Is anyone else glad that there's little to no romance/shipping in the TMNT franchise?

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by Loudo

Half of these are only in some fans' head...

Uh, no. Since the cartoons are aimed at children, they make the crushes blatantly visible for kids to see.

Mike blushes bright red when talking to Kala in one of the episodes. Leonardo's crush on Lotus was even blatantly stated in the episode. Raph's crush on Mona Lisa was a bit more subtle, but it was there.

The relationships in the comics, (Ninjara, Sara, the Regenta, Radical), all existed.

[Loudo]

Originally Posted by Type 97 Chi-ha

Female turtles exist too. Yet as I mentioned before, Eastman and Laird deliberately chose to have the Turtles be all male. Of course, you can have a gay Turtle. You can have April O'Neil be a transsexual if you like. But you haven't made the case there's any reason to do so other than pandering.

Yes, female turtles exist, in fact we've had one (poorly conceived but that isn't because she was female). Anyway, I don't get what your point is. Just in case you've forgotten (and I don't see how that could be since I've repeated it more and more times) I'm not saying there has to be a gay turtle, I'm not even saying there should be one, what I'm saying is that there is no reason why there shouldn't be one. And if you don't agree with my statement, it's you who should bring reasons not me.
Reading that we can't have a gay turtle because that would mean his personality would change, or he would like Madonna, or he would automatically desire his brothers, or his brothers would feel rightly awkward around him... THIS is what I'm complaining about.

And for those who say tmnt doesn't deal with sexuality much (at least when it comes to the turtles), you may have been right once, but are you watching the new show? We've had two female characters so far, and both have already and immediately been made the object of explicit or implicit love interest by the turtles.
So you can't look at me with a straight face and say: "Raph shouldn't fall in love with Casey when he is introduced because this isn't a show about romance".

[Type 97 Chi-ha]

Originally Posted by Loudo

Yes, female turtles exist, in fact we've had one (poorly conceived but that isn't because she was female). Anyway, I don't get what your point is. Just in case you've forgotten (and I don't see how that could be since I've repeated it more and more times) I'm not saying there has to be a gay turtle, I'm not even saying there should be one, what I'm saying is that there is no reason why there shouldn't be one. And if you don't agree with my statement, it's you who should bring reasons not me.
Reading that we can't have a gay turtle because that would mean his personality would change, or he would like Madonna, or he would automatically desire his brothers, or his brothers would feel rightly awkward around him... THIS is what I'm complaining about.

And for those who say tmnt doesn't deal with sexuality much (at least when it comes to the turtles), you may have been right once, but are you watching the new show? We've had two female characters so far, and both have already and immediately been made the object of explicit or implicit love interest by the turtles.
So you can't look at me with a straight face and say: "Raph shouldn't fall in love with Casey when he is introduced because this isn't a show about romance".

OK, I haven't seen the latest show. So romance is a big thing now? Of course, if you want to deviate too far from the Mirage origins, then I suppose anything can go.

[The Big Bad]

Originally Posted by JLS

To "The Big Bad",

All I was ever trying to say...was that kids at a young age relate to other kids of the same gender more than of a different gender. We can see that in playgrounds when 70-80% of the kids stick with their own gender. So in these kids' minds, as limited as they are, if they see more and more female characters in a show, the boys will feel alienated since it "appears" to be catering to girls more than boys (the "sorority house" reply). (And culturally, kids are immediately informed about their gender differences.)

Of course it would be great to have depthful and plentiful female characters in a TMNT cartoon...as I said before, but you have to ask the question is do you think kids have the cognitive ability to transcend above those gender differences and see their character? Remember now this is the age of "cooties", can't even plan their day out, have temper tantrums, and the same stage of life were bullying is rampant.

If kids we're able to really look beyond the superficial more boys would appreciate "My Little Pony" and enjoy it with its good themes/morals. Furthermore, if kids were so mentally capable of appreciating diversity we wouldn't have the problem of bullying in our schools. So that's why I "underestimate" (as you say) children.

