fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2971 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2971 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 086 secrets from Secret Submission Post #425.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Maybe I'm being stupid, but I thought that's what queerbaiting was. You add in implicit lesbian elements to attract a crowd of straight males, or add in implicit gay male elements to attract a crowd of straight females. Vaguely queer characters "bait the hook."

Am I totally getting this wrong?

I've always thought of queerbaiting as "baiting the queers" but YMMV.

When it comes to anime, what you describe would be termed "fanservice" or like someone upthread said, "fujoshi-baiting."

Afaik, the term queerbaiting involves teasing the potential for representation only to deny it or brush any subext under the rug in favor of a straight romance.

"Afaik, the term queerbaiting involves teasing the potential for representation only to deny it or brush any subext under the rug in favor of a straight romance."

Yeah, that is definitely not a thing I have ever seen in a Western show, and I could argue at most two Japanese shows that came close to it.

So you've never seen Sherlock, I take it?

Okay, you're right, I haven't seen Sherlock, so I can't respond to that directly. But I do watch Needs More Gay, which had a brief but interesting bit about Sherlock and queerbaiting as part of an episode on Korra: http://blip.tv/needsmoregay/legend-of-korra-needs-more-gay-7133975

Ah... yeah, sorry, but I completely disagree with Rantasmo about the makers of Sherlock not teasing the audience. In "A Scandal In Belgravia", a woman whose supposed to be incisive about relationships calls John and Sherlock a couple. John is also compared to this woman--their feelings for Sherlock are the same--and then she falls in love with Sherlock. She also spends the whole episode wanting to bang Sherlock.

Oh, and, "The creators have said..." Yeah, the creators of Sherlock have been known to just outright, bald-face lie. So I don't give a shit what they SAY, I care about what I see happen on the show. "Authorial Intent" is meaningless when the author lies about their intent.

NA

Yea, like other person, I'd argue that Sherlock is like that.

But not freaking Teen Wolf. There's no "subtext" in Teen Wolf. And if there was, it'd be Scott/Stiles, or Scott/Isaac.. or you know, a pair that has a relationship at all.

There's definitely some shady stuff going on with Teen Wolf tho. After they realized Sterek was becoming a thing, they wrote Stiles and Derek into more scenes together, put Hoechlin and O'Brien together in promos, indulged the people lobbying for Sterek to become canon... As I recall they had to tone it down eventually because the fangirls were getting out of control, but still.

But IA it doesn't fit the textbook definition of queerbaiting.

ayrt

Yeah, the creators did stuff like that and going teasing fans on twitter and stuff. It was a bad move on their account and I understand frustration in that regard.

But this convo was about on screen stuff/subtext, isn't it? The few scenes they were together in, there was nothing baity or fanservicy or subtexty at all.

One could make a reasonable argument for unrequited Isaac->Scott, I think.

There's a lot on Teen Wolf that people try to use for shipping or subtext that's just the male characters defying the toxic masculinity that they're expected to fall into, both in-universe (high school boys, sports, etc) and out (darker supernatural show with a mostly-male cast and horror aspects). Like, the "hot girl" scene. Sexism, racism, and homophobia aren't supposed to exist in that world, and while the writers have a crap time remembering that, the "hot girl" scene is one point where they did. Since sexism doesn't exist, women aren't considered inferior to men, and therefore Stiles comparing Scott to the hot girl in school that everyone wants to be friends with (or date, or be, or something, idr) has the intended effect of bolstering his confidence.

(What is kind of gay is Isaac walking up in the middle of that conversation, hearing Scott say, "I'm the hot girl," and with no other prompting, smiling broadly at Scott and saying, "Yes, you are." But I digress, and also ship Scott/Isaac.)

Yeah, you are. Implicit gay elements that are never expanded upon with either confirmation or denial aren't queerbaiting, they're just subtext.

Queerbaiting is teasing at the possibility of a gay relationship and then flat-out denying it or going for a straight relationship instead. It's a bait-and-switch maneuver.

nayrt but, what (popular) shows would you consider queerbaiting? I can't imagine that everyone agrees upon what has it, because there will always be fans that deny there was ever anything queer to start with.

For example, is BBC Sherlock queerbaiting, because not only is it a rather intimate bromance but also the narrative makes gay jokes about them?

Merlin?

Both of those are, yes. They contain very high levels of intentional gay subtext in the narrative that the creators then go on to debunk. The main factor is in whether the subtext is intentional on the part of the creators or just something read into it by the fans, and in both of those cases it's deliberately added.

I'm not sure it's strictly defined, but I think there is a difference between gay subtext and queerbaiting. I'd think queerbaiting is more when the possibility is presented (positively) but then it's abandoned or negated. Where exactly the line between queerbaiting and simple subtext is probably more of a case by case basis, but I reckon subtext implies that homoeroticism is a distinct and plausible possibility, whereas queerbaiting dangles the idea but then pulls it away and makes it impossible.

Fanservice I also wouldn't consider queerbaiting, because it's purpose is to titillate the audience directly moreso than develop a character?

Subtext is "we'd go there if we could, but the censors/the network/whoever won't let us, so we're making it as clear as we can while maintaining plausible deniability."

Queerbaiting is "hey LGBT people, here are these characters of the same sex who spend a lot of time giving each other Meaningful Looks, and LOL FOOLED YOU THEY WERE TOTALLY STRAIGHT THE WHOLE TIME but anyway thanks for getting the ratings up. Suckers."

[ SECRET POST #2971 ]

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

OP

Re: OP

OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP

Re: OP