It seems that some people are trying to get the two puppet characters hitched. I mean talk about stereotyping and forcing your opinion of something on other people. Straight people can sleep in close proximity to each other too you know... Apparently, there is a petition going around where people are signing it to show that they want them to be officially gay. Sesame Street's official declaration is that the two are not gay and will not be married. There is no sexual orientation.
What are your thoughts? Do you think they should be gay? Would you sign said e-petition? Does the petitioner's agenda for teaching acceptance supersede the artist's freedom to express their characters in anyway they want to?
I support SS's statement. ...freedom of expression and all
If Sesame Street ever wanted to introduce homosexual characters into the mix then it'd be better to bring in two new characters rather than shoehorning pre-existing characters into environments or situations which they aren't suited for.
I think it's just a testament of how people see or just want to see innuendos that just aren't really there. Maybe it's true... people just think about sexual things often, and they project those thoughts into what they see.
Bert and ernie wern't gay before and people shouldn't try to make them gay. I agree with avorne, if they want gay characters then make them. But there's no need to change already straight characters just because some people want it that way.
If Sesame Street wishes for Bert and Ernie to stay where they are, then they shall. It's their show. It's not infringing upon anything publicly written. If it did, then it would be a different story.
Sesame street is a kids show, and as such there is no sexuality in it. Kids are not mature enough to understand sex, sexual orientation or even gender (depending on age). To suggest Sesame St would purposely introduce gay characters (new ones or someone comes out of the closet) is preposterous. Labeling Bert and Ernie as gay has only been done by adults who look to apply their perspective/understanding to the show
I think kids are capable of understanding sexuality at a basic level, but other than that I agree with Cranium. Kids can be influenced by what they see on TV to be more accepting of same-sex coupling in the future and take it in stride, but that's not the point here. Granted, I haven't watched Sesame Street in, oh, like 15 years, but I don't think there's even any straight coupling in the show. They're puppets and monsters and weird animals on a kids' show--it doesn't make any sense to hook them up. The only people it will matter to are the people who are interested in the idea of romance and relationships--adults.
Well for those interested... I have a new spin we can put on this thread (keep the older one going). I've heard it said that parents should not dictate what their kids do and do not see in the media... I'm getting at the fact that some parents find things offensive to their morals and how it is that they want to go about teaching their children. Most parents I know teach certain things as absolutes. An example would be that little boys should always be "gentleman" and hold doors, carry things, and be chivalrous to women. Some of the equality people would throw a fit at that. ...since women are equals and can hold open their own doors and carry their own things. By instilling these thought processes into young men we are actively pursuing inequality among the separate genders... or some such argument. I don't believe that it is written on parchment anywhere... but do parents have the right to teach their children whatever they want to, like how adults have the right of freedom of expression and speech?
If anything and everything will leave a lasting impression on the child, then do they have the right to train the child as the gardener trains the wayward vine?
Another example, would be me not wanting my child (if I had one) to watch really scary movies. I was told not to watch something scary when I was a kid... I did it anyway... I ended up like the end of this vid for a long time after. Some would say that if the kid wants to do something then the parent has no right to stop them. Some would say that the parent knows better than the child what it is that is best for the child. Some would say that it is better for the child to express themselves, while others would say that it is best that the child not be traumatized during a developmental stage in their personality as it might effect long lasting phobias. ...but the kid is better off w/ the phobias b/c he was able to express himself, correct? What do you think?
My psych courses didn't touch upon this topic, so I'm just going to speak from my personal experience here. Not suggesting that this is the truth for everyone.
My parents were very lenient in letting me explore some areas, and very strict about others. For the most part, except in the most extreme circumstances, (like not letting me watch Pulp Fiction when I was 5, for example), my parents would let me watch what I wanted. They'd rent a movie, and if things got too scary/uncomfortable/boring for me, I was free to leave the room. They don't have any phobias of their own, so there was nothing to pick up on there. I had minor fears as a child, but nothing I didn't get over. As an adult, I'm pretty sure I have no phobias whatsoever. Snakes, bugs, and all the usual suspects don't bother me. I have a minor fear of heights, but that's not entirely unreasonable, I feel, considering the inherent danger.
In short, my parents weren't apprehensive about any creepy crawlies or me watching scary movies, and neither am I, now.
However, my mother was very uptight about letting me go out and do things on my own. I wasn't free to take a walk around my block unaccompanied until I was 14 or 15. She also pounded the point into my head that I should never talk to strangers. Ever. As a result, I was VERY VERY scared of talking to new people, and (this may or may not be related), I'm a very skeptical person who rarely puts complete trust in a person, if ever. This made me a social cripple through life all the way up to college. My shyness and distrust put me years behind in learning how to interact socially, and it took me a long time to catch up.
So, based on my experience, I'd say it's probably better to be a good example and let the kid learn on their own. With reasonable limits, of course. Everything needs balance.
I haven't watched that show since I was sleeping all morning and watching tv the rest of the day... err well since I was wearing diapers too :P Anyway, who really cares what they have those characters do? I mean, for Christ sake it's a puppet show for toddler's and babies!?!
The kids that watch those shows would not understand.
I don't get why people think kids wouldn't understand homosexuality. If they're exposed to it, they understand it just as much as they understand heterosexuality. All you have to do is explain that "some girls like boys, some girls like girls, and some boys like boys." That's nearly all they know about relationships at that age, anyway.
If they're exposed to it, they understand it just as much as they understand heterosexuality.
Thing is, really young kids don't do that either, not really, which is why officially stating that a kids' show character is one or the other is unnecessary.
officially stating that a kids' show character is one or the other is unnecessary.
I agree. As I said previously:
They're puppets and monsters and weird animals on a kids' show--it doesn't make any sense to hook them up. The only people it will matter to are the people who are interested in the idea of romance and relationships--adults.
However, if they -were- to introduce gay characters, I don't think it would confuse the kids, and that's a sentiment that I've seen expressed a few times in this thread now. I think it's ignorant to decide that kids wouldn't be able to process the basic idea of same-sex attraction.
If the writers do not want them to be gay, just shut up and let them not be. I have not seen a single straight couple on the show, so why should they be forced to put in a gay couple out of supposed equality? Why is it that when one group asks for equality, it always develops into them, or some other group "on behalf" of them, asking for them to be better? Also, why should one group be allowed to force its views on the malleable minds of the young? Just leave it the way it is. The show has been successful for a very long time, don't fix what isn't broken.
