#their relationship is so interesting and well written that it feels like i'm being queerbaited every time i rewatch it

[warpedpuppeteer]

i just don't trust these major network showrunners and writers to actually write buddie to its logical and rightful conclusion. I've followed so many shows and observed so many fandoms over the years, so many amazingly layered characters with extraordinary bonds that spawned popular and beloved ships. And each and every one of those ships were used to bait viewers without ever going canon, this way they get the views from the ship fans as well as the more general fans. The only difference in 911 is they somehow managed to make Buck canonically bi, which is a huge deal for a main male lead on a network procedural show. Yet they immediately slapped him with an underdeveloped character who has zero onscreen chemistry with buck, and relegated their relationship to the background entirely. Almost like the networks's checking off a box and being done with it.

if buddie is in the grand plan, I feel like there should've been some onscreen textual hints already this season after buck came out. But there's been nothing from any of the characters, and it's just heartbreaking. I'll remain a buddie truther for the rest of my life, but it really does feel like the show is trying to draw the line in the sand to say "buck and Eddie are bros only," even if the way the show does this is to forcibly retcon/erase all of the buddie buildup over all these seasons.

Sorry Non for not answering this for awhile. I absolutely understand where you're coming from as I've also been a part of fandoms for a long time especially ones who gleefully use queerbaiting to keep fans interested. I think the biggest difference between 911 and other shows is that generally other shows don't have any queer characters or only minor queer characters. 911 however has a main queer couple (henren) and plenty of side queer characters/pairs as well. So that's an advantage for us; this means they're very much open to a queer storyline.

We've gotten bi Buck which is a very big deal for not only queer representation but also in regards to Buddie. The are clearly aware this is something we want and they've told us that it has been discussed in the past for Eddie to be queer as well so they have definitely at some point discussed making Buddie canon. The actors are down for this as well (Oliver no. 1 buddie truther). The setback seems to have come from the network before so it couldn't happen. But things are changing with the new network.

The reason I think they haven't made Buddie canon yet is that it was simply too short of a season for them to do so. Also it seems like there have been a lot of issues with this season and a lot of it was written hastily. Tim probably had completely different stories in mind for the characters but I guess things like scheduling issues put a wrench in it (Natalia's actress had a scheduling issue and the issue with Marisol's actress). I think Tim had planned completely different arcs for Buck and Eddie in regards to their relationship but had to just do whatever to finish the season because of the issue with the actresses. I think he introduced Tommy as a sort of placeholder for the moment because they couldn't expand Buck's bi story just yet. This was also probably to test the audiences' acceptance of a main character being queer after 6 seasons and to test how much leeway they have with the network. This doesn't mean I agree with what he did because I actually hate it lol. Leaving them both single would have made much more sense than introducing another shit character/actor who only created a divide in the fandom and brought in absolute weirdos into it.

Honestly I could go on forever on why I think Buddie being canon is in the books but for now all I can say is that don't give up just yet! I personally think there's been a lot of deliberate choices this season that were made to jump start the 'making Buddie canon process'. Give it another season at least! If they don't get together, I'm hoping there would at least be a CLEAR indication that they're heading there towards the end of season 8. If they don't do anything of that sort then we can consider giving up on them and living happily in our fanon bubble. But for now stay with us! There's much hope yet!!

Also sorry if this got rambly and doesn't make much sense! My inbox is always open and you can shoot me a message if you wanna discuss or vent more!

[ghostplasmas]

Random tangent, but am I the only one pissed off at the AOC DLC? Specifically in regards to Sooga's backstory. I might actually have to go through this shit in sections, like an essay, just to break down how horribly written, not thought out, and borderline insulting it is.

1: Queer coding.

When watching the cutscenes from the base game, it's very clear that Sooga and Kohga are a lot more than just 'friends.' they act very intimate with eachother, with Sooga being the only one we see directly touch Kohga (when not in battle.) Their dialogue is also full of not only character, but equality. Kohga sasses him and snaps at him, but it's never in a demeaning, "IM THE LEADER!!!" Kind of way. If anything, their interactions feel like they're on the same playing field. They feel like they're equals, instead of just a leader and his bodyguard. Sooga makes decisions and helps Kohga with plans directly. Plus, they argue like a married couple.

The DLC's reveal of Sooga's backstory directly contrasts how they act by trying to play it off as if they had a Father&Son dynamic, when they were very obviously written to be queer codded in the base game.

2: how it affects Sooga's character.

Sooga is loyal to the Yiga. Let me repeat that.

Sooga is loyal to the Yiga.

That mentality he has is incredibly important when looking at the cutscene revealing his backstory. His actions, his motives, and his worldview all seem to lean into the fact of him being an ex Sheikah, even acknowledging that "Gannon is a force not to be trifled with" (paraphrased quote.) He sees Gannon as a terrifying figure, yet still follows the clan.

What we see in the footage directly conflicts that. If he were taken in as a child, why would he have such a complex view of Gannon? Not only that, but just looking at the geography of the map, he looks to be either in Tanagar, or gerudo, neither of which being places that a child could easily access, one being swamped with monsters, the other being barren. No Hylians live in either places, and the Sheikah even further. The closest would be the Gerudo, and I highly doubt that he's the first male gerudan in hundreds of years. It just doesn't make sense.

It also conflicts with Sooga being loyal to the Yiga, like I mentioned before. All the Yiga in the cutscene we're tormenting him, and even after Kohga showed him kindness, the Yiga still had their weapons drawn, posing themselves as a threat. Sooga would have been loyal to Kohga in that instant, as he knew that the others weren't safe. He is loyal to the Yiga, and by extension, Kohga. Not the other way around. He is a bodyguard, so of course he usually stays near Kohga, however we see him actively go out and lead the Yiga shoulders by himself.

3: overview.

In conclusion, his backstory fucking sucks. It turns the relationship between Kohga and Sooga into queerbait, and completely ruins Sooga's character. Its stupid. This might be jumbled and not very well thought out, but I'm currently fighting my off nighttime depression, sleep, and the stress hallucinations, so you can catch these fuckin hands.

It would make more sense if Kohga was a refugee Sheikah that swore allegiance to the Yiga. Just sayin. Oh, plus it would be more interesting.

