fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2543 ]

[ SECRET POST #2543 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2543 ⌋

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

01.

[Fangirl]

__________________________________________________

02.

[Anne Neville, The White Queen]

__________________________________________________

03.

[Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan]

__________________________________________________

04.

[Merlin]

__________________________________________________

05.

[Elementary]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Whitechapel]

__________________________________________________

07.

[Grey's Anatomy]

__________________________________________________

08.

(Legend of Korra)

__________________________________________________

09.

[Papa Pear Saga + Doctor Who]

__________________________________________________

10.

[Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane in "The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones"]

__________________________________________________

11.

[Kwon Yuri, Tiffany Hwang and Jessica Jung of Girls' Generation]

__________________________________________________

12.

[Les Miserables/Anton Zetterholm/Rob Houchen]

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01pages, 015 secrets from Secret Submission Post #363.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - 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

I know that this thread has much potential of becoming bugfuck insane, but nevertheless I'll venture to ask: how do you distinguish (in TV shows, in films) between queerbaiting and strong same-sex friendships? Because I often find myself wondering just how one would go about depicting a same-sex friendship without getting dogpiled for its "unrealized potential".

And is queerbaiting even a thing in books?

For me it's not even the in-show depiction but more how the actors/writers/etc talk about it. Take Teen Wolf for example, Jeff Davis is always talking about queer characters and how maybe Stiles is bisexual and everyone plays up the whole Sterek thing, but never once in the show do they actually do anything about all this talk. It wouldn't be queerbaiting imo if the people working on the show didn't tease the audience about it so much when they obviously have zero plans to do anything in-show.

This makes sense to me! But my dash was just overran by folks who blame Sherlock for queerbaiting, and I'm pretty sure that the creators repeatedly stated that it was just a straight friendship... Granted, these same folks claimed that Jeremy Brett plays a canonically queer Holmes, so *sighs*. Oh, tumblr.

Granted, these same folks claimed that Jeremy Brett plays a canonically queer Holmes,

....

.....

........

I.

Uh......

Re: Friendship or queerbaiting?

dreemyweird - 2013-12-20 01:43 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Friendship or queerbaiting?

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-20 02:23 (UTC) - Expand

Weird, I've heard queerbaiting defined as the opposite of that. When everything on the show indicates that there could be canon queerness, but then the writers when asked about it say "No, silly fangirls, where are you getting that idea? They're just good friends!"

Honestly it could go either way. It really depends on the attitude surrounding the topic.

Like I would definitely take the TW situation as queerbaiting by the creators and writers, but I can see how something like Destiel (disclaimer: I don't actually watch the show) could also be considered queerbaiting because of the way the relationship is written and joked about but then denied when straight up asked about it.

Take Teen Wolf for example, Jeff Davis is always talking about queer characters and how maybe Stiles is bisexual and everyone plays up the whole Sterek thing, but never once in the show do they actually do anything about all this talk.

Well, except for the fact that they actually do have two gay characters as part of the cast (and in a relationship), even if they aren't Stiles or Derek. There was also an episode with a lesbian couple (even if it didn't end well for one of them). So, yes, there are queer characters on the show and Jeff Davis can talk about having them. And, okay, so there has been some playing up of the Stiles/Derek thing among the cast and crew, but I think it was kind of brought on by the fanbase (it did kind blow up and I think really surprised people involved with show and they just went with it). Also, while I would kind of like to see a bisexual Stiles (and there's been nothing to contradict it), a maybe isn't any kind of commitment.

I think a maybe is still falling under queerbaiting, because I honestly think Jeff Davis has absolutely no plans to make that happen and is just toying with the audience.

And I also don't really consider background characters the same as having the main cast be queer.

And it was the Teen Wolf tumblr, PR, cast, crew, everyone official was all over the Sterek after they saw it would get fans excited. They've toned way down (after realizing how crazy and rabid some fans can get) but I think they totally knew what they were doing while having no plans to actually make it happen.

I'm not saying that I demand bi Stiles or the main characters to suddenly be queer, I'm just saying the way the writers and everyone involved in the show talks about it and jokes and teases the fans counts as queerbaiting in my opinion.

I'm sure other people have different definitions, but for me, queerbaiting is more based on intention of the creator. If the closeness used as a joke, it's probably based on "lol, gays", but not always. If the creators go, "Hey, gays are a thing now, so let's get some ratings! But we can't have actual gay people in our show," that's queerbaiting. It there's an ad for, "See who turns lesbian on tonight's episode," but then the girls are just doing it for guys, that's queerbaiting.

For the record, I don't think that "mistaken for gay", even as humor, is necessarily queerbaiting. Neither is UST. Both of those can happen in real life, and can even be funny without being homophobic.

Jeez, I wish I could think of specifics for this.

