Do Disney Movies Really Empower Young Girls?

[Bezkoshtovnya]

We all remember that rash of conflagrations and and newt transformations perpetrated by little girls. The response from most of them? They were trying to be Elsa.

Surely that would only proved that Disney does, in fact, empower young girls?

Empowers them with vast reserves of mana, yes.

[The Rich Port]

Morals and values that are socially imposed must be socially constructed. If your personal morals and values align with society's, great; if not, then you have no right to impose them on people that don't share them.

Wait one cotton-pickin' minute, here...

Now, I know this might be edging along another thread, but bear with me just this once, before I go to bed. Know that I'm not judging you personally, I'm just explaining how that line of thinking doesn't work. Now, I'm assuming from the post above, you are referencing to some sort of relativism, which means, "Everything goes!" (Basically.) So the problem with your statement is that, if he has some sort of beliefs about sin, then by the order of relativism, you can't say his views are "completely and entirely unacceptable", because in relativism, there are no right or wrong morals.
And by saying that he can't impose his beliefs on others, you are effectively imposing your beliefs on him by saying what he can and can't do. You get what I'm saying?

Thus, to keep on topic, if I say that I don't like Elsa, by order of relativism, you can't tell me I'm wrong to say that, because with relativism, anything goes.

Unless we're all serial killers or religious, I'm not sure how a socially constructed morality is a problem.

[Camicon]

Morals and values that are socially imposed must be socially constructed. If your personal morals and values align with society's, great; if not, then you have no right to impose them on people that don't share them.

Wait one cotton-pickin' minute, here...

Now, I know this might be edging along another thread, but bear with me just this once, before I go to bed. Know that I'm not judging you personally, I'm just explaining how that line of thinking doesn't work. Now, I'm assuming from the post above, you are referencing to some sort of relativism, which means, "Everything goes!" (Basically.) So the problem with your statement is that, if he has some sort of beliefs about sin, then by the order of relativism, you can't say his views are "completely and entirely unacceptable", because in relativism, there are no right or wrong morals.
And by saying that he can't impose his beliefs on others, you are effectively imposing your beliefs on him by saying what he can and can't do. You get what I'm saying?

Thus, to keep on topic, if I say that I don't like Elsa, by order of relativism, you can't tell me I'm wrong to say that, because with relativism, anything goes.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that morals, ethics, and values, are all social constructions. The ones that are given primacy in society are the ones which society largely agrees upon. By extension, if your personal morals, values, and ethics do not coincide with those that are socially agreed upon, they become secondary. You don't get to dictate your own personal beliefs onto other people, because they are socially created and socially enforced. So in a way, yes, "everything goes", but only in the sense that human society defines what is moral, ethical, and holds value. So there is right and wrong, but right and wrong are fluid concepts, and are socially defined.

I'm not enforcing my beliefs on URSS any more than I would be by saying that evolution occurs, and the Earth isn't six-thousand years old; it's a statement of fact, not my opinion. Moral, ethics, and values are social constructs. Trying to make people follow a set of morals, ethics, and values that are contrary to what has been socially agreed upon isn't something you get to do, because they must be socially agreed upon to have any sort of power or meaning.

If you don't like Elsa, then whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you were to say that you don't like Elsa because she's a "lesbian femi-nazi", then I could call you out and say that no, she is not a "lesbian femi-nazi", because she never does anything to suggest as much. You get your own opinion, I'd never challenge that, but you don't get your own facts and you don't get to make other people follow your version of the "facts". Do you follow?

[Tahar Joblis]

Wait one cotton-pickin' minute, here...

Now, I know this might be edging along another thread, but bear with me just this once, before I go to bed. Know that I'm not judging you personally, I'm just explaining how that line of thinking doesn't work. Now, I'm assuming from the post above, you are referencing to some sort of relativism, which means, "Everything goes!" (Basically.) So the problem with your statement is that, if he has some sort of beliefs about sin, then by the order of relativism, you can't say his views are "completely and entirely unacceptable", because in relativism, there are no right or wrong morals.
And by saying that he can't impose his beliefs on others, you are effectively imposing your beliefs on him by saying what he can and can't do. You get what I'm saying?

