Posted on 02/05/2005 7:44:02 PM PST by raccoonradio
Crazed right-wing moralists, take note: Before SpongeBob, there was Snagglepuss ... and Huckleberry Hound ... and even Popeye.
Recent events in the world of animated children's shows have caused people to question whether the cartoon industry is promoting a homosexual agenda. Allegations have been directed at SpongeBob SquarePants for participating in a pro-gay video, and at Buster the Bunny for his fraternization with a lesbian couple and their children. While some have dismissed these allegations as the rantings of ultraconservative Christians, gay cartoon characters do in fact exist, and some of them are even politically active. I recently asked some of them to share their stories.
Sitting in the living room of his well-appointed Cape Cod-style home, a cultural icon recalls his heyday with sadness and regret. "I was in constant fear of being found out," says Popeye, sipping herbal tea. "I thought once I cast Olive Oyl, everyone would know. She was so tall and lanky, with that boyish figure ..."
He trails off, shaking his head. "If you want to know the truth, I picked her because she reminded me of someone." He smiles and looks wistful. "Ensign Robert Flynn. Some of my fondest memories of the Navy revolve around him."
Popeye the Sailor Man, the animated embodiment of testosterone, lived in terror of being outed, as it would have ended his lucrative career. "Bluto threatened me with that a couple of times," he confesses. "I always wondered about him, though. He was so hypermasculine, always swaggering around like he had something to prove." He sighs and leans back against the antique sofa. "Maybe I'm just projecting, though. I did a fair amount of macho posturing myself."
First making the scene in 1929 as a bit player in a comic strip, Popeye became an immediate success. The series was finally renamed for him, and movies followed. In the '30s, Popeye's films were even more popular than Mickey Mouse's.
"Even though we were rivals, Mickey was one of the few people who were nice to me after learning I was gay," Popeye says.
"You know, people don't realize how different it was back then," he continues. "It wasn't like today, where only a few religious nuts get upset and boycott your work. My whole life would've been ruined if I'd come out. I had no choice."
Popeye stops and stares at the floor for a moment. "But still," he almost whispers, "every time I said 'I yam what I yam,' I felt like a fraud."
Reluctant to say more, Popeye tells me to check out the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Cartoon Alliance. He says the group helped him immensely when he finally decided to come out as gay after being brutally caricatured on-screen by Robin Williams.
Three days later, I'm in the parlor of a lovely San Francisco townhouse, being entertained by a self-described "proud queer, an old queen, ev-en!"
"I can't believe America didn't know," says Snagglepuss. "I mean, the cuff links, the flamboyance, the theater jargon -- plus, I'm pink, for heaven's sake!"
"I think it's terrific what SpongeBob is doing," he declares as he accepts a white wine spritzer from longtime companion Huckleberry Hound. "I've heard rumors about Squidward, too." Snagglepuss looks at his partner. "Two out and proud gays on one show, wouldn't that be fabulous?!"
The more reserved Huckleberry shakes his head. "I just wish it wasn't such a big deal. It would be nice if they'd leave his private life out of it and just allow him to be the amorphous asexual blob that he was drawn to be."
"I had a much different Hollywood experience than Puss," he continues. "The producers were looking for someone to host a show, to be a major player. They didn't care that I was gay, but this was 1959, and they didn't want any speculation about me." He sits down on the end of the chaise longue and puts his hand on Snagglepuss' leg. "They liked my look, but I sounded very effeminate."
"Luckily, he could do wonderful impressions," Snagglepuss chimes in. "They just fell in love with his Andy Griffith!" Snagglepuss grins. "Guess how we met. I was a guest on his show and then got my own segment. It was love at first sight."
"We were well known among industry players after that," Huckleberry says, looking sheepish. "I'm a homebody, but Puss always wanted to be out at all the parties."
His sociability proved fortuitous. Snagglepuss and Huckleberry soon became confidants of other prominent cartoon characters struggling with their homosexuality. And what started as an informal support group slowly morphed into a political action network.
"During the mid-'70s, the public became more aware of just how many celebrities were gay," explains Snagglepuss, turning serious. "Well, that included us, and people began speculating about cartoons the same way they did about human actors."
"The ironic thing is, they were wrong about one of the first gay icons," he adds. "There was always a lot of talk about Velma, but she's strictly hetero."
"That's true," agrees Huckleberry. "And a militant feminist. She carried around a dog-eared copy of 'The Second Sex' and refused to dumb herself down for the cameras. That's how the rumor got started."
"Even we believed it," Snagglepuss admits. "But then Daphne, who's actually bi, told me that she'd tried to get Velma to 'experiment' a couple times, but she wasn't interested. Velma's always been supportive of our cause."
"Everyone including Scooby-Doo has been supportive," he continues. "I guess once ... apparently, Fred and Shaggy both had a lot of Scooby snacks, and, well, one thing led to another ..."
"Let's just say it changed their perspectives," concludes Huckleberry. He looks at Snagglepuss. "We can leave it at that."
