Writing for AfterElton.com, François Peneaud looks at the history of DC/Wildstorm’s gay Batman analog, Midnighter, focusing on how the character’s sexuality has been handled in his current solo series.
The seventh issue of the new series, written by Brian K. Vaughan (who’s already proven his gay-friendliness in his Ex Machina series, where a mixed-race gay marriage takes place), begins with a cute full-page kiss between the two married men, thus breaking the no-kissing track record of the series so far. But even Vaughan falls back on using a homophobic villain in his issue. Homophobia seems to be shorthand for “bad guy,” but it reeks of laziness from the writers. After all, we don’t see the opponents of female characters always behaving in a misogynistic way. It would quickly get boring and would rightfully raise a few eyebrows.
Issue 9 goes on sale next week.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:44 am
Ick.
June 27th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Somehow, I knew you’d be the first to comment …
June 27th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Glad I didn’t let you down, Kevin. I’m sure there’ll be plenty of “Oh, what a beautiful thing” comments, so I thought I’d get a word in edgewise for those of us who don’t jump up and down clapping over this kind of imagery.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:06 am
Yeah, “ick” really struck a blow for the little guy.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Mark, if only you had some sort of “web log” where your thoughts about homosexuals in comics could be recorded in greater detail.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Yeah, good call Mark. Take a stand for all good homophobes everywhere.
June 27th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Comic Book Life Lessons: If you don’t have anything nice to say…
June 27th, 2007 at 11:10 am
After all, we don’t see the opponents of female characters always behaving in a misogynistic way.
We don’t? Paging Dr. Psycho…
June 27th, 2007 at 11:17 am
While I agree making every bad guy homophobic is too frequently used, I gotta say, most bad guys who fight heroic women do resort to sexist/misogynist comments to show that they’re “bad”. And yeah, I’d like an end to that too, but they’re just as ubiquitous as Midnighter facing a consistent stream of anti-gay epithets.
That all said, that page always makes me go, “Awwww.” So there’s the first “aw” post.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:19 am
You stay classy there, Engblom.
And indeed, misogyny and violence against women has been a hallmark of solidifying a villain’s “bad-guy-ness” since the first time Wonder Woman’s hands got bound.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:31 am
“Mark, if only you had some sort of “web log” where your thoughts about homosexuals in comics could be recorded in greater detail.”
Nah. I’d rather talk about relevant stuff. Like “fat superhero” covers and Sea Monkey ads.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Oh, so being a homophobe isn’t something you do on your own site, but exclusive to Blog@Newsarama. Got it.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
“Ick” now equals full-blown homophobia? Wow. Thanks for the diagnosis, Kev.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
No, but a consistent series of comments like this from you whenever homosexual comics are mentioned? Yes, that does equal homophobia. You’d not post that if it was a man and a woman, would you?
June 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
“You’d not post that if it was a man and a woman, would you?”
You’re serious, aren’t you?
Well…you probably are. Yeah, to answer your question, I wouldn’t post “ick” if it was a man and a woman, since it’s…well…what approximately 95% of humanity does. Of course, perish the thought of calling that “normal”…since that usually triggers a reaction from the HOMOPHOBE! chorus as well.
But let me turn your question around a bit. Would Kevin Melrose have posted it if it were a “boring” man and woman kissing? I suspect not.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
By the way, Kevin (Church), care to cite any of my “consistent series of comments” you consider homphobic? It sounds like you’ve been keeping pretty careful track of my paper trail (or pixel trail, I suppose).
June 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
“But let me turn your question around a bit. Would Kevin Melrose have posted it if it were a ‘boring’ man and woman kissing? I suspect not.”
If it was relevant to the post he was covering (which this image is) then yes, he would.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
“But let me turn your question around a bit. Would Kevin Melrose have posted it if it were a ‘boring’ man and woman kissing? I suspect not.”
You’re not really turning his question around, since you’re directing it at me.
