey of sexual interests. A lot of asexuals didn't sign up for the survey in the first place, and a lot of those who did thought they had to answer "3 out of 6" for being equally disinterested, yet were tallied as being bisexuals who were equally interested. Now that more people know that asexuality is a thing, sexuality (well played, BayView, well played) surveys today tend to show that asexuals are closer to being 3-5% instead of being just 1%. Maybe if the dual-terminology started to become more common, more people would notice that their two orientations don't line up as closely as they thought? "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” - Henry Ford
That's exactly what I'm talking about: they don't need to mention her sexual orientation to make her gay/bi, that's just the only word people happen to know to use. We already know that Anna and Kristoff are heteroromantic without being shown that they are heterosexual, why do people assume that showing Elsa to be homoromantic/biromantic and falling in love with a woman would be intrinsically "more sexual" than Kristoff and Anna falling in love with each other?
Erm...you do realize that when all those Disney princesses get married to princes, that information HAS been revealed, right? A very large percentage of Disney movies reveal just that. Nobody's talking about animated bedroom festivities here. Edited to add: Yes, I realize that my "that information has been revealed" is to a great extent skimming over the original point of the thread. But I get the impression, @Gawler, that you're talking about just revealing the possibility of a woman marrying a woman. That marriage is no more sexual, no more inappropriate for children, than a woman marrying a man.
I'm not sure why it is necessary to discuss sexuality in a children's film. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is wrong, but I also don't think it needs to be shoe-horned into every book or film aimed for children.
Okay, I'm starting to better understand @Simpson17866 's point. Because, honestly, I can't think of a single children's film I've ever seen or heard of that "discussed sexuality". But, yes, quite a few of them have romance as part of the plot. So when it's a conventional straight romance (Cinderella, The Little Mermaid, whatever) does that count as discussing sexuality for you? Or is it just discussing sexuality when it's a same-sex romance?
I find it interesting that the word sexuality bothers you but there is no mention of sexualizing a childrens cartoon character. Its just a cartoon character and as far as I know nobodies ever been concerned about who the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are getting down with. Don't see any problem with the word myself but Frozen on the other hand, can't stand that film. Terrible film
At all. I don't think Cinderella is any better, the idea that an attractive woman should search out her wealthy prince to look after her isn't a particularly attractive message either. The Little Mermaid I have never seen. As a child (and I am not talking tween), were you particularly interested in sexuality? Was the idea of joining with another outside of friendship just an expectation of the adult world you didn't fully understand? Because it was for me? Why are people so keen to force adulthood on children?
Children of loving straight couples know that their parents love each other. Is that "forcing adulthood on children" by exposing them to the "sexuality"?
My entire point of this thread was to dispute the false equivalence that leads to people saying "children being aware of same-gender romantic love = children knowing about sex"
And on that note I agree entirely, perhaps it's more of a strawman though. When I was a kid, I had no clue as to the nature of my parent's relationship (wish I still didn't). BUT... Actually I would rather see my kid read/ watch a lesbian couple who came together based on some mutual love and respect, than a wannabe WAG chasing after the richest man in the castle, I think the former is more healthy. But, I would rather my young kid just had fun and built a camp in the woods.
Am I the only one who doesn't give two craps if Elsa wants to bang another lady? Let her bang another woman, then! Let everyone see it! In every exquisite detail that Disney will allow. I honestly just don't care. All I ask is that it's done in a non-forceful way.
What's that like? I don't really understand, only thought you were a little bit grumpy sometimes, or two-dimensional, or trekkie? Do you like people? So many badges, maybe I am an asperger free radical, hetero/homosoloist? I think there is a word for that already. All best.
