Wonder Woman Message Board >> View Post
Post By
little kon-el

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 682
In Reply To

Subj: It makes sense socially not be heterosexual...
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 at 04:57:48 pm EDT (Viewed 255 times)
Reply Subj: Re: But it didn't...
Posted: Sat Jun 24, 2017 at 01:24:14 pm EDT (Viewed 7 times)

Previous Post

Well, you've changed your argument a little. When I first replied to you, the title of your post was "C'mon guys, it makes the most sense." So, the implication is that you weren't talking about what a writer came up with, but what would make logical sense if an island of women were to exist. So, it doesn't matter what any of Wonder Woman's various writers have done, because that's just their opinion. And I stated that I tend to think that any inclusion of lesbianism by the writers is to excite young men(who get off on the idea of beautiful women having sex with each other), and to mollify social justice warriors, who demand more diveristy.

But, if it was your intention to point out what makes the most sense, then my counter point was that an island of asexual women would be the most logical representation. Since most of those women would be heterosexual, and it would be sadistic of the Gods to grant the women immortality, but remove them from those they love and desire. And that would fit nicely with Hippolyta's attitude that she desperately wanted a child, but not a husband. It would also explain why all the other Amazons don't seem perturbed by the lack of men. And finally, it would be in keeping with the notion that the Amazons have an ideology that's far removed from the rest of mankind in the pursuit of higher existence.

But, if any of the women are portrayed as lesbian, then it implies that most of the Amazons would be heterosexual. Yet, they demonstrate no interest in sex, or any kind of relationship, with men. And that makes no logical sense at all.

In Earth One: Wonder Woman, we have an Amazon society that has built extravagant rituals centered around bondage and chains that recreate and their bondage from Hercules as a way to show justice and love within their courts. In the Perez run, you have all of these women who were doubly scarred by men (at least those that follow Hippolyta)...once when they were killed by men and again when Hercules and his troops drugged and raped them. They were defined by an endless war to keep the doorway to hell closed. The Banas of Antiope's tribe were different. They had inter-married, but they still had a very distancing culture from men. In the current run, we have some conflicting ideas as to what is and is not canon, but we do know that the Amazons are a warrior culture that either raped men for only reproduction (which is the original interpretation of Amazons) or were traditionally immortal, fighting to always keep Ares from escaping and keeping everyone out. So that constant state of war is very similar to Perez's interpretation.

I understand that Asexuality seems to be there, but there also does seem to be a degree of lesbianism there too. It was there with Perez's run with Hippolyta and Philippus' relationship. I really don't see asexuality there. If anything, lesbianism seem to be there in the text.

I still don't understand why asexuality would be more relevant than lesbianism? And why wouldn't the writers ideas matter, they're writing the book. Shouldn't there be credence to that work?

As far as a "higher existence" is concerned...they're more interested in keeping the evils of the world at bay, right? I mean, in Perez's run, they are charged with keeping the dooms' doorway closed. In the current run, they're charged with keeping Ares at bay. In the silver age, they were charged by the Gods to send out a champion to keep the world's evils at bay.

- little kon-el

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 54.0 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software