#but it's always the way these posts are phrased that is just... there's something very off about it

[charcubed]

Okay in the genuinely least shady way possible and not trying to start a debate here: I understand the wider point OP is making but I also, personally, feel insane when I see posts about this topic phrased in this way lmaaaoooo

“queerbait tv”

???????

What, supposedly, was “queerbait TV”?

[Rhetorical question. I can rattle off the list of shows people would probably reply with, and yet I'd also probably insist that each of them is vastly different and should be viewed through a unique lens rather than compared to the others because no 2 situations are alike]

Because what this post is describing (and what some people are even understanding in the notes of it) is subtext. These discussions are often really about subtext and queercoding and thematically compelling narratives!! That’s what’s described here and it’s what people – or at the very least me personally – desperately crave!!

And look, I’m obviously not saying that advocating for gay people being openly explicitly represented on TV was or is a bad thing. Of course that’s important, whether the gay people are going on healthy dates or killing for each other lmao.

But for God's sake... this is why my repetitive rant and personal hot take is that we need to abolish the word "queerbaiting." It's done so much damage in this regard and it doesn't even fucking mean anything of consistent substance or value at this point, if it ever properly did. Once upon a time and only briefly, "queerbaiting" was intended as an accusation that corporate marketing and false advertising were deliberately being used with the intent to increase viewership of a show with no explicit follow-through or validation of queerness within the story itself. It was a type of pinkwashing for ads about TV shows – something that was actually pretty rare in the grand scheme, to be honest – not about the writing or execution of a story itself. But that potential meaning for a very specific thing quickly became entirely lost, and now the use of the word "queerbaiting" is literally just about vibes. You'd be hard-presssed to get even 10 random people to define it the same way. And more often than not, using "queerbaiting" is about derogatory vibes specifically thrown in the direction of devaluing subtext or deriding creators for whatever a fan personally considers to be a failure, disappointment, subtlety (or even too-slow burn) in a story's writing.

[Btw OP, if you're reading this, I'm really not trying to make an aggressive accusatory example out of your singular use of the word here lmao. I apologize if it feels that way. I'm working up to a point]

At the end of the day, so much of these recent takes about boring gay people on TV or ~queerbait hits harder~ route back to how, in the (still worthwhile!) pursuit of explicit representation and the implicit assumption that it's always the Best, somewhere along the way people got it in their brains that subtext and queercoding deserved vilification as the Worst. And that became the loud and prevailing opinion. Of course a lot of that also stems from personal hurt, anger, or disappointment by past TV shows which is all obviously understandable... but that's why people cling to the simplicity of the word “queerbaiting” as an umbrella anytime something's upsetting, and the accusation is often hurled with misplaced ire at creators.

Ultimately in some ways the concept of subtext became synonymous with "not good enough," and in other ways it came to be seen as something cowardly or malicious that creators put into stories to tease, bait, and disappoint fans. Nuance got lost, as well as the understanding that subtext/queercoding exist at all because they're tools used to tell (or enrich!) stories despite interference, constraints, and censorship – obstacles which have never fully gone away.

So we've ended up here: the need for whatever constitutes Good Representation – an endlessly shifting goalpost – and room for little else. The fear of all the ways stories can hurt and the advocacy for avoiding that hypothetical or potential hurt. The "all or nothing" mentally where if a ship isn't canon in the way someone personally deems acceptable – or in a way where every straight person on the planet will miraculously, mythically accept it's queer – then the story has Caused Harm and therefore doesn't have much value or can't be queer. And the overall cultural framing that subtext only exists when creators are too cowardly to do something more, rather than possibly as a creative choice to add complexities or a byproduct of censorship or both.

I find it all pretty fucked and exhausting to witness.

So, judging by [gestures broardly] the hamster wheel of bullshit out there and specifically the high note count on this post...

Here's where I land, as always:

I truly believe so many people and fandoms would free themselves if they realized that “queerbaiting” as a term is mostly bullshit, and as a concept the fear of Being Baited often robs people of finding joy and meaning in stories on their own merit. And I think they'd also free themselves a bit if they learned, understood, and acknowledged that subtext and queercoding are forms of canon. They're canon and they "count." Explicit queer storytelling is important for all the reasons we all implicitly know and understand, and of course we want to see sweeping epic character arcs reach the natural loudly queer conclusions we and the characters often deserve. But even if a story doesn't have that or get that, if you see and understand it's queer, that's still enough in its own way. It still has value, and you don't need permission or validation from anyone else to maintain that to yourself or to others.