Thus, to keep on topic, if I say that I don't like Elsa, by order of relativism, you can't tell me I'm wrong to say that, because with relativism, anything goes.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that morals, ethics, and values, are all social constructions. The ones that are given primacy in society are the ones which society largely agrees upon. By extension, if your personal morals, values, and ethics do not coincide with those that are socially agreed upon, they become secondary. You don't get to dictate your own personal beliefs onto other people, because they are socially created and socially enforced. So in a way, yes, "everything goes", but only in the sense that human society defines what is moral, ethical, and holds value. So there is right and wrong, but right and wrong are fluid concepts, and are socially defined.

I'm not enforcing my beliefs on URSS any more than I would be by saying that evolution occurs, and the Earth isn't six-thousand years old; it's a statement of fact, not my opinion. Moral, ethics, and values are social constructs. Trying to make people follow a set of morals, ethics, and values that are contrary to what has been socially agreed upon isn't something you get to do, because they must be socially agreed upon to have any sort of power or meaning.

If you don't like Elsa, then whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you were to say that you don't like Elsa because she's a "lesbian femi-nazi", then I could call you out and say that no, she is not a "lesbian femi-nazi", because she never does anything to suggest as much. You get your own opinion, I'd never challenge that, but you don't get your own facts and you don't get to make other people follow your version of the "facts". Do you follow?

I follow this argument.

It is an argumentum ad populum applied to ethics. It is an incorrect argument. You're saying that society creates a consensus of what is and is not moral and ethical, and that if you disagree, you should not attempt to impose ("you don't get to dictate") that disagreement on the larger part of society.

It is true that societies create a set of norms that reflect, more or less, the mores and ethics agreeable to the population at large. This does not mean, however, that they are right, or that they should not be challenged, which is what you stated (I hope your intentions are otherwise). For example, the mores socially agreed upon in Charleston, SC in, say, November of 1860 (to pick a particular time and place) are not simply separated from those of today by time and place; and there were people then and there who judged those social mores to be flawed.

Those people had every right to speak up, even if they were being overruled by the majority, who were willing to go so far as to step away from several generations of association with the rest of the United States in order to preserve some of the peculiarities of those mores.

Your conclusion about the facts of the film (Elsa is not a "lesbian feminazi") may be true, but your argument on the subject has drifted into territory that is very dangerously wrong.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

In The Little Mermaid, Ariel literally transforms herself and stops talking, all for Eric.

I don't think "shut up and change yourself for men" is a very empowering message for females.

I'd also like to point out the "subtle" lyrics in my most favorite song from that movie.

Ursula's villain song; "Poor Unfortunate Souls"

When Ursula is getting down the baubles to help her make Ariel's potion, she sings this;

"You'll have your looks, your pretty face. And DON'T underestimate the importance of BODY LANGUAGE. HA! The men up there don't like alot of blabber. They think a girl who gossips is a bore. Yes on land it's much preferred for ladies not to say a word; and after all dear what is idle chatter for?"

She later finishes by saying;

"Yes it she who holds her tongue that gets her man..."

Shut up, look pretty, and there may be hope for you. YAY DISNEY!

You're forgetting one thing; Ursula is the villain.

[Luminesa]

Wait one cotton-pickin' minute, here...

Now, I know this might be edging along another thread, but bear with me just this once, before I go to bed. Know that I'm not judging you personally, I'm just explaining how that line of thinking doesn't work. Now, I'm assuming from the post above, you are referencing to some sort of relativism, which means, "Everything goes!" (Basically.) So the problem with your statement is that, if he has some sort of beliefs about sin, then by the order of relativism, you can't say his views are "completely and entirely unacceptable", because in relativism, there are no right or wrong morals.
And by saying that he can't impose his beliefs on others, you are effectively imposing your beliefs on him by saying what he can and can't do. You get what I'm saying?

Thus, to keep on topic, if I say that I don't like Elsa, by order of relativism, you can't tell me I'm wrong to say that, because with relativism, anything goes.

That's not at all what I'm saying.