Let's not forgot the added pressure of pop culture telling those children what's "traditionally" male or female in terms of interests.

Therefore after all of this, it makes sense that a children's franchise would mostly have an all-female or all-male characters because its difficult sometimes to have an equal proportion of both boys and girls enjoying it (without being primarily comedic).
[...]

In the end, as much as we may want to help our children grow to appreciate diversity through TMNT or other kids' shows, the big question is...CAN kids mentally process that (Without directly instructing them like Sesame Street does.)? I mean the OT show constantly hinted about the problems of racism (with the Turtles and Splinter being ostracized/persecuted by society), but I never saw or heard a kid (KIDS only now) come away from that show consciously thinking about it and applying it to their own life and being against racism.

So then you believe that there's no way to change culture, and that children can't ever be taught that hey, women, people of color, and those belonging to the LGBT spectrum are people? Because really what that boils down to is a stance that children can't be taught anything at all. I mean, if we can teach them to respect other people, then why not extend that to all people, instead of just a privileged few?

To illustrate how diversity in shows *does* shape how children think, here's a thought experiment: I believe most of the posters here first came into contact with the TMNT as kids. Lets say, as a hypothetical, that whatever everyone's first incarnation of the property was, it did manage to display a good level of diversity--gender parity, respectfully handled gay characters (not necessarily the turtles)--the whole shebang. Would we still be having this discussion, now that we're all older? I venture to say that the answer would be "no". Just like most people accepted the current core cast of seven men and one woman, and an extended cast composed mostly of men--all heterosexual--as the norm, people would have accepted that more diverse cast, all else being equal.

But no: the TMNT ended up being its undiverse self, and so a good segment of the fans have become dead-set against seeing any change, seeing the inclusion of queer characters and people of color as "pandering". Funny how it's not called that when straight male characters are introduced.

In any case, this is what I mean when I say that yes, more diverse shows change attitudes. It doesn't have to be conscious, but it happens.

[plastroncafe]

I love how "pandering" has come to mean "adding anything that deviates from the straight male default."

To get back on topic:
I find the question that started this whole thread to be...well, wrong.
There's plenty of shipping to be found in the turtle franchise, and I'm not even talking about fanon. Heck, one need only look at the Mirage universe to see it.

I'm not bothered by someone's dislike of fanon shipping, to each their own. What I dislike is the condemnation/blatant bigotry that seems to follow in dislike's wake.

It's fine that Cyber Cube doesn't like shipping. It's perfectly reasonable for him to be squicked out by Turtlecest. We all have our boundaries, and those boundaries should be respected.

What is not okay is for people to demean others for their likes and/or dislikes. If you don't like something, bully for you. Let it go, and move on. Here, have a cookie for the walk.

[Jester]

If the show was "geared for" little girls than some would argue that the addition of a straight male character might be seen as "pandering." Almost seems like a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" scenario. If you don't have a diverse cast, you're condemned by certain groups for not having the requisite number of A and too many of B, but if you DO diversify the cast, those are just pandering "tokens".

If a character is well written it shouldn't matter if their a straight white guy or a green skinned transsexual, just so long as they seem to be real, dynamic, 3 dimensional characters.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by Jester

If the show was "geared for" little girls than some would argue that the addition of a straight male character might be seen as "pandering." Almost seems like a "darned if you do, darned if you don't" scenario. If you don't have a diverse cast, you're condemned by certain groups for not having the requisite number of A and too many of B, but if you DO diversify the cast, those are just pandering "tokens".

If a character is well written it shouldn't matter if their a straight white guy or a green skinned transsexual, just so long as they seem to be real, dynamic, 3 dimensional characters.

Your comparison assumes an equality that doesn't exist in American Popular Culture, Jester.

While well written characters should be the goal of any work, the fact remains that the majority of those "real, dynamic, three dimensional" characters we have today in children's media are white, straight, and male.

