This article already sucks for two reasons: First of all, I was planning on writing an article this week inspired by Arianna Grande’s "Dangerous Woman" and other female poppers, and also because I put off writing my articles until the very last minute, this subject has already been approached by other Internet jerks. The only one I’ve read is written by someone whose been cyber bullying me for quite a few years now, so here’s a link to his own thoughts on the issue, which I'm gonna do my best not to merely echo.

Apparently, fans gender-swapping or sexual orientation-swapping characters is enough to make headlines in such reputable content providers as Entertainment Weekly, Huffington Post and now, The Odyssey. This week has been particularly fertile with characters who want to bone something with the same components they’re endowed with, and even a character who might undergo a sex change. (That last one is 007, and I’m actually mostly in support of that idea. I’d just change the agent numbers and name to another spy, keep it in the same universe and voila. That way it wouldn’t be so dang gimmicky.) The two characters whose sexuality is in question are Elsa from "Frozen" and Steve Rogers, Captain America himself, so, you know, two totally niche characters most of you probably aren’t familiar with.

Now, Elsa makes a lot of sense as a gay character to me, because, well, I always saw her as a lesbian (or at least asexual). I remember seeing "Frozen" opening night and thinking, “Oh, shit. This is about the way our ideals of romance have changed since the prototypical Disney Princess movies.” I thought it was really clever, tastefully executed and funny. I liked that Anna kept getting shit on for believing in love at first sight without it being too over-the-top cynical (See: "Maleficent"). I also liked how subtle Elsa’s sexuality (or lack thereof) is approached. I thought it was totally a gay thang, but my girlfriend was disputing it with me in the car the other day. Even though I’m totally right, she’s not necessarily wrong, either. (I mean, she is, but for the sake of the article, let’s pretend.) What made “Let It Go,” and the story of Elsa being an outsider resonate with so many people, I think, is because it's universal. Yeah, it could be about sexual orientation, being a loner with social anxiety or just feeling out of place, which I think is something that most everyone can either identify with or recognize. The arc of her character is accepting herself and learning not to be mad at the world (which I think is something a lot of people today could learn from, but I digress...), and the others had to demonstrate that they still loved her *ss, anyways. If she came out in the sequel and said, “Oh, by the way, I also eat chicks out,” it would feel redundant. Would it just be tossed in, as a thing accepted and unacknowledged? Why is it necessary? Is Elsa a richer character because of who melts the ice in her pants? Isn’t it counterproductive to value a character based on their sexuality?

Then, we have Captain America. I’m more confused by this one than anything. He was all hot for Peggy Carter, still seemed to have feelings for her, even after she was all aged and stuff (not, like, horny feelings, just more than platonic, but awkward due to the circumstances awkward — probably like how you feel when you see your ex in public, but you’re on good terms, whatever that feels like). Then, after she passes away, he makes out with her daughter, which is not only in poor taste, but means he’s still probably into chicks. (Also, I’m calling it now: That scene is only in the movie because Disney requires the lead in their movies to have a dramatic kiss scene.) People are tying him romantically to Bucky, because they’re friends, and Cap is defensive of him. Wouldn’t it cheapen that dynamic if it was all just to break a piece off? To me, that makes their relationship and Cap’s loyalty to him so much less interesting. I don’t really have a better or more elaborate argument than that. I only really like about three Marvel movies, so I’m not all that passionate about this one. I just think it’s stupid and dumb.

My final thoughts are that sexual orientation shouldn’t be used as a frivolous plot point or something that defines the character in the way I feel some fans are begging for it to. I don’t love John McClane because he’s straight. If the movie is about coming to terms with one’s own sexuality, I get it, but just to make a character homosexual because that’s what’s trendy today feels so diminishing and exploitative to me. I also don’t believe that major publications should humor these ideas by publishing articles about them, or writing pointless responses to them.