Asked which characters are members of the LGBT Cartoon Alliance, Snagglepuss runs off some names: Jabberjaw, Auggie Doggie, Mr. Slate of "The Flintstones," Elmer Fudd, Pepé Le Pew ("He's what's now called pan-sexual," says Snagglepuss), everyone in "Josie and the Pussycats," all three members of "The Hair Bear Bunch," several Smurfs, and Gargamel, and Foghorn Leghorn.
"That last one surprised even us," Huckleberry says. "And Bugs Bunny hasn't officially joined, but he has been to a few meetings." He divulges, "He had to dress up as a woman a lot on the show, and then found himself doing it off-screen."
Snagglepuss adds, "Of course, he could just be a straight cross-dresser, but he enjoys flirting with men. You may have noticed that he kissed a lot of male co-stars on his show, too." Huckleberry nods. "He's still trying to figure himself out."
Though both admit to some progress for gay cartoon characters, they're worried about the future. The increasing influence of the religious right and the passage of state laws banning gay marriage have Snagglepuss rallying the troops for the battles they may face in the next four years.
"I guess the most significant thing is that we've reached out to the puppet community," says Snagglepuss. "It's an important alliance. Tinky Winky weathered the storm, Bert and Ernie are still going strong after all these years, and Big Bird and Snuffleupagus just announced their engagement. Except for the hullabaloo about Buster the Bunny's human friends, PBS has been very supportive."
Huckleberry is less optimistic. "I just don't know what these next few years are going to bring. I'm concerned, very concerned." He shakes his head. "If these people knew what it used to be like for us they wouldn't force us to deny who we are. They'd have some compassion."
Snagglepuss puts his arm around the man he calls his husband. "They're only human beings," he says gently. "They just don't have the kind of depth that we do."
I read the article at the beginning of this thread and never said I didn't. I also read several of the links you pointed out to me including Dobson's.
BTW I never insulted anyone here.
Sorry, but you did say what Dr. Dobson is claiming, and what we are claiming, is nonsense. And ridiculing Dr. Dobson and us for stating there's a homosexual agenda in the classrooms is ridiculous. It's so very obvious you DIDN'T READ WHAT DR. DOBSON ACTUALLY SAID, did you? It's so very obvious you DIDN'T READ ANY OF THE CURRICULUM about which he or we spoke, did you?
I have made no comment about "forced hugs" and don't consider that to be a major crime UNLIKE the claim of genital touching which IS a major crime EVERYWHERE.
Point to the post where I ever said YOU made a comment about forced hugs.
Point to the post where I ever used the words "genital touching."
if you believe they are all controlled by pro-homo groups or are implementing a prohomo agenda you are simply incorrect....
Where did I say that "they are all controlled by pro-homo groups"?
As far as implementing a pro-homosexual agenda....provide specific information that you can cite that there isn't any implementation of a pro-homosexual agenda in schools.
it doesn't matter what testimony before Congress 20 yrs ago said since you know very well how THAT works. What testimony doesn't matter?
If you claim the materials complained about at the Congressional Hearings are not longer being used, name the specific types of materials no longer being used. Do you even know about the type of materials discussed in the hearings (the psychological manipulative ones about which I speak)? Since you portray yourself as so well versed in this matter, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you the specifics, but I shall: it's under the umbrella of affective education or Outcome Based Education (OBE).
Those materials complained about during the Congressional Hearings, however, ARE STILL BEING USED today in classrooms across the country, and, therefore, those hearings STILL DO MATTER.
And prior to 1984 any prohomo propaganda was very insignificant EVERYWHERE in the country.
So, now you agree, there is a pro-homosexual propaganda, it is being used in classrooms EVERYWHERE in the country, and its usage has INCREASED.
There was somethign always sick about that.
Pretty easy to toss around terms like "idiots" on the in-
ternet. If you would like to repeat that in person then
maybe we could arrange a meeting.
I simply expressed my opinion in response to a post by
nicmarlo. Read the record before you get in the game and
pop-off.
Again, tossing around terms like "idiots" is pretty easy
to do on the internet. Perhaps you and I can also arrange
a face to face.
In your post that I originally responded to you stated:
"As evidenced by people posting here, it is their type of
behavior that has allowed the homosexual's agenda to ad-
vance and spread so quickly across the country......"
"....people such as those posting here, instead, laugh at
and deride those who refuse to accept that homosexuality
is normal and vociferously object to children being re-
cruited into homosexuality."
From the start of the thread until your post the vast ma-
jority of posts humorously pointed at potential homosexuals
in the cartoon world and you claim that represents the
type of behavior that allows the homosexual agenda to
spread? No, it represents people who are joking about car-
toon characters. You have no idea whether or not any of
those posters attend school board meetings or write letters
to local newspapers with regard to fighting the homo agenda.
And, up to the point of your post, just who in the thread
was laughing at and deriding "those who refuse to accept
that homosexuality is normal and vociferously object to
children being recruited into homosexuality"? Because they
joke about cartoon characters? You know, you could have
started that post with something like "On a serious note..."
but you chose to read things into the posts that you can't
prove is there and attack the other posters with a diatribe
more suitable in a DU/PC jabberfest.