I'm saying that morals, ethics, and values, are all social constructions. The ones that are given primacy in society are the ones which society largely agrees upon. By extension, if your personal morals, values, and ethics do not coincide with those that are socially agreed upon, they become secondary. You don't get to dictate your own personal beliefs onto other people, because they are socially created and socially enforced. So in a way, yes, "everything goes", but only in the sense that human society defines what is moral, ethical, and holds value. So there is right and wrong, but right and wrong are fluid concepts, and are socially defined.

I'm not enforcing my beliefs on URSS any more than I would be by saying that evolution occurs, and the Earth isn't six-thousand years old; it's a statement of fact, not my opinion. Moral, ethics, and values are social constructs. Trying to make people follow a set of morals, ethics, and values that are contrary to what has been socially agreed upon isn't something you get to do, because they must be socially agreed upon to have any sort of power or meaning.

If you don't like Elsa, then whatever, you're entitled to your opinion. But if you were to say that you don't like Elsa because she's a "lesbian femi-nazi", then I could call you out and say that no, she is not a "lesbian femi-nazi", because she never does anything to suggest as much. You get your own opinion, I'd never challenge that, but you don't get your own facts and you don't get to make other people follow your version of the "facts". Do you follow?

I see where you're going, but I think you're missing my point. If you do agree that "everything goes", even to a small extent, then you can't say that I can't dislike Elsa because she's a "lesbian femi-nazi" (which isn't
the reason I don't like her, but that's besides the point), because if it's all fluid, then I can technically say whatever I want. The idea of a "fluid construct" cannot hold-up because it's precisely that. It's liquid! Thus, there must be some sort of objective morality to hold everything in place, otherwise it'd all get swept up with the tide, if you know what I mean.

Also, your last sentence:

You don't get to make other people follow your version of the "facts".

Wouldn't that go both ways? I can't say what I feel is a "fact", but then you can't say what you think is a fact, because you, by that statement, would be making me follow your version of the "facts".

And now I'm dizzy. Sorry, talking about morality can make my head hurt!

[New Stephania]

"Beauty and the Beast": Belle, a bookworm seeking adventures, struggles in a provincial town until she meets the Beast. It is only when she meets him that her adventures begin, and really she is powerless throughout the movie, since she is his prisoner. Of course, all ends happily when he turns into a gorgeous Prince — Would she have stayed with him if he had remained the Beast? And could she have had adventures that did not include men?

"The Little Mermaid": Ariel is a beautiful mermaid who seeks adventures and explores the ocean against her protective father’s will. She is a collector of human objects because she wants to be human, but her true adventure doesn’t begin until she sees Eric. It is only when she sees him that she wants to truly be human. In the end, he saves her from the sea witch and despite her free spirit and adventurous soul, she settles down with a Prince just to live a domestic life as a Princess.

You just described my two favourite childhood films, but you described them in a way I certainly don't recognise. Those are certainly not the lessons I took away.

[Luminesa]

"Beauty and the Beast": Belle, a bookworm seeking adventures, struggles in a provincial town until she meets the Beast. It is only when she meets him that her adventures begin, and really she is powerless throughout the movie, since she is his prisoner. Of course, all ends happily when he turns into a gorgeous Prince — Would she have stayed with him if he had remained the Beast? And could she have had adventures that did not include men?

"The Little Mermaid": Ariel is a beautiful mermaid who seeks adventures and explores the ocean against her protective father’s will. She is a collector of human objects because she wants to be human, but her true adventure doesn’t begin until she sees Eric. It is only when she sees him that she wants to truly be human. In the end, he saves her from the sea witch and despite her free spirit and adventurous soul, she settles down with a Prince just to live a domestic life as a Princess.

You just described my two favourite childhood films, but you described them in a way I certainly don't recognise. Those are certainly not the lessons I took away.

Agreed, I see something very different in both princesses.

Belle would have probably stayed with him anyway, because of her loving heart.

Ariel wanted freedom even before she met Eric. Again, she's meant to be like a stereotypical rebellious teenage girl, and who ever said that marriage and family life wasn't an adventure all in itself? Ask my parents, they'd tell you having kids is an adventure.

[Camicon]

*snip*
I follow this argument.

It is an argumentum ad populum applied to ethics. It is an incorrect argument. You're saying that society creates a consensus of what is and is not moral and ethical, and that if you disagree, you should not attempt to impose ("you don't get to dictate") that disagreement on the larger part of society.