This is pretty much how I think of it, though "mistaken for gay" really annoys me when it's done over and over.

Sigh. I don't even know anymore, since all I ever see are the friendships. I never see this queerbaiting people keep talking about or those *long, meaningful glances that the characters give each other and totallymeanthattheyareinlovedamnit*.

Granted, if I were a creator, I'd answer the fans' questions about their OTPs just with a "sorry, we are not going to that direction, but have fun writing about it yourself", instead of trying to be vague and getting accused of queerbaiting.

A situation that is portrayed as strong friendship can also be queerbaiting, they're not mutually exclusive. I'M LOOKIN' AT YOU, RIZZOLI AND ISLES.

Rizzoli and Isles aren't looking at you because they're too busy looking at each other. In bed.

~~Oh my god I'm laughing myself sick because when I googled for a screencap of them looking at each other while together in bed SO MANY CAME UP.~~

well, one of those two concepts is non-existent for starters...

I'm sorry nobody's ever shown you the true meaning of friendship :(

Queerbaiting, to me, is basically jokes where faux gay behavior between same-sex friends, usually male, is the punchline. Like "oh ho ho, aren't we and my good chum over here so adorably intimate and shit, but lemme just loudly hammer into the audience's head that I like the opposite sex so folks don't get the wrong idea ho ho ho". Most shows/films don't want to commit to actual gay/bi characters on their primary cast, so they try to have their cake and eat it, too, get those who like gay couples twitterpated, but at the same time not alienate the bigots. Supernatural was overflowing with this from the start and is still doing it nine seasons later last I paid any attention to it. Just my take.

And yes, it can happen in books, though it's rarer since written fiction is more free to have non-straight characters on the main cast.

Well I think the problem with queerbaiting isn't just showrunners teasing the possibility of same-sex attraction, it's showrunners teasing the possibility while at the same time covering their asses with "my word no homo totally straight JUST FRIENDS" bullshit and thus trying to have it both ways.

So, for me queerbaiting is less about the strength/intimacy of the same sex friendship and how characters react to it. Like, on Person of Interest, John and Harold are super close, would die for each other, take care of a baby together, have adopted a dog (that they take to the movies on slow days), etc, etc, but it never feels like queerbaiting to me because 1) no other characters have been like "hur hur, you guys are gay, right?" and 2) neither John nor Harold seem to think anything about their relationship is particularly weird or that they have to explain it in that weird, posturing, no-homo way some other shows get. So yeah, people ship it (I do) but in show I fully buy it as just a strong friendship that's being portrayed and am comfortable with it staying that way.

Something like Sherlock, though, where John and Sherlock get mistaken for a couple several times, where Irene throws out the "love" word about them, and yet where John REPEATEDLY says he's not gay and Moffat is like "Sherlock lives with a man because he's not attracted to men and thus won't be distracted by one" (which, what even?)...that becomes queerbaiting. The, y'know, bait and switch aspect.

Anne and Leslie from Parks and Recreation is an interesting case for me, because it does have elements of queerbaiting (close friendship, people have mistaken them for a lesbian couple, they've each respectively denied it), but it doesn't feel as gross to me as when Sherlock does it. I think the main reason is that Leslie's line on it is something like "Unfortunately no, we are both heterosexual", like she's almost disappointed she's not attracted to beautiful nurse Anne. IDK, it's more respectful.

Another current one is Almost Human, which is basically a textbook set up for queerbaiting in the two male characters who are partners and spend all of their time with each other (but also there's a pretty lady so it doesn't seem TOO gay). And idk the writers keep throwing out all sorts of stuff (like, Dorian shows John his dick after John expresses interest as to him having one. I mean, that's a thing that happens), but then the very next scene they push John straight at the pretty lady detective because OBVIOUSLY the gay relationship WOULD NOT HAPPEN, I MEAN MY WORD NO.

So idk, how do you depict a strong same sex relationship without getting dogpiled for its unrealized potential? Don't dangle that potential out there really obviously only to snatch it back while screaming "NO HOMO".

...but what if a show portrays a strong friendship with what could be read as "potential", but, when the creators are asked as to the nature of the heroes' relationship, their answer is "this is a straight friendship"? Or else, what if the characters themselves are asked about this in a non-"hur hur" way and explicitly state that there is no romance going on?

DA

The fannits don't care about reality, they're just concentrated on their precious slash. Honestly, they're just as bad as guys watching lesbian porn, IMO. What's worse is that most of these girls are teenagers, so how is this going to adversely affect them when they get older, is my question.

Re: Friendship or queerbaiting?

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-20 03:16 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Friendship or queerbaiting?