"All I said was because THIS SALON ARTICLE'S INTENT is to
continue ridiculing Dr. Dobson, I would stay ON TOPIC from
which to provide you examples. Why did you twist that into
'singling out a cartoon character'?"
The truth is that raccoonradio posted the SALON article
and his/her comment set the tone for the TOPIC. Go back
and check what raccoonradio had to say and maybe you will
understand that other posters just followed suit. You are
certainly free to re-post the SALON article with your own
comments to set your own tone.
I have no doubt that every concern that you and the others
have about the homosexual agenda is real. In fact, I made
a point to chat with two local school board members to
ascertain their positions. Thankfully, they don't buy into
the "homogenda".
My original response to you had nothing to do with whether
or not the gays are infiltrating our schools with their
garbage. Rather, I was pointing out that your post was
more heavy handed than it needed to be, IMO.
Don't sell yourself short. Your response is every bit as
pathetic as you THINK my response was. Perhaps YOU are not
paying attention. Go back to the start of the exchange be-
tween nicmarlo and myself and pay particular attention
to my most recent response to him (?). You are picking a
fight with the wrong person.
I don't care what raccoonradio posted as the first post...the above quote is the opening line of the article. And that sets the "tone." The poster of the thread does not "own" the thread, or set the "tone." There's no rules for that ridiculousness. As my post was on topic, and was an observation of behavior found on every thread having to deal with this particular topic, I don't have to start it off by stating "on a serious note." I specifically said, to begin with, that I don't find humor in ridiculing people, like Dr. Dobson, whose intent is to warn parents about his legitimate concerns. And because of what the mass media has done, conservatives are being ridiculed for speaking the truth. People are all too willing to swallow the media's kool-aid on this subject: "it must be right-wing moralists who object to a cartoon character" (never mind the fact that that is the made-up story to denegrate not only Dr. Dobson).
Talk about "ridiculousness". Do you presume to know that
because people post flippant remarks about the gender pref-
erance of cartoon characters that they can't also have
a serious position in line with your own? Face it, most of
those posts had nothing to do with ridiculing Dr Dobson and
everything to do w/ humor. Choosing to read something into
them that you can't prove and attacking those folks does
nothing to help your position.
As I said, the flippant remarks are made on every thread concerning this subject. This one was no exception. And most people, like you, obviously didn't bother to read what this issue started with....so, it's become "absolutely hysterical fodder" for "humor" posts.
Here's a little news, nic. Flippant remarks are pretty com-
mon throughout the FR. And, whether or not any of us
bothered to read what this issue started with, your asser-
tion that the "behavior" demonstrated by the posts shows
anything but a sense of humor is unfounded.
I would challenge you to post a serious article about this
matter along with your comments. If the responses pretty
much poo-poo your position then I would concede that you
probably have a point.
And what about the several threads, that had this issue as a serious topic and the numerous ridiculing/cartoon-posting/mocking remarks? You already said you agreed with those posters, so back to square one.
OK, let me get specific. Forget the cartoon characters. Post
a serious article about the indoctrination of school chil-
dren and see how many of the folks around here poo-poo your
position. The cartoon characters are a diversion, joked
about on all sides. That cartoon characters are used by the
other side presents an opportunity to magnify the important
issues, those of the homosexual agenda. That can be done
without referencing animated characters. You don't focus
the proper attention (as you see it) by insulting the real
sensibilities of those who are natural allies, FReepers.
I still doubt that when it comes down to it few, if any,
of those who posted silly comments on this thread would
prefer the moron who wrote the Salon article over Dr Dobson.
< fake seriousness >
I never said he was. I just posted the VIDEO EVIDENCE.
Where there's smoke, there's Flaming...
< /fake seriousness >
Glad you enjoyed it...here it is again...
I don't have to do that. In post 180 you said:
Sorry but I agree with those who think you folks are bark- ing up the wrong tree.
Yet the tree we're barking up is the teachers guide, not the cartoons, and you said
forget singling out cartoon characters
Again, we're not singling out cartoon characters and we never have. The problem is people like you who aren't reading the articles with any comprehension. You are willfully ignorant.
Stop misrepresenting what we've said. Yes, your response was pathetic. It's not pathetic because I say it is, it's pathetic because you're completely misrepresenting what we've said.
Shortly after I signed up for Free Republic, I received a similarly worded threat in my Freepmail. It was followed by an e-mail to me from the person making the threat. There was no legitimate way for that person to have obtained my e-mail address, or other personal information about me. I had not revealed it to anyone on the Internet. I notified the Moderator, and was assured that the Freepmail would remain in their records. I'm now wondering if you are the same person.
Moderator, do you have a way of finding out if this is the same person who stalked me earlier. I don't remember the date, but it wasn't long after I signed up.
I'd think twice about making veiled threats.
He made a similar comment in post 225.
That bag looks like a Louis Vuiton
Thanx for pointing that out. I don't think that's a stable person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.