RealZeroMar 17

This video is fun because it shows many of the different kinds of silly that "The Amazing World of Gumball" is.

I disagree with its title, because I think most of these examples aren't actually "Gumball is queer", but just that Gumball is free from gender stereotype biases and has no problem to behave "feminine" or be affectionate towards male friends.

BUT no matter what, it certainly shows Gumball is a great guy! (if he isn't a pest.^^) (And of course Darwin is also a great guy, in general!)

Content warning: Video contains spoilers for several Gumball episodes and comics.

Valha28 - Gumball Watterson being ambiguously queer for 9 minutes straight
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnj8bnbZKbU

#Gumball #TheAmazingWorldOfGumball

Gumball Watterson being ambiguously queer for 9 minutes straight

YouTube
Show threadRealZeroMar 17

Thw video itself as well as some comments make comments saying the "icky" part would be that Darwin and Gumball kissing is brothers kissing.

Oh boy, where do I start?

First off: They are not brothers. Darwin was his pet fish that grew legs. The craziness of that alone should end any realistic moral discussion.

Next: according to the Westermarck effect, the "reverse sexual imprinting" that prevents people from being sexually attracted to people like family members states it applies to people you lived with to the age of six years. I don't remember when Gumball got Darwin, but the "becoming sentient and grow legs" time could very well have been later.

But, and that is the most important part in all of the discussion:[...]

Show threadRealZero

The situations in which Darwin and Gumball kissed were NOT SEXUAL.

At the very most, when Carry borrowed Gumball's body to kiss Darwin, is was romantic between Carry and Darwin. But even that wasn't sexual.

Neither Gumball nor Darwin show any kind of sexual interest due to their age.

But that aside: their kissing, in the few instances it happened, was genuine care and love as friends.

Yes, in the societies most of us grow up, kissing family- or family-like members without romantic component on the mouth, contrary to cheeks, is unusual to frowned-upon.

But...why? Gumball and Darwin, rightfully so, also don't care about gender-related clothing standards. Why would they obey other societal norms like that?

[...]

Mar 17 at 4:37pmWeb
Show threadRealZeroMar 17

But, yeah, as said, most importantly: the kisses were never in sexual situations, obvious jokes aside.

It's not their (or the writers') fault if someone automatically aligns kissing with romantic interest and romantic with sexual interest.

All that aside: stop considering stuff icky just because others tell you so! Take a moment to think for yourself if something really has any bad implications or consequences.

But yeah. Totally unnecessary to feel strange about it, as unnecessary as me writing all this text about it, but I love overthinking!

-

(All that said, ship who- and however you want. They're fictional, if you're into shipping fictional siblings, more power to you, do whatever fictional stuff you want!)

Show threadLukyanMar 17

@BryanGreyson This made me think of Brezhnev. Surely there is fiction involving a literally fraternal kiss between leaders on exceptionally good terms.

And if that was sexual, I'd see more of a potential issue in the "a pet becomes a person" aspect than them being brothers (stepbrothers?).