Velma is new Scooby-Doo Halloween movie identifies as LGBQT

[Anonymous]

Create commotion and people will tune in to watch it. Smart move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Shaggy and Velma were an item.

Shag and Scoob were an item.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved the show as a kid and never once wondered or thought about the sexual identity of the characters. I don’t understand the need to define them now in the show- can’t they just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks?

+ 1

You didn’t have to wonder. They portrayed hetero crushes and hetero relationships in a lot of the episodes. They didn’t just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks. Why is it suddenly a problem “defining sexuality” when it’s a homosexual crush?

People don’t want their kids exposed to sexuality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's always been a lesbian, it's just that mores have changed enough that subtext can now be text.

She looks pretty hetro hot here…

It takes a special kind of idiot to think you've disproved her queerness by pointing out she's pretty.

DP. I agree with you, but then why are so many saying they knew she (or, say, Peppermint Patty) were gay all along? What’s the tell if not their physical appearance?

I actually hate all of this. Every character that doesn’t meet a very narrow characterization of “femininity” is now gay. There is nothing wrong with being gay but there is something wrong with telling kids that any person who is slightly quirky or not masculine and feminine in a particular way is gay. This is remarkably toxic and stupid.

I was never “feminine” like Daphne, I was always a Velma, and I never had homosexual leanings in the slightest. I am just a slightly less feminine heterosexual woman.

So you hate that somebody who looks like you is gay.

I actually hate that nobody who looks like me is NOT gay, not that you care about the distinction.

This pushes a very narrow view of sexuality and even gender. It’s artificial and comes across as pushing an agenda, not representing true diversity.

So you would have been fine if Daphne came out (even though that would be out of character)?

Why is Daphne being gay “out of character” but Velma being gay is “in character?” Did I miss something very major about these cartoons? There was no sexuality, it was just a goofy cartoon.

Daphne dated Fred. And, yes, you missed something.

Daphne is Fred's beard. Obvs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved the show as a kid and never once wondered or thought about the sexual identity of the characters. I don’t understand the need to define them now in the show- can’t they just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks?

+ 1

You didn’t have to wonder. They portrayed hetero crushes and hetero relationships in a lot of the episodes. They didn’t just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks. Why is it suddenly a problem “defining sexuality” when it’s a homosexual crush?

People don’t want their kids exposed to sexuality.

Again, why is it a problem for kids to be exposed to homosexuality but not heterosexuality?

[Anonymous]

My kids are super into Scooby Doo and so I’m mostly excited that this remake will make it easier for me to find themed birthday paraphernalia.

Carry on, all… Wouldn’t want to distract you from your homophobia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great.

Now a bio girl can’t like science, have short hair, and be book smart without also being homosexual.

Identity label stereotypes for the win! Again!

Exactly!

This is exactly what kids need. Kids who probably aren’t LGBT will think they are just because they resemble a LGBT television character. We know how kids think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved the show as a kid and never once wondered or thought about the sexual identity of the characters. I don’t understand the need to define them now in the show- can’t they just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks?

+ 1

You didn’t have to wonder. They portrayed hetero crushes and hetero relationships in a lot of the episodes. They didn’t just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks. Why is it suddenly a problem “defining sexuality” when it’s a homosexual crush?

People don’t want their kids exposed to sexuality.

Again, why is it a problem for kids to be exposed to homosexuality but not heterosexuality?

I’ve tried to explain it but my answer gets deleted. I’m uncomfortable with it. Plain and simple. It is not the norm, no matter how hard they try to push it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved the show as a kid and never once wondered or thought about the sexual identity of the characters. I don’t understand the need to define them now in the show- can’t they just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks?

+ 1

You didn’t have to wonder. They portrayed hetero crushes and hetero relationships in a lot of the episodes. They didn’t just solve mysteries and eat Scooby snacks. Why is it suddenly a problem “defining sexuality” when it’s a homosexual crush?

People don’t want their kids exposed to sexuality.

Again, why is it a problem for kids to be exposed to homosexuality but not heterosexuality?

I’ve tried to explain it but my answer gets deleted. I’m uncomfortable with it. Plain and simple. It is not the norm, no matter how hard they try to push it.

1985 called. They want their homophobia back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great.

Now a bio girl can’t like science, have short hair, and be book smart without also being homosexual.

Identity label stereotypes for the win! Again!

Exactly!

This is exactly what kids need. Kids who probably aren’t LGBT will think they are just because they resemble a LGBT television character. We know how kids think.

Anyone - gay or straight - can be an amazing science nerd with short hair. It’s 2022, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Create commotion and people will tune in to watch it. Smart move.

Until their 7 yo girl gets kissed by the 7 yo girl in the school bounce house. Why? Because to try it out like school and tv says to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Great.

Now a bio girl can’t like science, have short hair, and be book smart without also being homosexual.

Identity label stereotypes for the win! Again!

Exactly!

This is exactly what kids need. Kids who probably aren’t LGBT will think they are just because they resemble a LGBT television character. We know how kids think.

Anyone - gay or straight - can be an amazing science nerd with short hair. It’s 2022, people.

I think that would have been a more accurate sentence in the 80s, actually. The more progressive the kids think they are, the more they have boxed themselves in somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Create commotion and people will tune in to watch it. Smart move.

Until their 7 yo girl gets kissed by the 7 yo girl in the school bounce house. Why? Because to try it out like school and tv says to.

So much fear. Hard to understand how such a narrow and shallow perspective must feel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Create commotion and people will tune in to watch it. Smart move.

Until their 7 yo girl gets kissed by the 7 yo girl in the school bounce house. Why? Because to try it out like school and tv says to.

But totally cool to get kissed by the 7 year old boy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Create commotion and people will tune in to watch it. Smart move.

Until their 7 yo girl gets kissed by the 7 yo girl in the school bounce house. Why? Because to try it out like school and tv says to.

But totally cool to get kissed by the 7 year old boy?

DP. I wouldn’t be ok anyone trying to kiss my 7 year old.