It's a sociocultural trap!
Sep. 29th, 2008 11:22 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
seiberwingAm I the only one who gets pissed off at this sort of thing? Putting aside the fact that The Gay is not allowed in the TF:Mosaic project (with, apparently, exceptions made for humor), I find it rather insulting to continually insinuate that the sudden discovery that the object of your lusts is actually a male is horrifying. Double points if they turn around and start hitting on you. It's an incredibly stale joke that has overtones of homophobia that I'm just not comfortable with. Note the comments below the comic as well--this situation is regarded as awkward or just flat-out wrong. There's even a few crossdresser jokes thrown in for good measure.
Does that mean the writer and artist of this comic are homophobic? Certainly not. They're just going with a lowest common denominator joke, much like like the guy who did the Erector penis size joke last week. But stop for a moment and think about exactly why it's funny. You have one or more males participating in a manly heterosexual activity, lusting over or trying to attract a female. Then the "trap" is exposed, revealing that the male(s) have actually been participating in a homosexual activity by catcalling another male. This is found to be hilarious to the audience and humiliating to the male(s) involved. I'm not sure if it even works the same way for a reverse-trap, a female mistaken for a male by another female, but if it is the degree of humiliation is far less.
In short, the Transformers fandom really needs to get its act together.
EDIT: Seems the ones responsible have posted in their thoughts on the comic.
Josh van Reyk, writer: Definitely not the case here. I just thought it would be funny if the Constructicons were hitting on a car, that; A) Was actually a Transformer, and B) Was a male Transformer.
Those good ‘ole boys would surely freak-out if that ever happened.
The Stunticons are just giving them a little grief, there are no hidden under-tones here.
Apologies if anyone took offence to this, it certainly wasn’t intended.
Ninjha, artist: Definitely! After reading all the comments and stuff, we had no idea this would be so controversial. Even while drawing it I thought of it as just a gag. I made sure the guns were powering up and stuff. The Stunticons were just supposed to scare them off, THATS IT. There is no reading into this, no hidden message, it is what you see.
Yes, well, while I see an alternative explanation that the Stunticon's violent approach could have been the trigger as opposed to their revealed gender, Mr. van Reyk seems to indicate otherwise. I honestly can't be arsed to go in and argue with them, but I'd say the intent on the writer's part is pretty obvious. Accidental gay is terrifying.
Does that mean the writer and artist of this comic are homophobic? Certainly not. They're just going with a lowest common denominator joke, much like like the guy who did the Erector penis size joke last week. But stop for a moment and think about exactly why it's funny. You have one or more males participating in a manly heterosexual activity, lusting over or trying to attract a female. Then the "trap" is exposed, revealing that the male(s) have actually been participating in a homosexual activity by catcalling another male. This is found to be hilarious to the audience and humiliating to the male(s) involved. I'm not sure if it even works the same way for a reverse-trap, a female mistaken for a male by another female, but if it is the degree of humiliation is far less.
In short, the Transformers fandom really needs to get its act together.
EDIT: Seems the ones responsible have posted in their thoughts on the comic.
Josh van Reyk, writer: Definitely not the case here. I just thought it would be funny if the Constructicons were hitting on a car, that; A) Was actually a Transformer, and B) Was a male Transformer.
Those good ‘ole boys would surely freak-out if that ever happened.
The Stunticons are just giving them a little grief, there are no hidden under-tones here.
Apologies if anyone took offence to this, it certainly wasn’t intended.
Ninjha, artist: Definitely! After reading all the comments and stuff, we had no idea this would be so controversial. Even while drawing it I thought of it as just a gag. I made sure the guns were powering up and stuff. The Stunticons were just supposed to scare them off, THATS IT. There is no reading into this, no hidden message, it is what you see.
Yes, well, while I see an alternative explanation that the Stunticon's violent approach could have been the trigger as opposed to their revealed gender, Mr. van Reyk seems to indicate otherwise. I honestly can't be arsed to go in and argue with them, but I'd say the intent on the writer's part is pretty obvious. Accidental gay is terrifying.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-29 02:23 pm (UTC)Like, say, Mix catcalls a 'babe', Scrapper pauses to question how exactly he knows it's a 'babe' at all - could be anybody. Cue a bit of awkwardness, strange imaginings of who the car could be, maybe a "Wanna still go after them?" "No. >>;" or something of the sort.
Now see, I like this idea. It keeps the Constructicons in their usual 'straight horny male' persona, but makes it less about being horrified at the gay and more about being unsure exactly what they're chasing. Again, playing off a canon and personal issue rather than inserting human bias and fears.
And yeah, immaturity. The fact that it got past the Mosaic censors is depressing.