#queerbait is basically not a real phenomenon

[bpdlottiematthews]

The thing is though the majority of Rhaenicent shippers are what I like to call the travelling sapphic ship fandom, basically they're not gonna join a fandom because they're interested in a show they're gonna join it because there are lesbians. You can see it happening in real time, Bridgerton is getting a prominent sapphic romance going forward and you see them declaring they're gonna start watching Bridgerton now despite having no interest in the actual show and a bunch of them are literally swapping out Rhaenicent for Fran/Michaela because of the timing. And to be clear I don't think there's a problem in watching a show only for a ship but don't get upset when you don't get what you want when you knew going into it you were never gonna get it.

Ah I see. I’ve never really noticed this phenomenon before with f/f ships but it completely makes sense since the same seems to happen with m/m ships. I totally get being starved for content, I am a bisexual woman, but it was beyond obvious that Rhaenicent was not going to be actual canon. It’s silly to throw a fit and claim they queerbaited you when you did it to yourself.

[lilitblaukatz]

It's gonna be a hard one

It is only several days left and the screws are so tight already I am in a wice grip of terror.

All that is happening is a result of Will's trauma. But it is not a psychological thriller, it is a supernatural horror.

There is so much speculation to do and I am so used to gaslight that I can't trust myself. I couldn't even trust this (byler tumblr) more or less safe space to share my thoughts. Even when they have undeniable evidence.

Bram Stoker's Dracula by F. F. Coppola is indeed on the list of movies. Why I was so scared to talk about connections I see with this one before I had the evidence? Well, I am going to talk about the toll gaslight (which queerbait is a part of) leaves on our psyche next.

Now to the Dracula connection. I don't believe Duffers watched it just because Winona is in it)

This was one of my favorite childhood movies (yeah I was pretty much ruined for any other genre since I was 5). I watched it multiple times, but the last time was long over ten years ago I'm afraid. I can't watch anything right now so correct me please if my memories are wrong. (short description won't do, they can be inaccurate, I tried to do this with Cider House Rules which I watched over 20 years ago and IMDB says nothing about gays in it, I almost felt delusional and gaslighted again when this movie is one of my first in life with delicate portrayal of homosexuality)

Coppola's Dracula is way different than the book by Bram Stoker. I was obsessed with vampires since 8 y.o. and read and watched shit ton of content. Dracula by Bram Stoker is a cultural phenomenon and the most popular book about vampires. Stoker made Dracula into a cult figure. That bloodthirsty nightmarish creature is leading the line where Freddie Krueger and his pals are.

But Coppola's movie makes 180 degrees and is about love.

Coppola's Dracula is a LOVE STORY which is rivals Romeo and Juliet. Yes, it is that great and equally as awful in terms of lovers' happiness. It is still a horror in the end of a day.

Basically Count Dracula loses the love of his life (she dies), makes a deal with god the devil and becomes Undead. He did this to himself so he could find his loved one when she reincarnates. He became a monster so he could see and recognize her again. And he did.

He killed her lovers and her friend, he IS a monster. But he still loves her. At the end she kills him out of love and mercy, beheading him with a sword. He wanted it too, to save her from becoming a monster herself.

So to the byler.

I don't know how they will show Will's coping with everything in terms of the plot. What allegory they came with. He hasn't got a chance to truly save his friends yet, being the victim and MF GPS (tm) at best. We believe that he will swap places with Vecna in sacrifice. I think that there surely should be a point where Will would be the one and only owner of that upside-down circus. Vecna might use his body to walk on the right side up (and we will have an evil Will that way). But if the real Will'll remain in the UD I hope that Mike will be (or find him asap) with him and of course it won't go to the murder in the name of mercy, but on the contrary they will overcome the hardship together, nevermind monstrosity level Will'll become.

Love conquers all. If I am not mistaken, it is the Coppola's Dracula movie motto. And it is not as positive as it seems.

[kanmom51]

I just really need one of these people who constantly accuse Jikook of queer baiting to tell me WHY they would need to do it. I am a jikooker but I'm a BTS Stan FIRST. And whether or not I still support jikook doesn't affect me being a bts fan. I fell involve with BTS months before I started supporting jikook.