[daniclaytcn]

holy shit, your post about non-canon queer ships is so real!! and i think the reason why so many of us get attached to fanon ships is because it tends to have the buildup that most canon queer ships now lack for one reason or another -- maybe the writers don't want to be accused of queerbaiting, or they did have plans but their show got cancelled thanks to the streaming model, or maybe these showrunners and writers are just more interested in marketing 'diverse' characters than doing any of the work required to make these stories feel authentic and real.

these days, the characters meet, and you immediately know they're going to get together in about eight episodes. the characters rarely have individual identities or story arcs outside of each other, and the fact that most new shows are only a step away from getting canceled means that the writing rushes through all of the buildup in order to get to the supposed payoff that doesn't make you feel anything.

which is why a ship like buck and eddie, for example, is so much more compelling to me than anything i've seen in the past five years bc we got to actually see these characters grow as individuals and go through so many important relationship-cementing experiences way before they would (presumably) get together. from the many lighthearted fun, moments of friendship to all of the hardships they've endured together to taking the steps they need in order to actually be ready for a relationship -- we got to go on that journey with them every step of the way.

eddie didn't just come in during season two, PTSD-free, mentally healthy, and divorced, and announce that he's queer to the firehouse 0.2 seconds after meeting buck. no, he had to navigate the messiness of his wife coming back and dying, buck had to deal with the fallout of the ladder truck incident, they had to work through the lawsuit and the shooting and the repercussions of said shooting and had to make their way out of relationships that didn't work for them. but they got to do it all together, and we as an audience got to see that relationship play out over six whole seasons.

so now, buck and eddie getting together wouldn't feel manufactured, it would feel real, and rewarding, and it'd feel like the only natural, satisfying conclusion to both of their story arcs. i just...i don't see that in new queer media because we don't get enough about either partner or their dynamic before their relationship turns romantic for me to get invested.

(sorry for dumping in your inbox bjskdjdk, u just did a really great job articulating the exact point about queer rep that i've been trying to put into words for a long time 😅)

no, you're so right! i think this is a combination of showrunners trying have a checklist of 'diverse' characters, and the 8-10 episode model where shows are in constant danger of being canceled. these characters meet, 5 seconds later they're kissing, and they're declaring their undying love for each other at the end of the season...if they even wait that long. it's literally so rare to see shows that actually bother to give queer relationships some time to breathe and develop, the only examples i can think of are casey and izzie from atypical and ava and beatrice from warrior nun. and if what we do end up having most of the time with canon queer couples is fine with the people who like them, then all the power to them! but having a weird superiority complex or decrying others for liking non-canon queer ships is...not it.

i mean, everything you've said about buck and eddie is exactly why i'm so obsessed with them—they meet every single requirement i have for a well-written dynamic! both the characters are fleshed out, rather than being plot devices for each other; their relationship is incredibly well-developed; it's a slow burn; they have interesting conflicts and arcs; and there's actually a reason as to why these two make sense as a couple, rather than them just being two attractive adults in the vicinity of each other. i can't count the number of times i've seen LS fans say that people should just watch lone star because 'the gay couple is actually canon' which is not only infuriating, but also speaks so much as to how people have seemingly ceased to care about good and interesting writing in favour of the canonization of queer ships. (i'm sorry, but t/arlos sucks and i would rather buck and eddie get married to different people rather than ever end up like them)

at the end of the day, good writing matters. interesting and intricate storytelling and development matters. you can't just handwave all of that and pretend it's fine just because the characters are ~~diverse~~. i'm being so serious when i say that i'd rather a show had a handful of characters who are minorities who are written well and manage to drive the plot forward; rather than an entire cast full of them who ultimately don't do anything, and are only there so that the creators can pat themselves on the back and not do any work to actually write them well.

[worstqueerbaittournament]

For the last time, people (not you, mod, you haven't submitted them after all) Aziraphale and Crowley's story is not queerbait.

Not labeling a relationship doesn't make it queerbait...

They're canonically genderless, for fucks' sake and we're free to pick an interpretation wherever we're in favor of a qpr relationship, an unlabeled one, a romantic one etc.

It was only ever said that it's not a gay story in the sense that Aziraphale and Crowley aren't male, they're genderless celestial beings.

It's not that deep and I think it disheartening to see such a beautifully written relationship -that can bring together romance-repulsed and shippers together- been deemed queerbait.

(Also, do you need all the love stories you read precising THIS IS A LOVE STORY in bold letters ?? Understated romances are a thing and can be just as great as explicited ones)

It's not like Pratchett and Gaiman have never written great openly queer characters before... Have never of you submitters read Discworld or Sandman before ??? You're aware these works are older than many of you and were -and still are- especially meaningful to queer people when they came out, right ?

Seeing those on a list with Merthur and BBC Johnlock is sad. (Again, this is not against you, mod). Fuck it, Azi and Crowley don't get unnecessary feminine-presenting love interests or something so heteronormative.

I used to scorn at the 'tumblr ppl have bad reading comprehension' stuff but I'm starting to be incredibly concerned when people can't distinct between well-meaning and supportive allies and guys like. fucking Moff*t

Also wanting to make queer stories looking all the same and limited to a restrictive frame is even more deeply concerning when variety and diversity are the heart of the queer community and it contributes to the pressure to come out to be "a true queer" since only relationships who tick all the cases made up by cishet ppl are recognized

You know how we say that straight relationships in media are all the same ? Do you want that for our relationships too ?

This would be laughable if it wasn't so damn sad.

- A quite upset queer person (I'll bite the first imbecile who'll tell me I shouldn't use a slur to describe myself, this whole text is about your kind of people, pal)

Hey anon, I understand how you feel, but like I said before, I won't decide what does and doesn't count as a queerbait. (Unless the ship is actually canon.) I know Ineffable Husbands is controversial (hence the tag lol), and while I would agree with you and am personally also on the Crowley and Aziraphal are queerplatonic/genderqueer and canonly queer side, I understand people who wanted more confirmartion of it (and no, comfirmation doesn't have to be a kiss. It could be them talking more about their gender). Because yes, a lot of cishet people don't read Az and Crowley are queer, so I understand why people wanted more. But again, I'm just the mod and I would appriciate people staying kind and not yelling (especially not at me preferably). Like always, I'm gonna let you guys decide.

[justanapparatus]

okay i just finished the kaylor essay and first of all it is very well written and researched so kudos and i really liked it overall, i really liked you pointing out the double standards in how ppl treat gay ships vs straight ships, you’re 100% right on that. i thought the part about the privatization of sexuality and all that kind of leading to people assuming everyone is cishet was very interesting and i think i agree with that. RPF usually makes me think Real Person Fanfiction which quite honestly i don’t know how i feel about that. i liked you talking about how it’s easy to interpret queer themes in her work bc it really is. and this is going to sound silly for someone who would read a kaylor essay, but i don’t know how i feel about RPF. and what i mean by that is it’s one thing to think like how i do and see how taylor and karlie were and be like well something fruity happened there and it’s another thing to insist and to like push it on people and harass the people who it’s about i guess? for example all the talk about everything clearly bothered taylor, or for example stuff with dan and phil bothered them and then it turned out to be true. like yeah it was true but people went too far and really hounded them about it. and i think it crosses a line once it gets into obsessive territory. like that poor kid from heartstopper the internet forced to come out. that was fucked up. i guess i feel like it crosses a line when you feel like it’s Obviously True and you Need Proof that Everyone Has to See you know what i mean??? i hope that makes sense😭

hi sorry for the delayed response the inside of my brain is weird!!

Thank you so much for your kind words, I'm glad you enjoyed it!