It is true that societies create a set of norms that reflect, more or less, the mores and ethics agreeable to the population at large. This does not mean, however, that they are right, or that they should not be challenged, which is what you stated (I hope your intentions are otherwise). For example, the mores socially agreed upon in Charleston, SC in, say, November of 1860 (to pick a particular time and place) are not simply separated from those of today by time and place; and there were people then and there who judged those social mores to be flawed.

Those people had every right to speak up, even if they were being overruled by the majority, who were willing to go so far as to step away from several generations of association with the rest of the United States in order to preserve some of the peculiarities of those mores.

Your conclusion about the facts of the film (Elsa is not a "lesbian feminazi") may be true, but your argument on the subject has drifted into territory that is very dangerously wrong.

When it comes to things which are social constructs, saying that they derive their power from consensus is like saying the sky is blue. The words and letters that I am typing mean what they mean because our society has decided as much. It's the consensus that gives them that strength and authority. It has nothing to do with their "rightness", not in the sense that there is something objective about them, which is how you seem to be using the word (correct me if I'm wrong). I didn't say that a consensus on the interpretation of social constructs makes them "right", I said it gives them power, authority, and legitimacy.

And, I didn't say that disagreements shouldn't be voiced, and that you can't try to change society's morals and ethics. I said that trying to enforce the minority views onto society as a whole doesn't work, because they need that consensus to have any legitimacy. If you want to look at the Confederate states, then you have to take their views into consideration with those of the Union, because despite the infighting they were still a society.

Out of curiosity, if you think my argument is wrong I'd like to know what yours is on the matter.

*snip*
I see where you're going, but I think you're missing my point. If you do agree that "everything goes", even to a small extent, then you can't say that I can't dislike Elsa because she's a "lesbian femi-nazi" (which isn't
the reason I don't like her, but that's besides the point), because if it's all fluid, then I can technically say whatever I want. The idea of a "fluid construct" cannot hold-up because it's precisely that. It's liquid! Thus, there must be some sort of objective morality to hold everything in place, otherwise it'd all get swept up with the tide, if you know what I mean.

Also, your last sentence:

You don't get to make other people follow your version of the "facts".

Wouldn't that go both ways? I can't say what I feel is a "fact", but then you can't say what you think is a fact, because you, by that statement, would be making me follow your version of the "facts".

And now I'm dizzy. Sorry, talking about morality can make my head hurt!

Here's the thing: we both agree, loosely at the very least, on the words "lesbian" and "femi-nazi". It stands to reason that if you claim Elsa is both of those things, that there would be some sort of evidence. If that evidence is not there, then I can state that you reason for disliking her is incorrect, because there is no evidence to suggest that she is what you claim her to be. I never said that you can't dislike Elsa, I said that I can point out why your reasons for disliking her are based in incorrect assumptions and beliefs.

And objective morality does not "hold everything in place". If morality is objective, then why do so many different societies follow different sets of morals? Why do those morals change over time? Once, stoning people to death was acceptable, as was slavery. In some places both still are, and in others they are not. If morality is objective, then how do you account for the change? Look at how the morals and ethics of human societies have evolved over time. They are fluid concepts, that's simply the way they are, it's their nature. Social constructs are defined by society; they change alongside each other. That's not my "version of the facts", it's simply the reality of the world we live in, like how gravity exists, how we breathe oxygen, how the Earth is round.

[Dracoria]

Mulan.

Mary Poppins.

Single, sassy, and does whatever the hell she wants.

I've always pictured her as more of old-style fae in disguise, looking for promising human offspring to steal away with. She could replace some of them with obedient, well-behaved changelings and be thanked for it!

Well-meaning intentions that have unintended consequences.



pseudo-serious.

Depends on whether they are the heroine, or the heroine's friend or sidekick or advisor. Heroines are compatible with each other, friends and others are less so. iirc, Barbie's sister is shorter than Barbie. Also, the Fairy Godmother is somewhat chubbier than Cinderella, at least in the film version that I think I saw.


The dolls are the only real issue that there is, about the inclusion of lesbian characters in Disney movies.