A large majority of fans will tell you that they fell involve with BTS then discovered a pairing they liked. A majority of us are not here for the pairings. It makes no sense to say it's a business model for BTS. They don't need it. They are BTS. Anything they touch basically turns to goal and your think they need to do cheap tricks to get success??????????? Why are they comparing the International phenomenon that is BTS to any other Kpop group??????

I watched the namjin live from start to finish and thought about buying that mess they were playing with because it looked fun and I feel a sense of familiarity with them. I do not ship them in the slightest. I love their music. I love their personality. I love them together. I love them apart.

If bighit wanted a ship to constantly queer bait their best bet would be to do it with taekook. They have the largest amount of shippers. It's obvious. They would make so much money. Taekookers would have mass bought memories if there was any more explicit taekook content of the kind they were looking for. Yet still there's absolutely nothing romantic or even an air of sexual tension around taekook. There is nothing. Why isn't PD nim giving them the scripts??? why was it jikook practicing couple acrobatics in the dance studio and not taekook???

It just makes no sense and I hate that some fans feel an air of superiority over jikookers who refuse to believe any of what they are is queer baiting.

Also what that blogger implied about jikook was so disgusting. They talked about other idols who they think are queer and have been queer coding through their art but.... Jikook have done the same. Jimin literally had the bigender symbol tattoo on him to represent who he was for that one shoot. He's spoken about how he struggled with how to present himself, in relation to the expression of his femininity or masculinity. Jungkook speaks about loving so many queer artists.

But none of that is queer coded?? Why?? Because they say she and girl sometimes in their songs? Please smh. Getting me upset on a good friday night

That's what's disgusting here, the fact that there is soooo much queer coding in their art, in their behaviour, and yet the choice is to call it queerbaiting.

It feels like it's ok to queer code as long as you aren't really queer? But there is no way in hell that there could be an actual queer couple in K-pop, in BTS, so it just has to be queerbaiting?

Jikook are too real to their liking. They can't possibly be an actual gay couple now, could they? That would be unheard of. Conclusion: they live their lives queerbaiting.

My guess:

Those that are calling Jikook out aren't themselves knights fighting for the LGBTQ+ community, quite the opposite.

One word:

Homophobia.

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

I’m gay and I think shipping real people is weird. Shipping them with girl groups is included. it’s weird in general. The thing is that a lot of creepy women love shipping men together for their fetish. They all have a similar pattern of only/mostly shipping men, sexualizing male homosexuality it’s borderline creepy how these fans behave especially the delusional ones.

Anon, I fully understand your point of view, but I think it's necessary to have a more nuanced discussion on this topic, as generalizations often do not help in trying to fully understand a phenomenon.

Although shipping originated in fandoms created around works of fiction and basically meant to want two characters to get together, the definition has changed throughout the years and has been modified according to the category to which it is applied. In the K-Pop industry, shipping has ended up as not only wanting two people to get together, but the practice now also involves speculating about possible relationships while trying to find clues or simply observing content. While there are those whom we can categorize as extremists who are focusing on their fantasy, my belief is that usually it stems from curiosity and because there are many unknows which leaves a huge space for speculation. Now, why does this happen in particular and why are women, in general, drawn to it? When it comes to fiction, I recently heard someone talking about it on a social media platform that most of the time, the male characters are better written than the female ones, who are one dimensional and often in the background. So, the male protagonist and his best friend, or the enemy, all male, have better characterization and the writers pay more attention to how they write their relationship. I think this is an interesting point to take into consideration because if we look at the media landscape, especially films and tv shows, we have countless examples of such situations. Sometimes it can be transformed into queerbaiting, sometimes it's fully the writer's intention to do that, even though there is no classic outcome of what we have come to understand as a romantic relationship and I can give you as examples Hannibal or Black Sails. Intent is the key word here.