I feel pretty similarly about RPF that you do - obviously I'm invested in kaylor/gaylor or I wouldn't be doing this, but I feel very conflicted about it. The more I reflect on my previous fandom experiences and the more I engage with this fandom, I find that a lot of us see what we are doing as slightly separate from Taylor - it's harmless because it's not about her, it's about us telling stories about her work and saying there might be something there behind the scenes. But I also have been finding it harder and harder to see the lines between harmless speculation and conspiratorial behavior, between defending yourself against legitimate homophobia and using that as an excuse to defend your own bad behavior.

My relationship with this is fraught, but I also know that RPF isn't going away, probably ever. The term RPF has been traced to shipping between actors in the original Star Trek series, which was one of the first fandoms in the contemporary sense, indicating to me that some level of RPF is inevitable in fandoms where that type of thing is possible. I think RPF is kind of a natural extension of the kind of celebrity gossip we see all the time in the media, so by that logic if celebrity gossip is dehumanizing, then RPF must be by extension. And the harmful effects of this are obvious - you've named a few, Becky Albertalli being forced to come out after being harassed over supposed queerbaiting, Shawn Mendez and Louis Tomlinson tweeting against gay rumors, and of course, Taylor. She has time and time again said that she is tired of people speculating about her relationships, both queer and straight rumors. In light of this, I have been trying to engage with Gaylorism in a different capacity, taking a step back from the fandom a bit and thinking about it through multiple lenses. My weird complicated feelings about this are precisely why I'm doing this project.

Hand in hand with that is the double standard that I mentioned in the essay. If RPF is unethical, it's not necessarily unethical because it's gay, it's unethical because it's treating real people like Barbie dolls, meaning that the vitriol directed toward Gaylors should be applied equally to people obsessed with Taylor and Joe's relationship (or any of her other relationships with men), but it isn't. As far as I can tell, this double standard exists throughout slash fiction circles, not just RPF. Turns out, people are just homophobic. There's also a lot of homophobia coming from inside the house so to speak. Don't get me started on Gold-Star Kaylorism or how they talk about gay men or we will be here all day. I think that the homophobia directed at Gaylors as well as the homophobia expressed by Gaylors (god knows theres plenty of both) affects all gay swifties and arguably all swifties, and when we try to stratify ourselves into "good fans" and "bad fans" based on how we engage with celebrity gossip, it does more harm than good.

I do think a lot of Gaylorism is an attempt to queer Taylor's work independently from her sexuality, and I actually think that is a practice that should be celebrated. In fact, I found an academic study that suggested that engaging in queer readings of folklore was beneficial to both personal sexual identity development and supporting sexual fluidity. This is interesting to me because I find this fandom to be rampant with both beautiful bisexuals and disgusting biphobes. That said, while queering artwork is a transgressive act, that doesn't mean RPF is also transgressive - it is more often than not the opposite. And with an artist like Taylor whose work is deeply confessional but also employs fantasy and folklore throughout her career, it's hard to draw the line between art and life. I can say I support death of the author re: taylor all I want, but I also feel murderous rage toward John Mayer every time I listen to Would've Could've Should've, so as much as I can ask people to stop assuming my interpretations are meant to be speculative when they're more literary, I can't exactly blame them for taking it otherwise.

A lot of my goal with this project is to take a step back from Gaylor and also Swiftieism in general, because I find myself feeling suffocated by the fandom at times. I love my friends I've found here and I love Taylor and I will probably always look at her work through a queer lens, but the homophobia, biphobia, and misogyny I see from everyone, the antisemitism and conspiracies from gaylors, plus the general ethical concerns surrounding celebrity and fandom, have led me to want to think about these things in a different light. I am mainly doing this for me, to help me understand my own complicated relationship with Taylor and her fandom, but I'm glad other folks like it and I hope it helps y'all unpack these weird complicated ideas too.

[necromancer-snail]

Okay just real quick, this isn't like a dig at you and I'm not trying to convince you to ship Payneland, plenty of people don't and that's fine. You can still want to keep Payneland platonic for plenty of valid reasons (romantic orientation headcanons like Charles is aro or straight, Charles just isn't into him, you ship something else and aren't a multishipper, etc etc)

You also don't have to agree with any of this I just think it opens an interesting conversation

"i just feel like it reenforces the idea of the gay and straight same sex friendships can’t happen!"

I think you're trying to reference a fandom issue here, which is generally pretty valid, but I feel like the way you word this implies you're criticizing the show for it. The show itself actually does a lot toward progress and acceptance just by making it canonically and overtly queer. If they showed a Charles x Edwin romance, it wouldn't reinforce anything because shows historically queerbait and/or bury their gays.

"edwin doesn’t actually have a crush on charles." + "he just loves him and has never ever had a friend who was a guy while simultaneously being aware of the gay thing happening inside him if it makes sense?"

Iirc it's implied that Edwin had a crush on Simon and knew about it (In Hell, Simon says he STARTED bullying Edwin because he was ignoring him, and Edwin tells him he ignored him because he was nervous around him). It's very obvious in the show that Monty & TCK play an important role in Edwin's internalized homophobia journey. I saw someone else make a post about this a while ago, and they said TCK is Edwin's sexual awakening, while Monty is Edwin's romantic awakening. I think TCK and Monty served to help him ACCEPT this part of himself - he always knew he was gay, he just repressed and ignored it. So to me it was sort of an "Edwin has been in love with Charles for a while and made excuses to ignore it" rather than an "Edwin is now discovering he's gay and thinks he's in love with Charles because of it." I do totally understand how you came to this conclusion though

"now, i feel like there’s no other person to ship him with i understand that but there’s no way in hell (or the afterlife) where charles and edwin could be together romantically."

There are other characters to ship him with! Personally, I'm a big fan of Edwin x Monty (Montwin) and Charles x Edwin x Monty (Ghostcrow). I don't like him with TCK but a lot of people ship them as well. There are probably a few Edwin x Simon shippers out there as well 🤷 A lot of people ship Payneland due to their dynamic and the fact that they've been best friends for over 30 years. This is also the same reason a lot of people prefer them platonic. Regardless of whether or not you ship them romantically, they are undeniably devoted to each other and that's part of what fuels a lot of people's love for the ship. It also is part of what fuels a lot of people's love for QPR Payneland. Either way, it's not totally out of the realm of possibility for them to end up romantically because of that, and even if it was, that's part of the point of fandom! You get to fuck with characters dynamics and it doesn't always have to make sense within canon. A ship doesn't necessarily have to mean you want it to become canon - a lot of people do, yes, but they're not mutually exclusive. You can like two characters together and recognize they would never work in canon or you can recognize they're perfect for each other in canon and not be invested in their relationship.

And then one last one cause I read your comment and thought I'd talk about that as well

"yeah, so give him an actual good and well written love interest!!! no evil crow or weirdo cat king. and also, pls he’s like 15 mentally and physically what 15 y/o actually knows when he’s in love vs having a crush on someone. and they don’t, trust."