Are you saying that lesbians tend to be fat?

For that matter, where are the Disney princesses who don't follow that typical body shape? I mean, the only one I've seen is Ariel and even then only the half of her that's seafood.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

In The Little Mermaid, Ariel literally transforms herself and stops talking, all for Eric.

I don't think "shut up and change yourself for men" is a very empowering message for females.

Except she did it because she loved him. She gave up everything for him because she loved him. Not because he asked her to. Get out of here with that shit.

Try to imagine my face when I realize this thread is 16 pages long already.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Mary Poppins.

Single, sassy, and does whatever the hell she wants.

I've always pictured her as more of old-style fae in disguise, looking for promising human offspring to steal away with. She could replace some of them with obedient, well-behaved changelings and be thanked for it!

Are you saying that lesbians tend to be fat?

For that matter, where are the Disney princesses who don't follow that typical body shape? I mean, the only one I've seen is Ariel and even then only the half of her that's seafood.

Meridia was pear shaped, fwiw.

*Merida

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

And objective morality does not "hold everything in place". If morality is objective, then why do so many different societies follow different sets of morals? Why do those morals change over time? Once, stoning people to death was acceptable, as was slavery. In some places both still are, and in others they are not. If morality is objective, then how do you account for the change? Look at how the morals and ethics of human societies have evolved over time. They are fluid concepts, that's simply the way they are, it's their nature. Social constructs are defined by society; they change alongside each other. That's not my "version of the facts", it's simply the reality of the world we live in, like how gravity exists, how we breathe oxygen, how the Earth is round.

I believe that 'objective morality' exists in the same way that 'objective aerodynamics' exists.

When designing a vehicle meant to travel through the air, there are certain principles you have to take into account. If you lay out your goals for what you want an aircraft to do, there should be an 'ideal design' that would achieve those goals with the resources you have available to you with maximum efficiency. It's often difficult to achieve this ideal design, and there are often multiple conflicting goals, and often concerns other than pure aerodynamics get in the way of a perfect design. This is why there are many dozens of different designs for aircraft over history.

In the same way, moral rules (which are distinct from morality in the same way that aircraft designs are distinct from the science of aerodynamics) are different from place to place and have changed dramatically over history, but the underlying 'science of morality' does not change. If a society can generally agree on what it values, there should theoretically be a perfect configuration that maximizes the values of everyone in that society with minimal use of resources. And for each individual within that society, it follows logically that it is moral to live personally by the rules that you would prefer or expect the rest of society to live by. And just like a badly designed aircraft will fail to remain airborne, a badly designed moral code will lead to the collapse or destruction of the society governed by it.

[Camicon]

And objective morality does not "hold everything in place". If morality is objective, then why do so many different societies follow different sets of morals? Why do those morals change over time? Once, stoning people to death was acceptable, as was slavery. In some places both still are, and in others they are not. If morality is objective, then how do you account for the change? Look at how the morals and ethics of human societies have evolved over time. They are fluid concepts, that's simply the way they are, it's their nature. Social constructs are defined by society; they change alongside each other. That's not my "version of the facts", it's simply the reality of the world we live in, like how gravity exists, how we breathe oxygen, how the Earth is round.

I believe that 'objective morality' exists in the same way that 'objective aerodynamics' exists.

When designing a vehicle meant to travel through the air, there are certain principles you have to take into account. If you lay out your goals for what you want an aircraft to do, there should be an 'ideal design' that would achieve those goals with the resources you have available to you with maximum efficiency. It's often difficult to achieve this ideal design, and there are often multiple conflicting goals, and often concerns other than pure aerodynamics get in the way of a perfect design. This is why there are many dozens of different designs for aircraft over history.

In the same way, moral rules (which are distinct from morality in the same way that aircraft designs are distinct from the science of aerodynamics) are different from place to place and have changed dramatically over history, but the underlying 'science of morality' does not change. If a society can generally agree on what it values, there should theoretically be a perfect configuration that maximizes the values of everyone in that society with minimal use of resources. And for each individual within that society, it follows logically that it is moral to live personally by the rules that you would prefer or expect the rest of society to live by. And just like a badly designed aircraft will fail to remain airborne, a badly designed moral code will lead to the collapse or destruction of the society governed by it.

