[kingofturves]

It would seem that Lauren Faust is somewhat homophobic. She apparently thinks that sexuality has no place in MLP, which would be fine, except straight is a sexuality too, and she's got plenty of straight relationships in there, so she's basically just excluding gay and bisexual people. It's the whole "BUT WHAT WILL I TELL MY CHILDREN? THAT GAY PEOPLE EXIST? HOW TRAUMATIZING." Anyway, that's kind of disappointing. At least she isn't in charge anymore; although I won't deny that she had an enormous creative influence on the show, I don't think that any show, but especially one like MLP, should be headed by someone who excludes LGB people on principle.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2010/12/24/m ... -rebuttal/

'Rainbow Dash has rainbow-striped hair because of her name and because she is very interested in sports, specifically flying. She is a tomboy, but nowhere in the show is her sexual orientation ever referenced. As we all know, there are plenty of straight tomboys in the world, and assuming they are lesbians is extremely unfair to both straight and lesbian tomboys.'

To consider that question you can only judge it from season 1. Beyond that Lauren Faust has very little influence over the series.
I think she's more against stereotypes and sexism. Forcing women and men into roles based on sex.

[dlgn]

That isn't what my problem is with it. The problem is that she said on her dA account that she doesn't think it should have any gay characters, basically because she doesn't think it's appropriate for kids, because some people (like her) have this notion that homosexuality is inherently more "mature" and sexual than heterosexuality. (Hint: it's not.)

[kingofturves]

That isn't what my problem is with it. The problem is that she said on her dA account that she doesn't think it should have any gay characters, basically because she doesn't think it's appropriate for kids, because some people (like her) have this notion that homosexuality is inherently more "mature" and sexual than heterosexuality. (Hint: it's not.)

Linky linky. Evidence. I'll have a look at the words specific.
It may be more case of Lauren not wanting to have any sexual connotations in a kids show?
Depends on the wording.
Both heterosexuality and homosexuality can be considered mature, depending on what is portrayed and how it is portrayed.
TV guidelines:

TV-Y
This program is designed to be appropriate for all children.
Programs rated TV-Y are designed to be appropriate for children of all ages. The thematic elements portrayed in programs with this rating are specifically designed for a very young audience, including children from ages 2-6. According to the FCC, programs are "not expected to frighten younger children".

TV-Y7
This program is designed for children age 7 and above.
Programs rated TV-Y7 are designed for children age 7 and older. The FCC implies that it "may be more appropriate for children who have acquired the developmental skills needed to distinguish between make-believe and reality." The thematic elements portrayed in programs with this rating may include 'comedic violence', or may be frightening or confusing for children under the age of 7.
Programs given the "FV" content descriptor exhibit more 'fantasy violence', and are generally more intense or combative than other programs rated TV-Y7.

TV-G
Most parents would find this program suitable for all ages.
Programs rated TV-G are generally suitable for all ages. The FCC states that "this rating does not signify a program designed specifically for children, most parents may let younger children watch this program unattended." The thematic elements portrayed in programs with this rating contain little or no violence, no strong language, and little or no sexual dialogue or situations.

TV-PG
This program contains material that parents may find unsuitable for younger children.[10]
Programs rated TV-PG contain material that parental or guardians may find inappropriate for younger children. TV-PG programming may hint at some sexual content, and there might be some violence.

TV-14
This program contains some material that many parents would find unsuitable for children under 14 years of age.TV-14 may contain some material that parental guardians may find unsuitable for children under the age of 14. The FCC warns that "Parents are cautioned to exercise some care in monitoring this program and are cautioned against letting children under the age of 14 watch unattended."

TV-MA
This program is specifically designed to be viewed by adults and therefore may be unsuitable for children under 17.
Programs rated TV-MA are usually designed to be viewed by adults. Some content may be unsuitable for children under 17. This rating was originally TV-M in early 1997 but was changed because of a trademark dispute and to remove confusion with the ESRB's "M for Mature" rating for video games. This rating is seldom used by broadcast networks or local television stations due to FCC restrictions on program content, although it is commonly applied to television programs featured on certain cable channels for both mainstream and pornographic programs.

Content descriptors
Some thematic elements, according to the FCC, "may call for parental guidance and/or the program may contain one or more of the following" sub-ratings, designated with an alphabetic letter:

D – Suggestive dialogue (rarely used with TV-MA)
L – Coarse language
S – Sexual content
V – Violence
FV – Fantasy violence (exclusive to TV-Y7)
Up to four content descriptors can be applied alongside an applied rating, depending on the kind of suggestive content featured in a program. The FV descriptor is an exception due to its sole use for TV-Y7 (children's programs), which can have no descriptor other than FV. As the rating increases pertaining to the age, the content matters generally get more intensive. These descriptors allow for 44 possible combinations for all the ratings total. The 'suggestive dialogue' descriptor is used for TV-PG and TV-14 rated programs only, although certain networks may choose the rate their TV-MA programs with the descriptor. The violence descriptor was used for TV-Y7 programs until the creation of the 'FV' descriptor in 1997.

[dlgn]

Well, the thing is that homosexuality isn't inherently any more sexual than heterosexuality, but Ms. Faust seems to think that it's inappropriate.

"The bottom line is that sex and sexuality have no place in this show, and unless I come up with a good reason to define those things, I'm not going to.