I'm not gonna discourse about Monty and TCK cause I don't think it's relevant here, other than to reiterate that a lot of people do ship Edwin with Monty and/or TCK, and it doesn't always impact their opinion on Payneland. Edwin also died at 16, and it's important to note that he has existed for over 100 years and Charles has existed for 50. Also, a lot of people have their first heartbreak around that age, and others end up high school sweethearts. Ofc most high school relationships aren't serious and a lot of them don't last, but the feelings are real and they matter in the moment

Anyway, last point, I highly doubt the show was trying to say that Edwin was mistaking his feelings for Charles. If Payneland wasn't supposed to be endgame, I think it's very likely they would have had Edwin accepting his feelings for Charles and moving on. Having Edwin realize he never was in love with Charles in the first place sets a very different tone and sends a very different message that I don't think the show was going for.

FIRST OF ALL IM NOT HOMOPHOBIC, IM LITERALLY GAY.

anyone else hates when people ship edwin and charles?

i just feel like it reenforces the idea of the gay and straight same sex friendships can’t happen! i have way too many straight girl-friends and we coexist without us having a crush on each other.

NOW, talking about the crush edwin has on charles. of course we have to address it because everyone has had on the first same sex friend they were close to but you have to realize that edwin doesn’t actually have a crush on charles.

he just loves him and has never ever had a friend who was a guy while simultaneously being aware of the gay thing happening inside him if it makes sense?

now, i feel like there’s no other person to ship him with i understand that but there’s no way in hell (or the afterlife) where charles and edwin could be together romantically.

honestly i’m just speaking but i do hope someone understands where im coming from.

[nitw]

ive rewatched fma brotherhood like 30 times but i ONLY JUST NOW noticed the way roy hugs riza here after mei heals her. iirc this is the only royai hug in the entire show. what the fuck dude

[stormblessed95]

What is Queerbaiting?

I had a good conversation about this with @ejassy the other day and figured I'd just make a post about it in case anyone else wanted to either share their own thoughts too or were just confused over what people mean when they say queerbaiting. Which CAN get confusing, especially when it gets used incorrectly ALOT.

So in short simple terms, for queerbaiting and its similar phrases?

Queer subtext: I normally think of this in 2 ways. The first being unintentionally gay. This was clearly not the intention of the writer ever, but the gay ships were just accidentally too full of chemistry and the ship shipped itself by accident even though the characters aren't "canon" gay (think batman and joker. Or Lord of the rings or Elsa from Frozen. Or like a good portion of misogynistic anime writers who can't write a female character that isn't flat AF lol)

The second being where it can also be defined as INTENTIONALLY gay. Where instead of it being something that just happened, it was written like this pn purpose and with full intention of being queer and is in its own way, good queer representation, even if the queer relationship isn't ever technically confirmed, or only confirmed "off screen" by the writers. This is subtext and its sometimes left only as subtext because the romance is only a subplot or because of censorship. (Think Legend of Korra or Think Merthur from Merlin bbc.)

Queercoding: acting queer or leaning into queer themes/subtext but not explicity queer for any number of reasons, including censorship for fictional universes or just being closeted. Basically there is enough subtext available for the audience to read them as queer regardless of if their sexuality is never confirmed either way. (Again, think Elsa. Or Jo March from Little Women, or think Nick Carraway from the Great Gatsby. Think of Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji from The Untamed, the show not the web novel verison lol. Think Xena: Warrior Princess)

Queerbaiting: obviously leaning into and promoting queer subtext and queer themes to keep gay fans on the hook and invested in your media with zero intentions of follow through. Almost at times even turning it into like a joke or just making it very obvious that the character was never actually queer. This was a term coined by queer theorist academics in the 1990s and didn't actually exist before then. This is not a term that can apply to real people. Real people can't queerbait. With very few exceptions to that "rule." Which I will discuss some of those possible exceptions in a bit. (Think Destial from supernatural, or Johnlock from Sherlock, or think Supercorp, Lena and Kara, from Supergirl. Or think Sam and Bucky from MCU, Bechloe from Pitch Perfect or Sterek from Teen Wolf. If anyone doesnt know why these would fall under a more queerbaiting label and dont already know, please feel free to ask for sure)

There are some good sources out there that go into much more detail about what queerbaiting is, how it's been misused and more too as well if you have the time to watch them. This video was recommended from @guacamoli-avocadorado here. It is a great intro to the term and how it is used/should be used broken down in an easy to understand way. And it gives a bunch more examples like I shared above, etc.

And this one is longer but a really good and interesting dialogue about the topic. They take the definition of queerbaiting and expands upon it greatly as well as gives a very through dive down the history of queerness and queer subtext through film and media. This one was recommended by @chikooritajjk

Now, real people cannot queer bait. It's impossible UNLESS they have CONFIRMED their sexuality as "straight" and will sometimes "play gay," for an audience. And not just a straight actor playing a gay one, but doing something that is intentionally queer but backtracking and being like "well I mean, I'm straight so I didn't mean it." And doing so repeatedly and/or even making light of it or joking about it. Or even just being plain homophobic about it. Unless you are talking about the actions they take to promote their "brand" in an effort to profit off queer fans on purpose, while continuing to make it clear its not "that serious," then you could make an argument that that person is queerbaiting. Which, for clarification, two people of the same sex simply interacting together, even with lots of general affection, cannot be classified as queerbaiting ever. Especially because a person doesn't have to be "out" to act on their queerness. Our queerness is our own. No one gets to demand someone to give answers about their sexuality to confirm queerness or not before the public "decides" to keep trying to bully an answer out of them or not. You don't get to take self expression and someone else's comfort away from them for your own comfort in labels that don't belong to you anyway. The thing is, no one owes anyone any explanations about how they present themselves or what their sexuality is. You can't forcibly out people. "I think you are gay, therefore I'm owed an explanation and if you don't give me one, it means you are just queerbaiting" is WRONG. It's an umbrella media term, not a bullying tactic. This applys to everyone, random people off the street, actors, musicians, authors who write/engage in queer literature, public speakers, influencers, etc...

There are some of kpop idol groups (or other celebrities in general) that could be classified as queerbaiting. Because they use queerness to build and promote their "brand" while otherwise never doing anything about it (even as an ally) and/or even being lowkey homophobic about it all or just continuing to make sure the audience knows they "arent actually gay." Or they use queerness in a way that fetishizies it, again without actually meaning it in any way. That's a whole seperate issue, and it could in ways be considered queerbaiting. Or it could more likely dig further into the issue of inauthenic queer fetishization used as a shock value for an audience to be used as sexual fantasies for their STRAIGHT audience, rather than to draw in a queer audience who are more looking for the possible authenticity of queerness or allyship in the celebrities/idols they are building these parasocial relationships with. Because again, unless you know what this person's sexuality is, how are you sure they aren't just exploring/or expressing their own queerness and aren't labeling it or are closeted for whatever their reasons may be, including just not being ready to come out yet.