Can this be transferred to shipping real people? With some adjustments, yes. One of the reasons is the type of content released and the fans automatically engage with what they have. As I have mentioned already in my post about shipping culture in BTS, they present a homosocial brand which consists of men being quite affectionate with each other. Some of the behaviors can get lost in translation, which is where K-Armys come in by explaining cultural differences, but even stripped away from that, there's still room for some speculation about possible relationships. Fans rarely see BTS members interact with other people, regardless of gender. It doesn't mean they don't, but this is not what is shown to fans. And when they do get in contact with other people, it's mostly in a very professional environment, as we have seen them with Chris Martin, Megan Thee Stallion or Halsey, acknowledging their friends during award shows, some scattered backstage conversations that eventually stopped being shown in BTS content or simply bowing to fellow peers in the industry, again regardless of gender. Add in the fact that fans barely know anything about the private life of the members and there you have it.

The desire to ship two people together in this context comes from the level/type of interaction. It's easier to ask questions when you look at two people who are friends and who are close to each other, than let's say X member from a group who says hello to a presenter during an award show, if they are of the same gender and that is because the fan doesn't really have much to work with, when it comes to information. The exact opposite happens in the so called straight ships where lack of information can actually be a driving force in shipping two people. A stolen glance or what seems like it, it's enough and that is because people in general still have a heteronormative mindset. All shipping involves a certain level of fantasy and imagination, but at various degrees and if we want to look critically at it, we should try to understand it.

Of course fetishization happens, especially from fans who ship because it's taboo so it becomes a bit exhilarating or they have no support towards the LGBTQ+ community and they only care about their ship, looking for tea or engaging in ship wars, as it becomes an ego competition that has nothing to do with the ship anymore.

[dogsliampaynedoesntinstagram]

Hi! Your post on queerbaiting sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole reading academic takes on queerbaiting. One article wrote that "it is clear that queerbaiting is no longer a practice confined to TV and print, but an umbrella term for situations where queer individuals feel a sense of exploitation or an ulterior motive in queer visibility and depictions" (DOI 10.1080/19419899.2021.1892808). Talking about queerbaiting as a phenomenon that's 'located' in the audience's perception is more (1 of 3)

interesting to me, personally. Definitions that locate queerbaiting in the creator's actions (or life, I guess, if we're talking about celebrities) seem to rely on creator intent (intent to imply queerness + intent to never depict 'real queer content', whatever that is), so they are definitions that are difficult to put into action without knowing that intent, and we don't. They also seem to rely on the idea that intending to imply queerness without intending to depict 'real queerness' (2 of 3)

is inherently immoral and harmful, and that we can even identify what 'implied queerness' and 'real queerness' look like in a consistent and agreed-upon way. I am wary of those arguments, partially because I like indirect or ambiguous queer stories! I want them to exist, selfishly. I'm just rambling now, so I'll cut myself off. The other thing I found, in book entirely about queerbaiting and fandom (DOI 10.2307/j.ctvrs8xtj), was a surprising section about Larry Stylinson specifically!(3 of 3)

**************

No need to cut yourself off anon - I'm interested in your thoughts.

I feel like there's a piece missing in what you say - because you seem to think there's use or interest in a concept of 'queerbaiting' that is located in the audience, but you don't articulate what that is, which makes it difficult to engage with your ideas as a whole.

My feeling is the way people deploy 'queerbaiting' is and always has been based on an argument about creators' motives. The assumption that you know other people's motives and that means they are doing harm is a core part of the concept of 'queerbaiting' (it's right there in the name - you can't 'bait' someone without intention).

If you strip the concept creator intend from queer baiting, you really show how hollow and damaging the concept is. Because what the arguments then amount to are: 'The way this person or art work engaged with queer culture isn't sincere enough' or 'the way this person or art work engaged with queer culture is too ambiguous'. And it's like - Have you met queer culture?

I think that the concept of 'queerbaiting' is a wholesale attack on a significant part of queer culture, history and experience, and that's why I think it's really important to actively oppose it, rather than repurpose it like it sounds like the academic works were doing. But I am also interested in talking about this and if you think there's something useful within discussions of 'queerbaiting' I'd like to know what they were.