Which, as I said, would be fine, except for the fact that she clearly does have straight ponies on the show who have a sexuality, so she's really just excluding homosexuality.

Based on what she said there, I'd say it isn't a far cry to guess that she thinks that gay-ness is inherently sexual. Which is a pretty homophobic notion, because it paints heterosexuality as more innocent and normal. It's sort of a less extreme version of "stop shoving your sexuality down our throats".

[kingofturves]

Well, the thing is that homosexuality isn't inherently any more sexual than heterosexuality, but Ms. Faust seems to think that it's inappropriate.

"The bottom line is that sex and sexuality have no place in this show, and unless I come up with a good reason to define those things, I'm not going to.

Which, as I said, would be fine, except for the fact that she clearly does have straight ponies on the show who have a sexuality, so she's really just excluding homosexuality.

Based on what she said there, I'd say it isn't a far cry to guess that she thinks that gay-ness is inherently sexual. Which is a pretty homophobic notion, because it paints heterosexuality as more innocent and normal. It's sort of a less extreme version of "stop shoving your sexuality down our throats".

If that's the case what about Lyra and Bon Bon.
A fairly common pair even in season one.
Depicted as normal and just there for all to see.

[smoky1930]

Which, as I said, would be fine, except for the fact that she clearly does have straight ponies on the show who have a sexuality, so she's really just excluding homosexuality.

Based on what she said there, I'd say it isn't a far cry to guess that she thinks that gay-ness is inherently sexual. Which is a pretty homophobic notion, because it paints heterosexuality as more innocent and normal. It's sort of a less extreme version of "stop shoving your sexuality down our throats".

As someone who has never seen the show, I believe this allows me to have an unbiased opinion in this matter. Since this show is about ponies, perhaps they are just emulating aspects of natural equine behavior. It does have the name ponies in the title, and they do look horse like in resemblance. For horses, ponies, donkeys, equines in general, straight is normal. That is how we get more horses.

[dlgn]

Officially, they're just friends. Not to smash anyone's ship, but it doesn't really count if there's no way of knowing if it's true. I can't really give a good explanation, but try looking up stuff about queerbaiting. Basically, they give you someone who could be LGBTQIA, then repeatedly say they're not. It's a form of tokenism. Since our society is so heteronormative, hints aren't enough. How hard would it be to just add an occasional gay couple or something? We've got plenty of straight ones (shining and cadence, the cakes, rarity's parents, twilight's parents, etc.).

I encourage and support anyone who headcanons Lyra and Bon Bon as a couple, but it isn't enough to have sorta-kinda representation because most people (especially the ones who need to be convinced that being gay is normal) won't even notice, or will ignore or deny it. Like Faust.

Smoky, the ponies are basically like humans. I mean, horses don't build houses and read books and get married.

[Bu1ld0g]

Deel do you realize how ridiculous your argument sounds?

"There should be a gay couple forced into peoples faces so they are aware its natural"


This is primarily a show for pre-teen girls.
I for one, as a parent of young girls, don't feel it is necessary for it to be thrust in their faces until they are old enough to understand it. Does it have sex education in the program? Probably not, so why are you so hell bent on this being a feature?

[dlgn]

Sorry bu1l, but if the idea of your children knowing that gay people exist is so terrifying to you, so much that you think it's more important than teaching people that different sexualities are normal, then you're probably definitely homophobic.

No child I've ever met or even heard of has been confused by gay people. It usually goes like this: "Dad, why are those men kissing?" "Well, some boys fall in love with boys, and girls with girls." "Oh, okay."

And lumping in gay people with sex education is ridiculous. Being gay isn't all about sex, any more than being straight is. If kids can see a straight marriage, how is a gay one any different? It's coming from the same homophobic idea that I mentioned before: that homosexuality is somehow more sexual and less innocent than heterosexuality. It's not, and the idea that it is is hurtful to gay and bi people.

And last of all, I'm getting really tired of people who aren't even fans of the show coming into this thread to complain about the Evil Social Justice Warrior. Unlike the exclusion of LGBT people from mainstream TV, these discussions aren't hurting anyone. If you don't want to read them, don't. Problem solved.

~dlgn

[Bu1ld0g]

Sorry bu1l, but if the idea of your children knowing that gay people exist is so terrifying to you, so much that you think it's more important than teaching people that different sexualities are normal, then you're probably definitely homophobic.

I never once said that you complete jerk. I said why is it important for it to be included in a show aimed at 7 year old girls. This isn't information they need to know at that age and I have already explained it all to my older children.
I also find it disgusting that you would accuse me of being homophobic without knowing a single thing about me.

And lumping in gay people with sex education is ridiculous. Being gay isn't all about sex, any more than being straight is.

Yet again not what I said, It was an example of things not necessary to the younger audience it's aimed at

And last of all, I'm getting really tired of people who aren't even fans of the show coming into this thread to complain about the Evil Social Justice Warrior. Unlike the exclusion of LGBT people from mainstream TV, these discussions aren't hurting anyone. If you don't want to read them, don't. Problem solved.

Because you keep posting things aimed at getting a reaction or attention....

And with that I'm leaving this thread as I have no interest in you yet again creating an argument out of simple question/statements.
Nor do I desire this long-standing thread to be locked