It is a fine line to walk, and there will probably be times in the "real life" instances above where you will have to use your own critical thinking skills to decide how you feel about things, etc. But for the most part, real people can't really queerbait. But hopefully this helps anyone who was/is confused. There are also a lot more resources out there if you wanted to continue looking into it. This is just what I know about it all myself too, if anyone has anything to add, they are free to do so. 💜

[cononeillbreastingboobily]

The romances in OFMD took me by surprise.

You know? Because yeah, sometime in the middle of the series we get this feeling that Ed and Stede are heading towards something (by the time I, like many others, thought I was going to be queerbaited. Sigh) but then!!!

Then there's this cuuuute mutual crush Olu and Jim have on each other, which honestly, some of their moments truly had me squealing because they're. just. so. CUTE.

I mean, listen.

Jim's favourite colour is teal. The same colour as Olu's earring, which they would have a direct view of when Olu asked them about it. If this isn't the cutest thing ever, then honestly!!!! What is!!!! And the fact that they've been friends all this time, like, ahhhhhh 🥺🥺🥺🥺🥺

Their love story is, I think, paced in such a lovely way too, because we start with episode 1 when it's established that Olu has a little crush on Jim, and then further down the line it's revealed that it's mutual, and then they almost kiss, so when they actually kiss for real in the last episode of the series it's honestly like!!! YES!!!!! YES, GOOD FOR YOU!!!!!

And then!!!

Then there's Lucius and Black Pete.

This one, I completely didn't anticipate, but when it came around, it hit me right over the head with again, how impossibly cute they are together.

Because for the majority of the series Black Pete is something of a dick really, his main personality trait being that he once worked with Blackbeard (or so he says) and that out of everyone in Stede's crew (including Stede himself) he's the closest to the "real pirate" ideal.

And together, Lucius and Pete mostly hook up around the ship, which they do instead of working. That's their whole deal, and we're meant to think that oh, okay, so it's just casual with them!

But then!!!

Lucius loses his finger, and Black Pete whittles a prosthetic one for him!!!! And Lucius loves it!!! And he kisses Pete!!!! And they're just!!!! So sweet and cute and just 🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹🥹 from this point forward

(there is much to be said how Black Pete is going to react if he finds out that his beloved Blackbeard threw his sweetie pie Lucius overboard. I think his reaction could be very interesting, because on one hand you have this idolisation of a mythical figure almost, and on the other hand you have his love for Lucius, something that is way more tangible and like, mutual??? Unlike the thing with Blackbeard, since we didn't really get a confirmation that Pete was actually ever on his crew, which, regardless of whether that's true or not, it's clear that Black Pete looks up to him quite a lot)

So while Ed and Stede might be the central love story of the show, the relationships between side characters are almost shockingly sweet and well developed, considering the very limited screen time. Plus, each of these relationships has kind of a different... Flavour, it's written in a different font if you will. Each of them has a different feel to it, I guess that's what I'm trying to say?

I love them all, and honestly? I'm hoping that in later seasons some other crew members will get it on with each other. They're all such fun characters to observe interacting with one another, and seeing their personalities clash in unique ways as they get it on is bound to be sweet and fun to watch.

[thelostgirl21]

I'm going to address your tags by letting you know that I am personally aspec, more precisely:

- panalterous,

- panromantic,

- pansexual,

- demisexual,

- likely sapiosexual (still questioning re: if what makes me exclusively attracted to people I perceive as being geeks is the way their brains work, or a distinct set of personality traits that I instinctively perceive as "geekiness") , and

- ambiamorous.

So, good luck trying to put words into my mouth by attempting to say I'm suggesting that being bisexual and sapioromantic/sexual are mutually exclusive concepts!

If I can be pansexual and demisexual, you better believe anyone can be bisexual and sapioromantic/sexual or, like Jaskier, panromantic/sexual and sapioromantic/sexual.

And, if someone presents an opinion I do not agree with, I have the right to offer counter-arguments explaining why I am in disagreement by offering my own perspective on the subject.

If you take it as a lecture, I have no idea what to tell you!

My intent is to clearly state my opinion, carefully explain my perspective, and speak out on issues that matter to me.

You can call me "unhinged", and attempt to suggest there's something wrong with me for disagreeing with you, let it be known I've been through way worst attempts at intimidation or invalidation.

Truth is, I have no idea which one of us is right!

You see the way the relationship between Geralt and Jaskier has been presented and has evolved on the show, as queerbaiting.

It is your right, and I respect that you see it that way.

But I do not see it as queerbaiting. I respect, but profoundly disagree with your perspective.

Therefore, I've explicitly explained why, in my humble opinion, it does not qualify as queerbaiting in this particular case.

And yes, demiromantic/sexual and sapioromantic/sexual representation is a cause that is very dear to my heart, I've written (some pretty long-ass) essays on this blog specifically dedicated to it, and therefore, I'm very likely to advocate about it!

I struggle with synthetising/summarizing my thoughts. It's a well-documented issue I have, and the more a subject interests or fascinates me, the harder it is for me to identify where I could cut the information yet still be able to bring my point across effectively.

I've learned to accept and deal with it.

I do consider the definitions of sapioromantism and sapiosexuality that I use to be accurate (or, at least, they are some of the accurate definitions used by the sapioromantic / sapiosexual community), and to be a reflection of the way sapioromantics and sapiosexuals feel about their own sexuality.

And I don't understand why people keep saying that it's not canon, when Joey Batey used those very specific labels to describe the way that Jaskier experiences romantic and sexual attraction in season 3.

And he did so in an interview that involved the show's creator, no less (so, there was an opportunity from those in charge of the writing of the romance on the show to correct Joey's mistake if they disagreed with him, and the intent wasn't to portray Jaskier as a sapioromantic/sexual)!

And, with how nervous Joey appeared to be about getting queer representation right, I'd be very disappointed if he'd just chosen to carelessly throw random queer labels around, without first carefully checking out how some people that actually identify as sapioromantics and sapiosexuals use them!

The thing is that aspec representation of romance-favorable and sex-favourable characters can be very hard to get on screen without resorting to subtext, or having it supported by interviews given by the actors and creators of the show expressing what the intent was re: what was shown on screen.

In Jaskier's case, my understanding is that they heavily relied on aromatic subtext (ex: the emphasis on the word "crush", Vespula explicitly saying she's never seen Jaskier with one, him specifically swooning over Radovid's intelligence and insightfulness...) to translate it to the screen.

Because going "I'm sapioromantic/sexual, and therefore unable to experience primary romantic/sexual attraction for people in the absence of an intellectual fascination / connection" would be very difficult to naturally fit in dialogue.

So yeah, I do find the idea of people going "that's not what sapioromantism/sapiosexuality means, and it's not canon" a bit upsetting!