Yes, Kevin Melrose probably would have posted the “‘boring’ man and woman kissing” image if it illustrated the paragraph he was quoting — which, in this case, the image does.
I’d have to go back through more than a 1,100 posts, but I’m pretty sure I’ve posted images of men and women being affectionate with each other.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
OK, so 95% of comics couples are heterosexual. This is the 5%. And? Nobody forces you to read the comic or look at the posts related to it. What is it about this subject that makes you consistently jump up and make sure we know that you think it’s icky? Congratulations, you’ve achieved that – you think gay people are icky when they kiss. Do you think they’re icky when they buy groceries or wash their car or get a haircut?
But let me turn your question around a bit. Would Kevin Melrose have posted it if it were a “boring” man and woman kissing? I suspect not.
You’ll have to ask Kevin Melrose about that, but I note that he’s never, as far as I know, used “boring” to describe heterosexual relationships in comics. You’re building a straw man there.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Is there anyone, gay or straight, who isn’t gross when getting a haircut?
I mean, have you seen people mid-haircut? They look like Frankenstein’s monster.
June 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
Well, considering the central subject of the paragraph was the villain Vaughan used in the story (which was what irritated the PC police officer in the first place), I would think a shot of the villain might have been more relevant to Kevin’s post.
Sure…a panel of the villain ranting and raving would probably be just as provacative as two men kissing (or moreso), but just not the correct kind of provacative, right?
June 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
“Nobody forces you to read the comic or look at the posts related to it.”
Well, actually you’re completely wrong on that one, Kevin. I popped in to visit Blog@Newsarama like I always do, and the image was right there, “above the fold” for all to see, whether they wanted to or not. I just posted my immediate reaction to the shot itself and my irritation over being “ambushed” by it.
“What is it about this subject that makes you consistently jump up and make sure we know that you think it’s icky?”
Again, Kevin, I have to ask for some examples…otherwise I might suspect that you, too, are all about the straw men.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
“you think gay people are icky when they kiss. Do you think they’re icky when they buy groceries or wash their car or get a haircut?”
LOL! So intimate relations are on the same plane as grocery shopping, washing the car and getting a haircut? News to me.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:02 pm
You’re the only one here who seems to view the image as “provocative,” Mark. I’m neither bothered nor stimulated by it.
I answered your hypothetical, but my response doesn’t seem to fit into your little PC/gay agenda-conspiracy scenario. Eh, whatever helps you get to sleep …
But the great thing about me posting on this blog is I get to decide what’s relevant to my posts.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Right, and the great thing about this blog is that I get to post my reaction to it.
I still do, right?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I may well have overstated my case with “consistently,” as the comment I recall raising my awareness of your feelings actually featured a guy named “Fred” expanding on a statement you made. My apologies.
Still, Mark, your comments in that thread do you no favors on the homophobia charge.
However, if you can’t see the irony of this statement: Right, and the great thing about this blog is that I get to post my reaction to it., you need to possibly check your detection systems. The internet is a vast, vast place and if this sort of thing bothers you so much, why don’t you go to another site where you’re less likely to see the “ick”-inducing image of two adult males kissing?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Again, Kevin, I have to ask for some examples…otherwise I might suspect that you, too, are all about the straw men.
He totally is. He is TOTALLY GAY FOR STRAW MEN.
Ick.
Seriously, though–yes, you get to post your reactions until the Blog@ crew decides otherwise. And other people get to post reactions to you, and then you get to post your reactions to them, and then they…
See how this works?
June 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Not to defend the guy, but the linked thread has him commenting on incest, painful sex, and sex with defecation and/or vomiting. One could say that would imply that you’re equating homosexuality with any of those things which, ironically, would be much worse than posting “ick”.
I’m slightly homophobic, but I buy this series and I certainly don’t come around trying to tell people what to post blogs about or troll blogs. I did enjoy dropping this issue on my unsuspecting, extremely homophobic brother. He likes everything about the character BUT the homosexuality, so it was hilarious to hear his reaction when he opened up to the first page as I walked away giggling on the other side of his bedroom door.