I found a pdf of the Larry Stylinson article if anyone else is interested. I definitely agree with the basic argument that 'Larry' is an interesting queer practice, no matter what the truth about Harry and Louis as people are. But I found the link to queer baiting really tenuous. I do think there have been genuine discussions of Harry and queerbaiting, even if I disagree with them. But I don't think anyone has ever seriously put forward an argument that Harry and Louis were queerbaiting. I think it's only advanced as an explanation by people whose starting point is the fandom and who have already ruled out queerness. It's also not an idea that people take particularly seriously (and you see that in the article - they say that the idea of queerbaiting has been debated, but their reference is to a post and a thread which are reacting to a hypothetical argument about queerbaiting, rather than an actual one). I think queerbaiting is a really weak concept to hang what I think are ultimately interesting arguments.

[kyanve]

Gonna add two cents b/c I heard this in damn near every time the writers interacted with people:

It was executive censorship all the way.

They openly explained that they wanted to from the beginning, but that the executives who owned the copyright for Voltron as a franchise were VERY conservative and worried that any kind of actual queer content that wasn’t slipped in sideways like you know, the lesbian redemption arc, would “damage the brand” and harm their sales.

So Shiro’s background didn’t show up until the very end because of censorship, they had a mix of time crunch for the last arc and censorship keeping Curtis from getting a part, and they had to fight to get even the epilogue wedding bit in.

Really the worst part of it was the way the rabid parts of fandom basically went out of their way to destroy any acknowledgment that executive censorship was a VERY real, very openly discussed factor, and to squelch any discussion of executive censorship as a phenomenon that DOES still exist, and shoving anything like queer coding or “we want to but we can’t”/“we weren’t allowed to do more than scraps” into the realm of “HOMOPHOBIC! QUEERBAITING!”. I just... stopped seeing that discussion for a long time after VLD’s finale.

Also I feel like that part of fandom proved the question of whether it was about shipping or representation when they spent weeks spamming Bex (openly they/them non-binary Jew) with death threats because Bex told the fandom off on Twitter for the harassment.

Hey, would you mind explaining what's up with Voltron and queerbating? You mentioned it in your tags. I'm not familiar with what happened there 😅 (or point me into the direction where I might find answers)

oof that’s a very big big can of worms that im afraid to open, but

it was not just one thing, but the one thing that a lot of fans complained and wasnt gonna be an issue was the Kl//ance ship (Kei//thxLan//ce)

For what i saw the most, they only had chemistry and some bickering, but never EVER pointed they were gonna be a couple. But the fans went so hard into it that in one instance one fan threatened i think the producer or the writers? To reveal screenshots of what was gonna happen in the show unless they made Kla//nce canon. 

There was so much complaining after the show ended (in which the couple didnt become canon) that the fans were so ENTITLED that one day they created a hashtag that became trending here of they making a REMAKE of the show that has JUST ENDED saying they were gonna make it “better” just because they wee gonna make Kla//nce canon.

And im just saying this as a bystander that saw this happened when i checked the tag just to see what was going on with the show. I dont know how much was going on in the fandom.

The other issue was with Shi//ro, a character that was promoted as good gay representation, just to have one episode about losing his partner, said partner dying just a few moments he came back and then make him marry some random character and we only knew that because it appeared IN AN END CREDIT CARD. A lot complained that the writers just wanted they woke points instead of developing more further into this.

Like i said, i was just a bystander watching this all unleash in just 2 years. Maybe there was more or there was less. But im sure everyone in other fandoms are wary of Vo//ltron fans because of all this, even if they were good fans that were just enjoying the show.

[thewittywisdom]

TV/Movie Producers/Writers Need To Stop Queerbaiting NOW

Yeap, this is a thing and it’s real. 

Queerbaiting is when Mon-El and Kara not only get more screen time than Alex and Maggie on Supergirl but they get to passionately kiss each other and get on top of each other- ok Kara is the title-character but why doesn’t Sanvers get even a brief “in bed” scene?

