I agree with Stan Lee on this one. It might be well-intentioned, but this kind of gender-bending characters just strikes me as an attempt to try and steal the popularity of established characters for a political statement. If you want your character to make that political statement, that's fine. But you should have to earn it the way everything else does. Not get a free pass to have it blasted across the mainstream.

Gender bending? What?

OT: Don't think a character should be changed unless the creator absolutely wants to. Regardless, the lowkey homophobia in this thread is amusing.

We know that because in 40 years of comic books, Peter Parker has been attracted to many different women (Gwen Stacy, Betty Bryant, Mary Jane, Carlie Cooper, Felicia Hardy, etc) and no men.  We are privy to Spider-man's inner thoughts, so he wouldn't be hiding it.  Telepaths and even Doctor Octupus have taken over his mind, and none of them picked up on any homosexual urges.

Now Spider-man has never said "ewwwww boys are gross and I definitely don't like sucking penis", because that would be unnecessary and homophobic.  But we can say with about 99.99999999% certainty that he is not gay.  If you think there is any realistic possibility he is gay, you need to read some comics or get your head checked.

And no, it would not be a good storyline.  A superhero dealing with his sexuality could be a good storyline.  A character with no history of sexual attraction to males suddenly waking up gay would be a nonsensical storyline.  Yes, people come to terms with being gay later in life, but I've known gay people, and I've known gay people that had been closeted, and I've never heard of any of them just all of the sudden going "well... I usually like vagina, but I'm kind of in the mood for a penis today."  Generally its "I always felt something for guys but I wasn't honest with what it was".  It would make literally no sense.  Not to mention it would shoehorn in a conflict that didn't exist before.  And if you say it wouldn't or shouldn't be a conflict, then it would be pointless.

I agree with Stan Lee. "What are you so afraid of" is completely missing the issue. Peter is canonically straight. If they want to make a pansexual hero, they either need a different person being Spider-Man like with Miles, or a different hero altogether.

Because if he was, Stan Lee, creator of Spider-Man, would have said "He's already pansexual! Go wild!" rather than "characters should stick with their original, Spider-Man is totally straight or I wouldn't be mentioning this, concept." That's how.

I personally think that Peter Parker should sexually identify as an attack helicopter. Why should he be pan if he can be helisexual?

This is not the same. First of all, I would be rather surprised if someone I had known for 40+ years (a more accurate comparison than any random friend, because Spiderman has existed for a loooong time) and had never shown any signs of being anything other than straight discovered that he was pansexual. If it's a big deal? Yes it kinda is, one's sexuality is a really friggin big deal!

However this isn't my friend we are talking about, this is a fictional character with certain traits. Do you agree with me that a characters sexuality is a part of that characters traits? If you do, do you think we should change a characters traits to fit with what some people want? I think if a character changes, it should be because the creator of said character wants the character to change, and it should change according to what the creator wants.

No it doesn't make him a cat lol For the record, I just thought his post was really funny, that was why I said he "won the thread". Because it made me laugh.

Heck, I'd be okay with them creating a new incarnation of Spidey (other than the 616 (?) one that was pansexual, but don't change the characters that exist.

----------------------------

Andrew doesn't just talk about Spidey, he says every superhero should be pansexual. It certainly doesn't help his argument. That's like saying every character should be black to support race diversity. Pansexuality is still a set sexuality, even though it's based on falling in love with a persons personality, ignoring his/her/transsperson/etc.'s gender, so it would be ridiculous to do that for the sake of......whatever this is for the sake of.

Completely with Stan Lee, although I care less about different ethnicities in movies or TV playing characters as long as it's not super attached to the character. For example: Mulan should always be Chinese in a Live Action adaptation, or Tarzan should always be white to show the parallels between him and the British.

But give no fucks if Johnny Storm was black (the movie had way other problems) etc.

First of all, if you want to have a mature conversation with anyone, you should avoid insults. As you can see, I'm not responding in kind.

Second "we can say with about99.99999999% certainty that he is not gay". No we cannot. It's not that simple and percentages really mean nothing if not backed by evidence. In this case, you'd need a scene in the comics (that is cannon, not a parallel universe) where he's really old and he talks to someone like Jean Grey (who is actively reading hsi mind) and tells her he never had any feelings for men. Also, bear in mind, I said he could be bisexual/pansexual, not gay.

You seem to have a very limited understanding of sexuality and that's fine. You may wanna educate yourself or keep your current thoughts, but I can tell you that just because you've known gay people, it doesn't mean you know everything there is to know. With limited knowledge, you are bound to make generalizations. Also, I was not referring to closeted cases; neither was I talking about Parker wanting to have sex with a man. Sexuality is not only about sex.

The story could be something as simple as Peter in his teens spending time with a new friend and developing feelings for him. He can have feelings for a man and a woman and show us how he's questioning his sexuality. This is not unheard of for people in their teens. Even if he does end up realizing that he's bi/pansexual, it doesn't mean that he must have had a relationship with a guy later on.

I find this an incredibly weak argument. How can you explain plot holes, then? The same person who created a show makes the character say something that contradicts something that that character stated earlier (could be age or anythng else). If there was a scene where Peter says he's bi and Stan Lee forgets and says he's not, then does it matter if he's the creator, if his creation said something different?

As the creator, Stan can change his mind at any point and make Peter a villain, a necrophile, bi, etc. He cannot, however, (or should not) make him Black, gay, taller than he is, older than his aunt, etc unless it's an alternate universe. The comics have explored a side of him and there may be a lot different sides of him in the future, if Stan or whoever has the rights decides to do so. As far as I'm concerned, it's fine as long as they don't contradict themselves.