In spite of the fact that the vast majority of us are not.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Your comparison assumes an equality that doesn't exist in American Popular Culture, Jester.

But there's not as much of an inequality as you seem to think there is either, plastron.

[plastroncafe]

Certainly, not when compared to the past. But it's hardly an all inclusive utopia.

If it were then we wouldn't have people comparing all female driven stories to "Sorority Houses" and "Sweet Valley High."

Or all gay characters having Streisand records, or being hopelessly attracted to ANYONE of the same gender, including siblings.

We have an entire thread where someone is happy that there's no romance, because...why?
I can only assume that it's because romance takes away from the story, because...girls are icky? I don't know.

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

Your comparison assumes an equality that doesn't exist in American Popular Culture, Jester.

While well written characters should be the goal of any work, the fact remains that the majority of those "real, dynamic, three dimensional" characters we have today in children's media are white, straight, and male.

In spite of the fact that the vast majority of us are not.

This reminds me of back in the 70's when they always threw a token black character into a show to avoid being called racist.

Now we have to have a token gay character in every series to avoid being homophobic. Instead of y'know, just not needing one for a story.

Every gen will have something like this where people cry foul over nothing.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by CyberCubed

This reminds me of back in the 70's when they always threw a token black character into a show to avoid being called racist.

Now we have to have a token gay character in every series to avoid being homophobic. Instead of y'know, just not needing one for a story.

Every gen will have something like this where people cry foul over nothing.

A perfect example of the problem in action.
Black characters aren't props. Gay characters aren't props. Female characters aren't props.

We're not here to further your story, we're part of it. And we always have been.

The problem isn't that we're asking for inclusion, the problem is your assumption we have no right/reason to be there in the first place.

[Shredded]

Originally Posted by Jester

But there's not as much of an inequality as you seem to think there is either, plastron.

My little pony has straight male characters to. Plenty of them, and none of them love interests as the show doesn't even go there (how refreshing for a girls show.) no one has complained thus far.

Just to give a list from the top of my head.

Spike
BigMac
Discord
King Sombra
The Flim Flam brothers
Snips and snails
Iron-will
Prince blue blood (brief love interest for Rarity, by the end of the episode she had developed a deep hatred of the stalion.)
Filthy-rich
Fancy-pants
And many more

it's okay if you are annoyed at me for bringing My little pony up all the time.. but.. it's just the only show geared toward girls I can come up with which does not fall into the pit of typical female stereo types I hate oh so much!
And yes I am an adult woman watching that show, I also watch new mutant ninja turtles.. what do people want from me?

Okay what else did I watch when I was a little girl geared towards me.
Totally Spies! half the villains were mad male scientist, and their "Leader trainer." figure was a man called Jerry.

Kim Possible.. tons of male main characters.
Ron Stoppable
Rofus
Dracon
Waid
The tweeps
the gym teacher
almost all the villains..

Even in shows, which are supposed girl shows for teenage girls, if you really make an honest head count there, there are usually more males than women, so it's a fall accusation you have there.

I admit in "Winx club." every single male introduced was a love interest, and so was they in "Bratz."
But here's the thing, I did not like that aspect of Winx club! I liked they were super powered fairies and could make pretty transformations and all of that, I did not like all the over empathasing on the boys as being only ever love interests for some-one.

It happens in shows geared towards girls, but that's not necesarily a good thing!
And even winx club had male characters coming in form of teachers and so on, whom wasn't love interests for any-body.

[ToTheNines]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

We have an entire thread where someone is happy that there's no romance, because...why?
I can only assume that it's because romance takes away from the story, because...girls are icky? I don't know.

You're questioning the crux of a thread started by cybercubed. Just thought I'd let ya know.

[plastroncafe]

Originally Posted by ToTheNines

You're questioning the crux of a thread started by cybercubed. Just thought I'd let ya know.

Wisdom can come from the strangest of places...or so a commercial told me this one time.