Because, if you tell me that sapioromantism/sexuality does not exist; I don't understand how demiromantism/sexuality could exist!

One requires a primary emotional connection for secondary romantic/sexual attraction to occur. The other requires a primary intellectual connection for secondary romantic/sexual attraction to occur.

Otherwise, it's virtually the same thing! It's just the nature of the bond (emotional v.s. intellectual) or interest that changes.

Feel free to disagree and have your own definitions of aromantism and asexuality.

But that's how I understand those labels, have seen them being used by other demiromantics/demisexuals and sapioromantics/sapiosexuals in the aspec community, and how I use them myself.

If you want to exclude sapioromantics/sexuals from the aspec community because you feel like they don't qualify for some reason, that's your prerogative, but I heavily disagree.

And again, being sapioromantic/sexual (or demiromantic/sexual) does not prevent anyone from being either biromantic/sexual, panromantic/sexual, omniromantic/sexual (the issue you put in your tags), etc.!

I really don't get how you came to the conclusion this is remotely what I was saying!!!

Anyway, as I have already explained in another answer, my main point is that, from the beginning of watching the show, I've personally been heavily reading Jaskier and Geralt's relationship as queerplatonic, but not specifically romantic.

The queer subtext was there, but to me it was a very non-specific queer subtext.

And that I still personally see as much homoerotic undertones between them in season 3, especially in Brokilon, than I did back in season 1 and 2.

You have the right to feel like the Geraskier's homoerotic undertones were gone from season 3, but again, I did not see it that way and therefore I simply disagree with you.

And I have the right to express it.

I don't feel like they suddenly "backtracked" on any of those dynamics. To me, they continued expressing the same level of emotional and physical intimacy between Geralt and Jaskier in season 3 than they did in prior seasons.

The main difference, to me, is that I feel it's more openly acknowledged this time around, with Geralt being the one reaching out for Jaskier's hand for strength and comfort, being very tender with him and respectful of his issues, openly expressing appreciation and reassurance whenever he senses Jaskier needs it, etc.

They've grown more comfortable with each other being so close and sharing a found family together, so there's less tensions, and the relationship feels more respectful and better integrated, as far as I'm concerned.

Again, that's my perspective, and I believe it's a valid one I have the right to express even if it contradicts yours.

i meant to mention this back when season three first came out but uh. i forgor. but. I think the third season of The Witcher really demonstrates how the presence of queerness does not negate the presence of queerbaiting, and that it can in fact be used as a method of sidestepping allegations of queerbaiting.

Like I know I'm not the only one who noticed how aggressively they "no homo" backpedaled the dynamic between Jaskier and Geralt. They did it in a way that was really aggressive and jarring too, like even if you saw zero queercoding you could tell the relationship dynamic was altered in a weird way. There was just such an absolute lack of subtlety with their no-homo'ing? like iirc there's straight up a scene where Jaskier pretty much explicitly is like "i could never see you romantically <3 we r suuuuch bros <3 best buds !" which was such a weirdly transparent attempt at shutting down the previous dynamic established between them.

What's especially wild to me is that in that season they changed the dynamic between Geralt and Jaskier so much that there really wasn't much going on ship-wise between them anyway, regardless of that weirdly explicit declaration of platonic-ness. They didn't even need to do all that !!!!

This weirdly aggressive and sudden change in dynamic at the same time as making Jaskier canonically bi was such a transparent attempt at escaping the queerbaiting allegations lol. Like it was like "yeah we wanna shut this down hard but people will get mad so. here's a canon queer character" lmao

idk. i feel like this may be something that's getting phased out as a tactic to a degree -- or rather, shifting its exact methodology -- but "escaping queerbaiting allegations by introducing a canon queer character" is definitely an established thing i see pretty often. I also think the shift in tactic (from introducing a new side character for that purpose, to canonizing a main character's queerness) isn't actually better when the intent remains the same. Idk ! I'd just be a lot less critical of Jaskier being canonically queer if it weren't so clearly linked to an attempt to sidestep queerbaiting allegations.

[alastorseye]

About Remadora

When I say I really hate the HP fandom, I'm talking about the "fans" that hate everything about the saga, but still having Harry Potter accounts. They change the original story, claim that fanonical facts are canon, and launch hatred and death threats at those who simply like HARRY POTTER JUST THE WAY IT IS. Yes, I'm mostly talking about Marauders fans, which I joined after reading the books because I thought it would be interesting and funny. I suddenly realized how toxic and hateful that fandom was, it's like a cult dedicated to deifying Remus, Sirius, James and Regulus, and it seems that hating Snape, Dumbledore, and Remadora is a requirement to be a part of it.

At the beginning I used to consider Wolfstar as something funny, a bromance, it never bothered me, I mean... every fandom has fanon ships and I respect that, but the way they always hate Remadora and their shippers is something that MUST stop.

"You see!" said a strained voice. Tonks was glaring at Lupin. "She still wants to marry him, even though he's been bitten! She doesn't care!"

"It's different," said Lupin, barely moving his lips and looking suddenly tense. "Bill will not be a full werewolf. The cases are completely -"

"But I don't care either, I don't care!" said Tonks, seizing the front ofLupin's robes and shaking them. "I've told you a million times. . . ." And the meaning of Tonks's Patronus and her mouse-colored hair, and the reason she had come running to find Dumbledore when she had heard a rumor someone had been attacked by Greyback, all suddenly became clear to Harry; it had not been Sirius that Tonks had fallen in love with after all."

"And I've told you a million times," said Lupin, refusing to meet her eyes,staring at the floor, "that I am too old for you, too poor . . . too dangerous. . ."

When I read this part of the HBP I realized that Remadora was my favorite Harry Potter ship. Of course I wasn't aware of the death threats I'd receive later. I've read some "reasons" why some fans hate Remadora.

"Tonks forced him!"

We all know how insecure Remus was. I don't have to explain what's written in Wizarding World (Pottermore). This is the Remus bio:

Well, we can read that Remus was really attracted to Dora.

"Remus, so often melancholy and lonely, was first amused, then impressed, then seriously smitten by the young witch. He had never fallen in love before. If it had happened in peacetime, Remus would have simply taken himself off to a new place and a new job, so that he did not have to endure the pain of watching Tonks fall in love with a handsome, young wizard in the Auror office, which was what he expected to happen. However, this was war; they were both needed in the Order of the Phoenix, and nobody knew what the next day would bring. Remus felt justified in remaining exactly where he was, keeping his feelings to himself but secretly rejoicing every time somebody paired him with Tonks on some overnight mission".

This is so sad and cute, and that's undeniable. I cried when I read it. If someone still thinking that Dora forced Remus to marry her after reading this paragraph... I mean... they're probably talking about another book series.

"The age gap!"

