#and ive never really agreed with conventional wisdom that queerbaiting is always inherently a marketing strategy

[castielsuneatenpussy]

been having some thoughts about queerbaiting? like how people use the word and what it really means in tv today.. honestly the term “queerbaiting” is kinda loaded and imprecise and imho what people consider queerbaiting is more often than not unintentional. not to say its okay, or that it doesnt still count as queerbaiting, but its usually not a Marketing Ploy as such. queer audiences honestly arent that much of a draw and there are better ways to appeal to straight liberals. much more often its simply straight writers, producers, and actors getting in over their heads and then reacting badly to criticism.

most queerbaiting takes the form of simple jokes that straight people think nothing of, but that send signals (intentional or not) to gay viewers. for example, putting two male characters in an unexpected pseudo-sexual situation, such as one falling on top of another and their faces getting very close; the camera lingers on their shocked expressions and the audience watches them stammer and act supremely awkward about it.

straight people eat that shit up! its super funny because Of Course these two characters arent like, gay for each other!! that would be truly absurd!!!! its just funny to watch them be put into Gay Situations with the ironclad knowledge, which only a straight person can possess, that their favorite characters could never actually be non-heterosexual.

the problem with this (besides uh. homophobia) is that its super ambiguous! since its no longer socially acceptable to be unambiguous about your homophobia, the new and improved version of gay jokes rely on implications and assumptions, rather than just calling somebody homophobic slurs. theres usually no actual, textual No Homo moment, just the suggestive situation followed by awkwardness from the characters involved.

the humor rises directly from the assumptions of the straight audience that 1) the situation is uncomfortable for these two obviously straight men on account of their obvious straightness, and 2) the ensuing awkwardness is only natural and a clear no-homo signal.

where straight audiences see a reassuring no-homo moment, though, gay audiences are very likely to see sexual tension. the scene itself would be an undeniable marker of UST if it were between a man and a woman, acted and shot and presented in exactly the same way.

for straight people, the gender of the characters involved is hugely important in determining whether a scene should be read as sexual/romantic or platonic/funny, but gay audiences dont have those kinds of restrictions since we already kinda blow those out of the water in our own lives. also we’re fucking starved for depictions of ourselves so we’re very attuned to subtext and subtlety, we dont require passionate onscreen lovemaking or even a single kiss to see romantic or sexual love between two characters.

we latch onto these kinds of scenes and they mean a lot to us even though they were never intended as anything but cheap gay jokes. so when a show makes these kinds of jokes consistently, constantly, ad fucking nauseum, there starts to be a split between gay and straight viewers. where straight audiences see two dudes living their lives and getting up to wacky hijinks, gay audiences see a fucking volcano of sexual tension just waiting to erupt.

and when it just continues to not erupt, season after season... thats when it becomes clear that: CONGRATULATIONS, YOUVE BEEN QUEERBAITED! the writers werent actually trying to build up a slow-burn, tender romance between two men who mean the world to each other and have a soul-deep bond that no love-interest-of-the-week ever seems to be able to come between. nope, they were literally just making gay jokes this whole fucking time. 

was it intentional? probably not. does that make it okay? absolutely not. is it homophobic as hell? you betcha :)