Actually that supports my argument. The core of the “official” disavowal is, they are puppets, not sexual beings. “They do not exist below the waist.”
And I’m saying, yes, that’s exactly how you can depict cartoon or puppet characters with identified genders (also official here) as being in “gay” relationships, without having to get into sex talk with children. Get over the idea that it’s about genitals. Cartoons and puppets don’t have genitals and don’t have sex (at least not in popular children’s media), and the entire subject of sexuality need not have anything to do with their depicted loving relationships.
Bert and Ernie can be considered gay, if one likes, because they are two boys in a loving relationship, and that is all that “gay” can mean for Muppets.
This is an awful example, because that’s not what is shown in the show or what the show runners say is happening in the show. Bert and Ernie are roommates, they aren’t presented as being in a romantic relationships, and the producers are clear that’s what they are. Some people choose not to live with romantic partners but do live with a friend, and you really shouldn’t teach kids that people living together are always people who ‘love each other just just sometimes a boy and a girl do, or two girls’ since it’s going to be really confusing when they strike out on their own and encounter roommates.
Well, you don’t have to interpret them as gay, either. But there is no text that they aren’t. What show runners say, outside the show, possibly for political reasons, is irrelevant, especially since they appear to not be engaging the concept beyond sexuality.
Come on dude. Obviously all well-adjusted people are going to have a lot of growing and learning about relationships in between the time that cartoons and puppets may serve to illustrate same-gender love, and the time they strike out on their own.
True. It should be considered perfectly normal for two friends to be just that, even life-long roommates if that’s what they want. No need to put extra baggage on young kids.
It’s been a while but I vaguely remember a scene when Ernie was keeping Bert awake and they had separate beds. So if they are gay they are from the Dick Van Dyke Show TV era.
Ernie was keeping Bert awake eating cookies in bed. Bert told him not to eat cookies in his bed so Ernie took the only logical action and got into Berts bed to eat cookies.
There was that awkward time Bert realized Ernie was on the other side of the glory hole. It’s a joke.
If I’m reading you correctly, I agree. Cartoons and puppets don’t have digrestive systems, but we see them eating; They don’t have brains, but we observe them thinking; they don’t have lungs and a larynx, but we accept that they speak. Therefore cartoon characters and puppets that don’t have genitals, can be gay or straight. They behave like people, and sexuality is about behaviour at least as much as physiology/biology…
Should the percentage of homosexual couples in childrens’ cartoons be the same as in the real world? Should this principle apply with reference to other demographics as well? For example, should the number of Irish characters mirror the general Irish population percentage?
Presumably not all animators are like you – some would require “extra work” to think of a hetero couple, and some wouldn’t require “extra work” for either.
Well, don’t take this the wrong way, but who gives a shit? The question is about representation of gay characters in cartoons. Assuming you’re not writing for cartoons, the fact that you have trouble thinking about gay people really doesnt have any bearing on the topic.
Is there a possibility that the two are linked in the other way, too? That is to say, perhaps an under-representation of non-straight couples in your own childhood or adult viewing options has a role to play in how automatic your thinking is when it comes to “couples”?