Queerbaiting is when Veronica kisses Betty in the first ever episode of Riverdale to get into the cheerleaders’ team and never address it again- isn’t this just to attract a wider audience?

Queerbaiting is when they say that the new Beauty and the Beast movie will feature an openly gay character but he never even says the word- and why is his femininity written in a way that suggests it’s ridiculous or funny?

And the list goes on... the examples are endless...

But queerbaiting has remained in recent years a serious issue that teases the LGBTQIA+ community into watching TV shows and movies that make them hope will eventually give them proper representation and in the end disappoint. Yes, there are good shows that help in this representation- we are grateful for them- BUT they are not as much as you’d expect in 2017. And don’t even get me started on the “bury your gays” trope...

Basically, queerbating results in treating certain few and only queer characters as deserving less screen time, presenting the idea that a same-sex sex scene would be more graphic than an opposite-sex sex scene and making queer audiences feel like they should be more than satisfied with what little they get...

In the end, queerbaiting is when TV and movie producers and writers try to gain higher viewing figures or get their work promoted and talked about by targeting a marginalized community so loyal that would eagerly wait and wait for proper representation with the result being either LGBT+ characters being killed off and never introduce such characters again, tease us with quick flirtatious glances that never result into a queer relationship, merely a kiss or even worse: erasing identities and misrepresentation- because proper and realistic representation can help people in ways unimaginable to some. 

I just wanted to talk about this because I see this phenomenon more and more often lately... 

So to any LGBTQIA+ person out there reading this who feels betrayed and vulnerable because of queerbaiting, there are some amazing shows out there like The Fosters, The L Word etc who even though are not flawless, do their best to represent our community, and remember that just because we have a long way to go, it doesn’t mean that we will never get there...

To the non-queer producers, cast and writers, I ask of you to have more empathy and try your best to represent the underrepresented, whether is it about queer people, disabled people, people of color etc, in a business that might sometimes prevent you from doing so, and at least learn from your mistakes when you invalidate us...

And to all the queer people and underrepresented of our society (for whatever reason) who are or want to work in the TV/movie/writing/producing industry: Don’t give up. Raise your voices. We are all on your side. You can make a difference. Tell your story... it’s worth listening to...

I know the world has worst problems but please reblog this if you can to raise awareness, suggest shows/books/movies that have good LGBT+ representation and share your stories of the ones that queerbait...

[mild-lunacy]

As Far as the Narrative Allows

As should be clear by now, I really love Ivy's reading of TFP; I just wrote a meta on canon Johnlock because of Ivy's reading. And I respect transformative fandom and readings, but... the fact is, if I think of it as being just another transformative reading, like the other rewrites and/or reimagining attempts of S4 in general and TFP in particular, the glow immediately fades, and I can literally feel all my joy and love slipping away. Even my face actually drops when I think of it like that. I mean, I realize that I'm right there with many other fans at this moment, who want to hold on to the love, to the fannish joy if nothing else. I feel that too; I want that too. It's just... my joy has never been purely transformative. I personally can't abide by the idea that I'm denying or disregarding any part of canon, subtextual or textual, including explicit and apparent implicit intent. I do still *love* the canon, after all. And so, I can only follow after Johnlock as far as I can truly, rationally believe the narrative allows.

I also don't really feel the need to reclaim my ship (though I can understand it). It was never either the authors' *or* mine to me, after all. It's *ours*. I'm neither entirely the canon-whore nor a transformative fanon-first type (though no one would accuse me of that). I feel like the magic in fiction happens in the act of communication itself, and it's found in the middle: in the free space between the creators and the audience. That's that collaborative process that Ivyblossom described Mofftiss clearly supporting, particularly in episodes like TAB, which ask a lot of active effort to connect the dots on the part of the viewer, but not *transformative* effort. It's not solving puzzles, and it's not predictive unless there's an arc at play: in the end it's just close reading.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that I have to believe there's different kinds of clues and subtext reading in fandom. There's definitely been very different ways of approaching 'canon Johnlock', that are only obviously revealed as functionally divergent right now. One is the puzzle solving orientation to it: what you might call transformative analysis of the subtext. And then there's mine. I don't transform. I'm not a puzzle solver (and yes, I never have been), but neither do I opt for the typical 'English major' type approach, which once might have been at odds with canon Johnlock, and now may well be embraced and celebrated as part of reclaiming 'our' ship from Mofftiss.