I'm so satisfied to know that some Remadora shippers have explained this. When it's about a kid and an adult... OF COURSE IS HORRENDOUS! Because children are not physically and mentally prepared to have romantic relationships. Wizards are legally adults at 17, REMUS MET TONKS WHEN SHE WAS 21!

I mean, many old people abuses of young people innocence, or something. But we all know that Remus wasn't one of those! He really loved Tonks, and that's canon. I don't know what's doing in the fandom people who denies canon facts.

Remus and Tonks were two physically, mentally, and legally adults loving each other.

"Remus didn't love her!"

He was an introvert, Tonks was an extrovert, she made his life better. And of course, I loved the way he introduced himself when he was trying to prove he wasn't a Death Eater:

"I am Remus John Lupin, werewolf, sometimes known as Moony, one of the four creators of the Marauder's Map, married to Nymphadora, usually known as Tonks, and I taught you how to produce a Patronus, Harry, which takes the form of a stag." (Remus Lupin, DH)

Maybe I'm not the only one who perceive he was proud to be Nymphadora Tonks husband.

"I.. I made a grave mistake in marrying Tonks. I did it against my better judgment and have regretted it very much every since". (Remus Lupin, DH)

This phrase makes more sense after reading Remus bio. He used to think that he was "too poor, too dangerous" for her. He thought he wasn't enough for her. He never imagined that she would love him back. He was a werewolf, and of course he knew he was dangerous, you only need to be emphatic to realize he tried to get away from Tonks because he loved her, he didn't want to hurt his beloved woman!

If you don't believe me, read this again. It's in the chapter 11 of Deathly Hallows:

"Don't you understand what I've done to my wife and my unborn child? I should never have married her, I've made her an outcast!"

So, if Remus was trying to escape it's because he loved them, he thought he spoiled their lives. And of course, no one likes to feel that their influence is bad for someone they love!

"Their relationship came from nowhere! They don't have a development"

Well, the saga's name is HARRY POTTER, not The Love Life of Remus Lupin. The story is about the tragic life of this kid and everything he went through to save the world of a cruel and dark villain. I know many readers are young people in love, and they only want to ship everything, but that's not the main topic here, maybe mother's love would be the topic. Of course Ron and Hermione had a development because they were HARRY'S BEST FRIENDS, and they were always with him, from Philosopher's Stone to Cursed Child. Remus and Tonks are minor characters, and it's funny the fact that this usually comes from Wolfstar shippers, so... is Wolfstar more developed than Remadora?! I mean... they can ship whatever they want, Snape and the Sorting Hat, Dobby and Voldemort, anything, but that does not give them the right to disrespect such a cute, tragic and beautiful canon ship as Remadora.

"They are queercoded! Their relationship is homophobic!"

It's surprising to hear this. It's like... people gets angry just because the author doesn't make queer their favourite characters? I will explain why I don't think Remus and Tonks are "queercoded":

Whether through their dress, their behavior, their language, or other subtle forms of implication, queer characters were written or designed to communicate their unstated queerness to those who were searching for representation.

And this is the definition on the website Pride.com:

"Using LGBTQIA tropes and stereotypes to allude to a character's sexuality without explicitly confirming it in the text."

We all know that Disney used queercoding on characters like Ursula, Scar, Jaffar. And why do we know that? Because DISNEY WANTED TO PORTRAY THEM LIKE THAT, get it? Disney, THE CREATORS MADE THESE CHARACTERS INTENTIONALLY QUEER. How? BASED ON STEREOTYPES.

And going back to Remadora, I was really happy to see by first time a bada*ass woman, with short hair who wasn't portrayed as a lesbian just because the way she looks. This character didn't follow the: "Straight women have long hair and are girly", and "short dyied hair is for lesbians". I'm very very very surprised the fandom follows these stereotypes.

About Remus: I don't know how the phrase "being a werewolf is a metaphor about people with HIV AIDS" means "he's gay". Fenrir Greyback bit him when he was a kid. Many people interpret this as "r4pe". Okay, even thinking that it is the meaning of the "bite", I still cannot understand how being "r4ped" and "infected" makes him queer. Is this (again) a stereotype about people with AIDS and gay?

"JK Rowling created Remadora because she didn't like people shipping Wolfstar!"

It is true that fans love shipping everything, they queerbait and queercode everything. That's great, that's not the problem. The problem is when people starts bashing fans who ship canon straight couples. A very good example is the polemic on Falcon and Bucky relationship, some fans wanted them to be a gay couple, Anthony Mackie said that two men can only be friends, and there is no need to always give them a romantic connotation. People cancelled him, they called him homophobic. Yes, just because a person with authority (on the story they're following") didn't like the fact of queercoding their favourite characters. It's the same about Remadora.

Grindeldore is a very interesting and underrated couple by the way. You can love or hate JK Rowling, but the truth is that Harry Potter story is hers, and even if Remadora was "because she didn't like Wolfstar", she is the author, it was her mind where these characters first appeared, as a big Harry Potter fan I respect and like the original story, that's not a sin. An author has the right to make some changes if some characters were misunderstood by the readers.

(Yes, I wrote this a bit angrily since I've seen too much hate towards Remadora shippers)

[buddielove]

Hi! I'm a gay fan of 911 and I have a question about the whole Buddie fandom. As much as I like Buck and Eddie, it's frustrating that a HUGE part of the fandom is pushing for these two characters to get together instead of putting energy into supporting Hen & Carla and Michael & Dave. Not to mention Carlos and TK in Lone Star. Can you explain to me the appeal of wanting these two men together? Wouldn't it be more interesting to see two heterosexual males just be able to bond in a non-toxic fashion? That's something we don't get to see often on television.

Hey! This is MAD long lmao I am so sorry! You caught me on a day I felt like talking! Also this took like a year to answer you lolololol. This does have a few ʻhot takesʻ so please be warned! So like in this essay....

So first I am also apart of the LGBTQIA+ community, so I do understand how it could come across as a fetish or being non supportive of the current canonically LGBTQIA+ characters, however I think a lot of the interest around Buddie and the want for them to be confirmed as a couple is how they are being written. Me personally I knew since s2 e1 Buck and Eddie were written not as rivals but as two people who would eventually become friends, but it wasn’t until the Christmas episode with the elf assuming Buck was Chris’s dad and Eddie’s partner that I was like ��hold on!’ because I was really hoping Abbey would return and I didn’t see Eddie as a possible Buck live interest because of that. The elf’s comment wasn’t played off like most other shows would (think Dean and Sam arriving anywhere in Supernatural) it made me go back and look at the other episodes to see exactly how Buck and Eddie were being framed/written. And as we have moved into further seasons I think there has been a shift in how Buddie is being written, in s3 it was very much like two people progressing into a deeper friendship then the blood clot/lawsuit gets in the way and they both have to deal with emotions surrounding that, then Buck’s response to Eddie being trapped (we see how is he when Boddy is trapped in a fire WITH A GUNMAN, it’s emotional but not to the point is is with Eddie), even the love interests feel very pushed on us and there’s so little banter between Buddie about their gfs and how they feel about these new beginnings. It feels off, not like a friendship in the slightest, more like two people trying to force something and not wanting to deal with any other feelings. Then when Eddie gets shot and reveals Buck is Chris’s legal Guardian in the event Eddie dies, that’s huge, and he did this after only a year of knowing Buck (I have friends with kids. I’ve known one of them for FIVE years, I’m at their house every week, the kid calls me family. I’m person #10 on the list of ‘who gets my kid if I die’, not #1 lol) It just feels like it’s all building up to something, and people are getting tired of waiting for that something! We’re all emotionally tired from the past two years, and probably from many shows queerbaiting us and this is something that could happen, seems to be something the actors are ok with and the fans want. So why do they keep drawing it out. This isn’t about us demanding they ignore the chance to write a healthy platonic male friendship, or forcing two characters to be gay, it’s about holding the writers to what they’ve implied and seeing what could come of it.