[Jester]

I think I respect shows, like Law and Order: SVU who leave it vague and you never really wonder about a character's sexuality...and then in a logical story point they reveal it. It's not the thing that makes a character, like, "Oh, he's the 'gay' one" but rather, "Oh, that's the forensic psychologist, and he happens to be gay."

[plastroncafe]

I don't watch SVU, but I'm curious...are the straight characters equally as vague in terms of their sexuality? No opposite gender boyfriends/husbands wives/girlfriends are mentioned until it's relevant to the plot? Or is it just the queer characters who should remain vague until narrative necessity?

[RaphAndDonnie]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I love how "pandering" has come to mean "adding anything that deviates from the straight male default."

To get back on topic:
I find the question that started this whole thread to be...well, wrong.
There's plenty of shipping to be found in the turtle franchise, and I'm not even talking about fanon. Heck, one need only look at the Mirage universe to see it.

I'm not bothered by someone's dislike of fanon shipping, to each their own. What I dislike is the condemnation/blatant bigotry that seems to follow in dislike's wake.

It's fine that Cyber Cube doesn't like shipping. It's perfectly reasonable for him to be squicked out by Turtlecest. We all have our boundaries, and those boundaries should be respected.

What is not okay is for people to demean others for their likes and/or dislikes. If you don't like something, bully for you. Let it go, and move on. Here, have a cookie for the walk.

You pretty much summed up everything I wanted to post. There are ships that I like (not necessarily in the turtle-verse) and ships that I don't but I'm not not going to condemn anyone for it- that would just be stupid. Of course seeing it shoved in my face every time I'm on some other site (like Facebook for example) does get tired some after a while

[Jester]

To be fair the "queer" character I mentioned is a minor player, who isn't in every episode (as much as I like him. I wish he were used more.). Some character's relationships are more open than others. The secondary characters back-stories tend to be revealed when it's story essential. To be honest most all of the character's outside relationships are B plots material at most.

[Shredded]

Originally Posted by Jester

To be fair the "queer" character I mentioned is a minor player, who isn't in every episode (as much as I like him. I wish he were used more.). Some character's relationships are more open than others. The secondary characters back-stories tend to be revealed when it's story essential. To be honest most all of the character's outside relationships are B plots material at most.

Well... screen writing one-o-one.

You never ever reveal information unless it's directly linked to the plot.

You only have precious little time to tell your story, even more so in a show where you only have twenty minutes episodes and every single episode must tell an entire mini-story.
Comic books also runs into similar problems as they often only have 26 pages for their entire mini story, which means less information can be handed out in a issue.

You only have that much time, and thus any information you reveal must be connected to the plot ahand.

So yeah, that's why. It's because these shows are actually written well!

[Bossa Nova]

Originally Posted by plastroncafe

I don't watch SVU, but I'm curious...are the straight characters equally as vague in terms of their sexuality? No opposite gender boyfriends/husbands wives/girlfriends are mentioned until it's relevant to the plot? Or is it just the queer characters who should remain vague until narrative necessity?

It's been awhile since I've seen SVU, but I'm pretty sure the female lead detective doesn't start dating til later in the series where it is relevant to the story. The male lead detective does has a wife and children, but they do play a pretty big role in his character development so they're mentioned earlier on. Also, I seem to remember another detective's son being gay, but I can't recall that it was left vague and secret (but at the same time, I'm not sure what you mean by narrative necessary, if the psychologist had said upfront that he was gay for absolutely no reason, wouldn't that have felt equally forced, like shoving in the audience that they have a gay character even though there's no real reason we need to know that right now? I remember him only bringing it up because it did effect the plot somehow and it felt natural, not like he wanted his friends to suddenly have this huge reveal about him or anything). I'm not really sure if that answers anything, just saw SVU and since I used to love that show thought I'd drop my two cents. Also to clear my mind of this ridiculous thread for awhile and some of the truly bigoted statements rolling around.