I'm in complete agreement with you.

[Tahar Joblis]

*snip*
I follow this argument.

It is an argumentum ad populum applied to ethics. It is an incorrect argument. You're saying that society creates a consensus of what is and is not moral and ethical, and that if you disagree, you should not attempt to impose ("you don't get to dictate") that disagreement on the larger part of society.

It is true that societies create a set of norms that reflect, more or less, the mores and ethics agreeable to the population at large. This does not mean, however, that they are right, or that they should not be challenged, which is what you stated (I hope your intentions are otherwise). For example, the mores socially agreed upon in Charleston, SC in, say, November of 1860 (to pick a particular time and place) are not simply separated from those of today by time and place; and there were people then and there who judged those social mores to be flawed.

Those people had every right to speak up, even if they were being overruled by the majority, who were willing to go so far as to step away from several generations of association with the rest of the United States in order to preserve some of the peculiarities of those mores.

Your conclusion about the facts of the film (Elsa is not a "lesbian feminazi") may be true, but your argument on the subject has drifted into territory that is very dangerously wrong.

When it comes to things which are social constructs, saying that they derive their power from consensus is like saying the sky is blue.

Power, yes; justification for compliance and silencing of dissent, no. You argued for the latter.

Might does not make right, so this isn't helping the argument you presented.

The words and letters that I am typing mean what they mean because our society has decided as much.

In some senses, yes. Our society and others created and maintained those words. Conscious decision, however, had very little to do with the process. Language is constructed socially, though not entirely voluntarily.

It's the consensus that gives them that strength and authority. It has nothing to do with their "rightness", not in the sense that there is something objective about them, which is how you seem to be using the word (correct me if I'm wrong). I didn't say that a consensus on the interpretation of social constructs makes them "right", I said it gives them power, authority, and legitimacy.

Power, yes. Authority? De facto. Legitimacy? No. To say that an ethical code, a set of social mores, or a set of laws is legitimate is to say that they are justified. To say that justification flows automatically from a rough sense of social consensus is to retroactively approve of a variety of horrific practices, including but not limited to racial slavery in the antebellum South.

What you're doing is trying to silence disagreeable claims based on an appeal to the majority.

And, I didn't say that disagreements shouldn't be voiced, and that you can't try to change society's morals and ethics. I said that trying to enforce the minority views onto society as a whole doesn't work, because they need that consensus to have any legitimacy. If you want to look at the Confederate states, then you have to take their views into consideration with those of the Union, because despite the infighting they were still a society.

Heaven perish the thought that a minority attempt to cram their views on the rest of society. That rascal MLK and his minority of integrationists forcing integration on the south! That horrible Susan B. Anthony, agitating against the will of most men and women to give women a vote!

That "consensus" is subject to change. And how? Well, by the result of people trying to enforce their wills on others.

If someone arguing with you on the internet is "dictating," then someone actually refusing to go to the back of the bus certainly is, as well.

Your original statement, moreover, was this:

Morals and values that are socially imposed must be socially constructed. If your personal morals and values align with society's, great; if not, then you have no right to impose them on people that don't share them.

Frederick Douglass, MLK, etc "ha[d] no right," by that lights, to impose their views on society. LBJ "ha[d] no right" to impose the Civil Rights Act on an unwilling South. Lincoln "ha[d] no right" to eliminate slavery.

What you're ultimately objecting to is someone claiming that Elsa being portrayed as a lesbian in a film aimed towards children is socially harmful. Let me give you a corresponding example. Let's suppose we were in the year 1850, and you were exchanging vicious letters to the editor in your local newspaper instead of posts on the internet.

Someone has the gall to claim that when books showing benign slave-owners [showing lesbians] are marketed to children, it's not okay, because it tells children it's OK to be a slave-owner [lesbian]. You then ask them if they are aware not all children are Abolitionists [Christians], and tell them they don't get to dictate their views on society, because their views don't align with society's.

Do you follow how that's the same argument? It's a conservative argument saying that the present standards of morality are legitimated by the fact that they are the present standards of society, and very transparently an attempt to silence dissenters and block activism.