Essentially, while I agree that any reading that can be made to 'fit' with what we know is valid and acceptable, at the same time, my standards in fandom are *much* higher than they would be in an English class. Not everything goes, in my book. It only goes if a given interpretation fits *both* the apparent waters' surface and the contextual currents in the text, as well as the subtext island. I don't begrudge people their happiness or peace of mind, as I realize that's what I'm trying to achieve too, but the fact is that I'd rather be unhappy and never think of Sherlock again than consciously twist canon to fit my needs in any way. I *have* to believe the subtext is real in Johnlock, and they simply chose to keep it subtextual. Otherwise, it's no different than believing they were together in THoB or had a one-night stand during Stag Night. Both of these can work with the text on a very basic level, but make no sense on a deeper narrative or structural level. Therefore, both are discarded as analysis and too painful for me to believe (as I'd only feel delusional). I have to believe Ivy's reading is different, and yet... I'm not sure if I can. Mostly, it does seem different because it does actively work with all levels of canon at all points that I can see; it doesn't merely *fit* or expand upon the text, but illuminates and supports it. To the degree I still think that, I believe Johnlock remains right there, at the topmost layer of actual intentional subtext.

The thing is, I love subtext, and I'm comfortable taking a certain degree of it to be textual if it's integrated with the textual themes and characterization arcs, as I've tried to explain before. It's a delicate balancing act, especially when you lack any explicit proof. In the end, it's just about what works for you and what satisfies you at that point, which is why I'm just rambling about my own reactions here, really. I mean, I still genuinely see an implicit romance built into the (sub)text of BBC Sherlock from the start. That's not just another valid analysis of the show like any other, and I'm not about to start embracing that way of looking at it now, not after years of reasoned resistance. It's not 'just another workable analysis' because nothing else *makes sense*, not in the larger view of Sherlock's arc and the direction, writing, acting and even the internally consistent design choices. That's been my standard, and it remains my standard. My own feelings are obviously important to me, but I didn't see canon Johnlock for the sake of my feelings, and again, I really don't want to start now. Either I see it 'cause I genuinely see it, or I don't. Live by the sword, die by the sword, as they say. It was never a game to me. This is simply and purely about me interpreting the text as honestly and as closely as I can, so yes, of course it's all real (even the hallucinations and/or Mind Palace parts in TAB or elsewhere are real insofar as the characterization goes).

So what am I left with?

I'll support canon Johnlock to the degree it's actually textually necessary to make sense of the narrative, even if I'd ship it and love the characters no matter what. If I didn't think the narrative supported it anymore, I'd simply engage with it as a canon and also a slash ship like any other. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that, surely. Slash can be-- and is-- independent of canon intent. There's no need for me to remake or transform my view of canon for the sake of any ship (see: Thor/Loki or Harry/Draco, say). But we know that Johnlock still isn't like Harry/Draco; Ivy made an illustrative graph to that effect recently. On the other hand, neither is it like Ronan and Adam's romance in The Raven Cycle, unfortunately, because that's Stage 5, like John/Mary. We're still solidly on Stage 4, as we have been since Series 3, basically. And I have no wish to pretend any different any more than I wish to pretend there's more racial diversity than there is in the books, and so Ronan is somehow black. He just *isn't*. He's Irish of the apparent Caucasian type, and that's the end of the story to me.

In the end, I feel like Johnlock remains unique. A bit ineffable, but somehow uniquely undeniable. It isn't queerbaiting to me, but that's my personal reading of the term; I don't feel taunted, baited or deceived. I just feel peaceful when I think of John and Sherlock's relationship after TFP. Everything is fine, and they're together as far as the narrative allows *and* beyond.