Author Topic: Gambit bi?  (Read 566 times)

Offline Toadman005

  • Survivor
  • *
  • Posts: 734
Re: Gambit bi?
« Reply #30 on: March 20, 2020, 11:56:59 AM »
Yep. After Young Iceman came out director Brian Singer was asked if the movie version of Iceman would, too. He replied, "No, I hope people understand that it is different universes. But there is something almost... sub-textual... about him seeking a relationship with a woman he could not touch."

They would have a field-day with that for Gambit.


I just don't get WHY so many people want to read gay subtext into ESTABLISHED characters. What is the appeal??
\"Say, do you hear that? It\'s the sound of the Reaper...\"

Offline malachi

  • Guild Royalty
  • *
  • Posts: 176
Re: Gambit bi?
« Reply #31 on: March 20, 2020, 12:49:52 PM »

I just don't get WHY so many people want to read gay subtext into ESTABLISHED characters. What is the appeal??

Well we are often looking for elements of ourselv or our experience in what we are reading. I know that I myself often get invested in certain relationships; romantic, friendship, sibling, parents. Probably due to the experiences I myself have.

So while looking for things to identify they pick up on these things. Subtexts that are there by intention or not.

The problem for me is that it's so damn ambigious and wide. If even a character like Gambit who was concieved as a ladies man is being interuptated and also planned as Bi then there are no established limits. Personally I would have been fine with Gambit as Bi simply because it fits the idea that he seduces people for benefits. The problem then becomes how much space does it take up in his stories. For me it's not a 50/50 more like a 20/80. Witch is just a subject that I could discuss with people at lenght. Ripe for disagreements.

So I see it more as a tool of convienience. Not something to build a future relationship on. Also because I prefer a good written Romy relationship. A endangered creature if there is one in current comics.


Offline Toadman005

  • Survivor
  • *
  • Posts: 734
Re: Gambit bi?
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2020, 01:17:46 PM »
Well we are often looking for elements of ourselv or our experience in what we are reading. I know that I myself often get invested in certain relationships; romantic, friendship, sibling, parents. Probably due to the experiences I myself have.

So while looking for things to identify they pick up on these things. Subtexts that are there by intention or not.

The problem for me is that it's so damn ambigious and wide. If even a character like Gambit who was concieved as a ladies man is being interuptated and also planned as Bi then there are no established limits. Personally I would have been fine with Gambit as Bi simply because it fits the idea that he seduces people for benefits. The problem then becomes how much space does it take up in his stories. For me it's not a 50/50 more like a 20/80. Witch is just a subject that I could discuss with people at lenght. Ripe for disagreements.

So I see it more as a tool of convienience. Not something to build a future relationship on. Also because I prefer a good written Romy relationship. A endangered creature if there is one in current comics.


I mean I agree but, when I see elements of myself in a gay character, I don't think they should be turned straight or bi just to make them MORE relatable to me.
\"Say, do you hear that? It\'s the sound of the Reaper...\"

Offline andresa

  • Outcast
  • *
  • Posts: 565
Re: Gambit bi?
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2020, 02:25:56 PM »
Creating new characters gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with them (even if it is borderline ridiculous like the example in the other thread) but changing preexisting characters for the sake of it is what bothers me, especially without laying the groundwork like Asmus wanted to do. If his idea had passed we were to find out Gambit had had a relationship with a guy. Just like that. I’m against the idea (luckily it’s all that is) of Gambit being bi because it would do him a disservice at this point, it wouldn’t open to new more interesting stories, it would redefine his character in a way he was never intended to be, it'd swallow his other traits.     

Offline malachi

  • Guild Royalty
  • *
  • Posts: 176
Re: Gambit bi?
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2020, 03:09:58 PM »

I mean I agree but, when I see elements of myself in a gay character, I don't think they should be turned straight or bi just to make them MORE relatable to me.

Oh I agree. I think it was more due to lack of characters stated officially as gay. In general I'm against changing characters. I think it creates more problems then it solves.

Offline Toadman005

  • Survivor
  • *
  • Posts: 734
Re: Gambit bi?
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2020, 03:36:19 PM »
Creating new characters gives you the freedom to do whatever you want with them (even if it is borderline ridiculous like the example in the other thread) but changing preexisting characters for the sake of it is what bothers me, especially without laying the groundwork like Asmus wanted to do. If his idea had passed we were to find out Gambit had had a relationship with a guy. Just like that. I’m against the idea (luckily it’s all that is) of Gambit being bi because it would do him a disservice at this point, it wouldn’t open to new more interesting stories, it would redefine his character in a way he was never intended to be, it'd swallow his other traits.   


I see what you did there.


But, I wholeheartedly agree. Iceman is no longer Iceman, he's generic gay character (who happens to be Iceman).
\"Say, do you hear that? It\'s the sound of the Reaper...\"

Offline andresa

  • Outcast
  • *
  • Posts: 565
Re: Gambit bi?
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2020, 05:58:24 PM »
What does it look like I did? lol

Offline DonPriceTag

  • @theprattlp
  • Global Moderator
  • X-Man Legend
  • *****
  • Posts: 3599
  • Heavens to Murgatroyd!
Re: Gambit bi?
« Reply #37 on: March 23, 2020, 10:30:40 AM »
I think modern X-Men is reaching a tipping point in terms of their featured characters and sexuality. It's just not realistic for every book to be completely "inclusive".  It's not an issue of representation but improbability. And that's not just in terms of sexuality but race, creed etc. Everything doesn't have to be the United Nations of "Like me". I survived for years with Storm and Bishop being the only "black" characters in the entirety of X-Men (Bishop is Aborigines). It doesn't kill you.


Same thing goes for these morlock types that every X-Men artist seems to populate the background with. At some point someone has to realize that there's no chance that all these people are compatible enough to reproduce. Eventually you end up with a bunch of Rogue-like situations where Frog-Boy and Mist Woman aren't biologically or logically able to romantically interact, much less reproduce.


Seriously, in the past 20 years how many characters have "come out of the closet" or just been insinuated to be one thing or another? I mean main characters. Psylocke, Iceman, Shatterstar, Rictor, Rachel, Kitty, Rogue, and the latest Cyclops and Wolverine. Probably missing something. It's just getting a bit much. That's like half the main cast. And let's be truthful, in the pantheon of X-Men, there are only 12 that really matter, despite what editors and writers try to force down our collective throats.
Rogue being flung vagina-first at the first male that pops up on her radar isn't how I'd define "romance," but Marvel must be using a different dictionary than me.- NicoPony