Final apology to OP for hijacking their post. And maybe the TL;DR is I genuinely am "advocating for a return to queerbait TV" – or rather the sorts of storytelling and subtext people too often derogatorily slap with the "bait" label, past or present. Maybe people should think a little more about how stories like that were and still are good as well as often legitimately queer... and examine why there's often an implication that they're somehow not.

I am genuinely not advocating for a return to queerbait tv, I was vocally against it the whole time it was happening that was like my whole shtick for a while but it is kind of wild that when gay people weren’t allowed on tv, gay characters (who weren’t allowed to be gay) would be drinking poison for each other and killing bad guys for each other romantically and offering to go to prison in each other’s place and now that we are allowed to have gay people on tv…gay people will just be having a healthy conversation and going going on a date like normal people. Get OUT of my face with that

[mental-illness-bingo]

Yeah it’s very important to note that a thought getting stuck is in fact not the best description of OCD symptoms. That thought has to be very distressing. Distressing enough to interrupt daily functions. It doesn’t always have to be Extreme Violence™️ but the reason it often is is because those are the thoughts that best get obsessions to turn into conpulsions. Pure O anecdotally seems to have obsessions that may be less graphic, but not always and they’re still very distressing, even if they’re something that seems “silly” like a rotating cow.

OCD is ego dystonic - that means it goes directly against you and everything that makes you you. It means it is reasonably able to be personified into someone that absolutely hates you - truly loathes you - and wants you to suffer in the worst ways imaginable. It attacks fundamental beliefs, morals, anything to make you distressed. It’s a personal callout where it hurts the most. If your OCD finds the easiest way to cause you extreme distress is a rotating cow, it will absolutely do that. If the most direct way is images of extreme graphic violence - potentially committed you but not always - it will do that. But no matter what, it is not something that the have-r of the thoughts thinks is funny, catchy (songs), or otherwise positive or neutral.

This is not true of some of the disorders outside of OCD that can cause it, on the other hand.

OP definitely could have OCD based on this description but ofc it’s just one example so it doesn’t like, diagnose them (which I don’t think anyone was genuinely trying to do it’s just worth noting if impressionable ppl like children come across this post), but anyone who may think hours of a song they like stuck in their head - even if you have to listen to it in full to make it stop (this is common with earworms) - is OCD would be mistaken. Even being annoying but not distressing does not qualify. This doesn’t mean someone who does have OCD can’t get annoying earworms but it does mean those aren’t a symptom.

It’s really important that we watch our language so we do not water down the fundamental symptoms of an often debilitating disorder by saying it’s just a stuck thought. It is a thought, mental image, earworm, urge, etc. that causes extreme distress. Intrusive thoughts are not just a thought that repeats in your head. Please know that.

I know people are going to say “it’s not that deep” but it is. OCD is already dangerously misunderstood and watered down by the general public. How is it dangerous? Because when people hear about the true OCD symptoms - such as intrusive thoughts that you might be a pedophile and not know it, or “wanting” to kill someone very dear to you - they do not think “oh god that is so stressful for you; I’m sorry your OCD is causing you to go through that”. Instead they think “oh my god you’re a terrible disgusting person no good person thinks that” which is ableist and leads to isolation and further OCD spirals.

That can and does kill people. Because now they’re alone with a reinforced belief that they are a monster and the OCD plays off that, makes it worse, and deepens rumination and obsession. This forces either compulsions that become more and more intrusive or possibly dangerous to the individual (and makes them more likely to listen to those compulsions), or in “pure O” OCD, creates a thought spiral so intense and so lasting that they may believe there is only one way out.

OCD isn’t just a “stuck thought”. It is a thought that can, if not given assistance, suck the life and/or will to live out of you.

And this isn’t just my opinion, nor is it even just researchers; it is the direct specification and phrasing of the diagnostic tests I had done by a psychiatrist and multiple therapists to get and confirm my OCD diagnosis. It’s something they’re very clear about - “do these thoughts cause you intense distress”, “have these thoughts ever led to you doing dangerous things or self-injuring (including by excessive hand-washing, holding urine, refusing to eat, etc not just classic sh) in an attempt to end the thought”, and “do these thoughts interfere with fundamental activities like eating, hygiene, socializing, leaving the house, working, etc”.

Idk why but as a kid I used to get hysterically upset everytime I would imagine a gif of a rotating cow because I could never stop the cow from rotating no matter how hard I tried and I would be crying and no one knew why