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-20 10:43 (UTC) - Expand

Well, that's pretty much what I see going on in Parks and Rec: Leslie and Anne are super close, love each other very much, get mistaken for a lesbian couple maybe three times that I recall, each in very logical situations: once when Leslie mostly seems really happy that Anne was considered her trophy wife (given that they went to a party together), once at a fertility clinic when she was there for moral support, and once by a douchey radio host who was pissed Anne ditched him to go and have a fight with Leslie in the bathroom. All three of those times, there's never that immediate, panicked push to assert herself as not gay, just a matter of fact statement (of regret, even) and moving on. And I don't remember ever seeing it called queerbaiting. I mean, I get that the Leslie/Anne situation is less contentious because it is a female/female relationship, and fandom tends to get a little more touchy about m/m stuff and ignore f/f.

But again, in Person of Interest, it is a m/m friendship, with equal if not greater canonical closeness and unhealthy interdependence as John/Sherlock, and I don't think there's EVER been a "Hmm, but you guys are gay, right?" in-show tease, not once in its two year, sixty episode run, and no shipper actually argues that they should be together on the show or else the showrunners are wasting canon potential. (Okay, I probably shouldn't say no shipper, because I don't know EVERYONE in the fandom, but: I have never seen a John/Harold shipper reach the levels of vitriol toward the show for not going there/the non-shippers/the canon love interests that some Johnlock fans hit every day). It just doesn't happen.

I mean, for me the greatest indicator of queerbaiting always ends up being the fandom: when the trend is fans who feel crazy entitled to seeing the relationship happen in canon, it's usually because they have been given serious hints that it "could" be canon, for the given meaning of could. I think certain shows get recommended that way and tend to pick up that kind of fan, or by reputation they hear about a really obvious couple and start watching for it, as with Sterek and Destiel.

(Though, Sterek's weird, because so much of it is from the showrunners and not the show: there basically isn't any canon friendship/closeness to take advantage of, there, so you get the writers hinting at Stiles's bisexuality at most and the actors playing it up, which I think makes Sterek shippers feel even more entitled to it in canon. Which is only a bad thing if the writers don't intend to go there, and at this point, I'm not even sure if they will, or if I'd want them to.)

Like, I don't know, I think there are plenty of shows that have strong, same-sex friendships that don't get accusations of queerbaiting, or at least not at the level of, as you say, dogpiling (c.f: Scrubs, Parks and Rec, Psych, POI). But I think when there is the bait and switch aspect, dogpiling happens because those kind of teases make people think that showrunners are willing to go there, and then it's disappointing when it turns out they're not, and/or have been using the idea as a punchline.

Now you see, I don't get that vibe from Almost Human because a large chunk of that banter reads like badly written heterosexist machismo. Even that scene (prompted by Kennex's shock that MX models have a "Ken Doll" crotch) ends with Dorian taunting that Kennex isn't sexually active either.

Re: Friendship or queerbaiting?

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-20 02:53 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Friendship or queerbaiting?

cbrachyrhynchos - 2013-12-20 02:56 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Friendship or queerbaiting?

(Anonymous) - 2013-12-20 03:08 (UTC) - Expand

I think "unrealised potential" is entirely dependent on interpretation, so all you have to do to not piss me off is be clear about how you've imagined the characters and respectful of your fans.

I don't like the word queerbaiting, because I've seen it defined as growing your audience by baiting actual queers who genuinely believe they are going to be represented. I don't see that happening in the shows I've watched. I just see the show runners responding to fan enthusiasm in ignorant and annoying ways and I wish there was a better word for it.

When the script drops gay double entendres for humor value quickly followed by a "no homo" line. See about half of the Watson/Holmes dialogue of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows for an example. Sherlock does it to a lesser extent by having secondary characters repeatedly comment that John acts like he has a crush on Sherlock.

I would it's mostly a sense that the producers KNOW that people ship these characters and are deliberately throwing gayness into the friendship while BOTH a) not planning on making the characters have a gay relationship AND b) trying to make the fans squee over it.

For example, I wouldn't say Turk and JD's friendship on Scrubs is queerbaiting, even though the writers did all the blatantly gay moments deliberately but never intended to make them gay, because it was solely for the purpose of lulz, not to make viewers ship them and be seriously invested in their gayness.

But some other shows (mostly recent ones, since the phenomenon of slash shipping became more widely known on the production side of things), the gay-ish moments between male friends is played in a way deliberately designed to titillate the viewers, to make the viewers wonder if they really are gay, and/or as a prelude for the characters to then turn around and go LOL JK NO HOMO.

I think it's a mix of "hey, fandom likes that slash" and trying to write strong friendships. It is hard, I think, because any closeness will be seen as romantic if the audience wants to see it that way. I think the only time I ever thought "Wait, maybe they are more than friends?" was that Kitty Bunny episode of Courage.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only