To one of the points of the article, I could have sworn that the feudal Japan “Elseworlds” type tale had them kiss…or at least wake up after obviously having slept together.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
“Still, Mark, your comments in that thread do you no favors on the homophobia charge.”
Read my thread comments again, Kev. That’s a complete mischaracterization of them. When you do, you’ll see that I was objecting to the mentions of “sexual mutilation, defication and vomiting” in the cache of seized comics. In my final post on that thread I said “I would hope gay and straight people alike could agree that that kind of material is hardly worth protecting.” Was that anti-gay? No, it was anti-”sexual mutilation, defication and vomiting in comics”. If I’m just not seeing it, please find the comment that proves the homophobia charge.
“The internet is a vast, vast place and if this sort of thing bothers you so much, why don’t you go to another site where you’re less likely to see the “ick”-inducing image of two adult males kissing?”
Oh, come on. 99.9% of everything I see on Blog@Newsarama is great, entertaining stuff. That one shot isn’t enough to chase me off, so rest assured I’ll be around for a long time to come, probably posting things you don’t necessarily agree with (annoying, isn’t it?). Now, if Blog@Newsarama suddenly started posting that kind of thing from sun up to sun down, yeah, the site wouldn’t be for me…but that’s not going to happen.
In closing, I want to try to make a distinction here. Believe it or not, there are people in the world, while bearing no ill-will or harm against homosexual people, don’t necessarily think viewing homosexual intimacy is the Greatest Thing Ever. Does that rise to the level of “homophobia”. I don’t think so. Obviously, others do.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
There are too many Kevins in this thread.
And only one douche.
June 27th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Oh, Ken…..you wound me. I guess that would make you an Engblomphobe.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
That’s Mr. Lowery to you.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Make that two Douches. I’m with Mark. And I’m not afraid of being called a Homophobe. That little game doesn’t work on me. I have morals and standards, and no liberal dog pile is going to change them.
June 27th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
It took 33 comments for someone to make it political?
You guys are slacking.
June 28th, 2007 at 4:11 am
Sean, there is no “game”. You are a homophobe plain and simple, and it’s a hateful and ignorant attitude you’d best get rid of. It also has nothing to do with “morals” except in the extremely broad sense that anyone down to the KKK has “morals” in the sense of a set of beliefs. Yours are hateful and ugly.
Mark Engblom, nevermind earlier posts elsewhere, if your response to two people kissing depends on their sex that homophobic right there. See my response to Sean.
FWIW, the scene itself is actually pretty sweet.
July 2nd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Actually, I’m bothered by that scene, too, but it’s not because of the kiss.
My issue is: What the hell is with all those FLOATING PLAYING CARDS?
July 2nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Notintheface: It’s because Midnighter walked through a house of cards that must have taken Apollo hours to build just to kiss him.
And what say we reboot this comments thread and pretend that this is the first comment:
hawt.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
To Sean: I have morals and standards, too. And they say that hate and fear are destructive. They say that whatever consenting people of legal age do sexually with each other is fine. They say that so long as you don’t harm another person, do as you will.
My church and My bible say this, too.
And remember, Jesus was a liberal. He was probably the most radical liberal who trod the face of the earth.
To Alexa:
HAWT indeed.
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Katherine-
Amen to that. I mean, Jesus hung out with prostitutes and tax collectors– you tell me he didn’t have gay friends! Also, I advise everyone to track down an unexpurgated/unabridged version of St. Thomas Aquinas’s “Summa Contra Gentiles” wherein he argues that there is no Scriptural basis for the persecution of homosexuals, and furthermore hypothesizes that some people might just simply be born with sexual attractions towards the same sex, and that to tell them to do otherwise would be advising them to act UNnaturally. And this was in the 13th century!
July 3rd, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I think it’s a sweet kiss. I’d buy this book.