Out of curiosity, if you think my argument is wrong I'd like to know what yours is on the matter.

[/quote]
Simple.

First, Elsa isn't portrayed as a lesbian. She just doesn't have a love interest story arc in the film at all. Frankly, given her tendency to lose control of her powers in emotionally intense moments, she should probably not have sex with anybody until she's sure she isn't going to kill them in the process.

Second, even if she were portrayed as a lesbian, there isn't anything wrong with being a lesbian. Being a lesbian is, in fact, OK.

Third, even if it wasn't OK, the catastrophic failures associated with the "ex-gay" movement and political lesbianism show that it's really hard to impose a sexuality on someone.

Fourth, even if it was possible to train someone into a particular sexuality, Frozen's blatant portrayal of heterosexuality is quite a bit more obvious (and heavier-duty) than any purported lesbianism implied by the film, so if sexuality were trainable by movies, Frozen is somewhere around the territory of seriously mixed messages, and wouldn't be an effective training film for lesbianism.

[Camicon]

*snip*

I don't know if you aren't reading my posts, if you aren't understanding them, or if you're deliberately misinterpreting them, but you're straw-manning my position, Tahar. If you want to have a conversation with me, then you'd best stop it. At this point, I don't much care either way.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I am living in 2015.

No, your brain seems to be trapped in a time when there was no running water in most homes and people regularly died from minor diseases, which people believed to be demonic possession.

Because magic hasn't been bad since the 1800's, when the last woman was executed for witchcraft.

So how about you find an actual flaw of the character?

Or did you actually not watch the movie?

She probably has left-wing political views. I have seen the movie multiple times.

Elsa is not a good role-model for little girls. She practices magic.

Which will obviously cause millions of young women to become sorceresses in order to emulate her. Oh wait, there's no such thing as magic, so fictional characters practicing it won't affect the real world in any way.

Magic is real.

[Liriena]

Magic is real.

Sadly, no.

[The Rich Port]

No, your brain seems to be trapped in a time when there was no running water in most homes and people regularly died from minor diseases, which people believed to be demonic possession.

Because magic hasn't been bad since the 1800's, when the last woman was executed for witchcraft.

So how about you find an actual flaw of the character?

Or did you actually not watch the movie?

She probably has left-wing political views. I have seen the movie multiple times.

Which will obviously cause millions of young women to become sorceresses in order to emulate her. Oh wait, there's no such thing as magic, so fictional characters practicing it won't affect the real world in any way.

Magic is real.

Magic hasn't been real since J.K. Rowling ruined being a wizard for everyone.

[Dracoria]

Magic is real.

Sadly, no.

Does this counter the claim that friendship is, in fact, magic?

[The Rich Port]

Sadly, no.

Does this counter the claim that friendship is, in fact, magic?

Not if you convert to the Church of the Celestial Principality.

[Charellia]

No, your brain seems to be trapped in a time when there was no running water in most homes and people regularly died from minor diseases, which people believed to be demonic possession.

Because magic hasn't been bad since the 1800's, when the last woman was executed for witchcraft.

So how about you find an actual flaw of the character?

Or did you actually not watch the movie?

She probably has left-wing political views. I have seen the movie multiple times.

What in the movie suggests that the absolute monarch of Arendale has left-wing political views?

Which will obviously cause millions of young women to become sorceresses in order to emulate her. Oh wait, there's no such thing as magic, so fictional characters practicing it won't affect the real world in any way.

Magic is real.

Unless you are posting from Hogwarts right now, you'll have to provide some proof.

[United Russian Soviet States]

She probably has left-wing political views. I have seen the movie multiple times.

What in the movie suggests that the absolute monarch of Arendale has left-wing political views?

Magic is real.

Unless you are posting from Hogwarts right now, you'll have to provide some proof.

The song "Let It Go" indicates her views. This is my proof magic is real:http://www.openbible.info/topics/magic

[Oceasia]

Some do, i guess. Out of all that does, Mulan is my personal favorite.

[Liriena]

What in the movie suggests that the absolute monarch of Arendale has left-wing political views?

The song "Let It Go" indicates her views.

I was not aware that self-love was a left-wing political view.