Also think of it like this; If Buddie is confirmed it will still be a good example of a healthy friendship which then developed into something else, like Booth/Bones! Showing the natural progression of friendship to relationship that happens a lot in real life. It’s two men who previously (on screen at least) have only been with woman, but now they have an emotionally connection with someone which they then develop and explore. This could be 911’s first nontoxic depiction of two gay characters coming together, because sorry not sorry the canon couples aren’t perfect (which does humanize them) but they also reenforce harmful troupes that plaque the LGBTQIA+ community, which I’m sure you understand: TK was a drug addict, who only got with Carlos at first cause he was hot and sex was TK’s new addition (all gay men are sex addicts who do drugs and sleep with anything that moves). Carlos was ashamed and wanted to keep TK on the downlow (poc gay men want to pretend to be straight but have free access to gay sex). Hen cheated on Karen seemingly the first chance she got (lesbians can’t handle monogamy when pushed, and cheat on their long term partners). All known and documented troupes that happen far too often.

I’m not saying Buddie is some gay jesus ship that’s gonna save the entertainment industry but if done right it could prove to be one of the few healthy depictions of two men getting into a gay relationship we have. If they plan it out correctly, show us the relationship development, like they did with Maddie/Chim for example, Buddie could be used as a positive example of a gay fictional relationship (I really could go into depth about this. I probably should tbh).

As for not supporting Hen and KAREN, or Michael and DAVID, I think fans do support them! The writers don’t. If you read fanfics Henren and Michael/David are featured heavily in many fics, and ik some people might say ‘well they’re only there so Buddie can talk about their gay side!!’ but both these couples have their own fans and fanfic tags! They aren’t just plot devices in Buddie stories. There is a huge side of the fandom that supports Henren and wants to see more of them and their family. Same with Michael and David, during the episode where Michael and Bobby team up to find that plastic surgeon who was working illegally many people where ecstatic that we were getting more Michael/David content and that David was getting more than a couple lines. But sadly it seems like the writers only want to delve into these story lines when they need filler, they even miss opportunities to include these other LGBTQIA+ characters when it makes sense;

(Someone came for me about this but I am going to bring it up again)

When Chris is sad and wants more human connection, instead of bring Harry + Michael/David and Denny+Nia+Henren back into the picture (and yes I understood at the time the pandemic was bad (lmao still is!!), but all the actors at some point would have/had crossed over into each other’s ‘bubbles’, so ALL the actors would have been exposed to each other so getting the children together with adults they had ALREADY been with during shooting wouldn’t have been a super spreader event) but instead they brought in Ana after only two on screen dates and pretended like it was a logical thing for someone who’s up to that point been extremely careful with their child.

They really could have pushed the ‘118 is a family!’ message here and included the canonically gay supporting characters, and the lesbian main character(s) but they did not and instead chose to push the Ana/Eddie coupling even though they hadn’t properly developed it yet. The writers themselves don’t seem to care about developing their canonically gay characters and including them more than they have to but fans are continuously developing Henren and Michael/David with hc and fics.

I’d like to use your logic against you for a second, in s1 we have a very healthy, platonic friendship between Chim/Bobby but that got written out to the point they are more like boss/employee unless the scene calls for them to seem closer, we now have Bobby and Michael friendship but again we hardly see Michael. On Lone Star we have Owen and Judd as a really, really good example of a healthy male friendship but we see Judd more often with Tommy now then we do with Owen, and in s2 it’s overshadowed by Owen trusting Charlie from Twilight and constantly getting fucked over! Why can’t the writter just be happy with these happy, healthy, emotionally well male-male friendship they’ve already included and expand upon them. There’s enough drama because the show literally involves burning buildings and people’s lives being at risk from some natural/man made disaster ever 12 seconds. Does it need to have so much interpersonal conflict and male peacocking??

[livebloggingmydescentintomadness]

Hi! I'm a recent follower who's kinda confused with all the content I've been seeing lately lol. I just wanted to ask is it worth it watching spn? I got into tumblr when I was 13 and I saw it everywhere, I know all veterans tumblr loved it (along with sherlock and dr. who, I think?).I'm older now and I want to understand the hype but 15 seasons sound like a huge responsibility, bro. Is there a guide to watch spn without filler episodes? Also, what other tumblr popular shows do you recommend?

“is spn worth watching” is an incredibly loaded question, tbh, because it just really depends. 

is it worth watching if you want to watch a fun fantasy show that has weird, intriguing plots, compelling characters, and a mix of comedy and drama rarely done so well? yes. 

is it worth watching if what you’re looking for is a queer romance and decent representation? god no.

now, don’t get me wrong, i think deancas is one of the most beautiful love stories i’ve ever seen in my life. but up until this moment, destiel and cas, as well as fans of both, have been treated with an almost unbearable level of disrespect. 

cas is in far too few episodes, he gets jerked around and treated like crap a lot of the time, destiel gets treated like a joke, homophobic statements are made, both of them are repeatedly paired with women (despite cas seeming very obviously asexual), their shared scenes get whittled down to almost nothing but still got hyped up in transparent queerbaiting as it became very clear that dean and cas couldn’t be left alone without their relationship needing to be addressed but the show refusing to do it. their relationship has been treading water for at least 5 years.

the show is also upsettingly misogynistic, it’s VERY white and a whole lot of characters of color are villains or killed off (or both), some of the storylines are absolutely infuriatingly stupid, and one time they killed off a fan-favorite lesbian character for literally no reason except Man Angst. 

there’s a reason why people love this show, and a reason why people hate this show. 

altogether, do i regret being a part of this fandom? no. this show has meant a lot to me over the past eight years, and it’s still meaningful and important to me even after all the stupid, hurtful bullshit. i’ve been waiting to see how they bring it to an end before i let myself really make an emotional commitment to this last season, because i’ve been practicing distance for self-care, but from what i’ve seen this season has been... really, surprisingly good. 

i honestly didn’t believe they had the guts to make destiel canon, despite how the narrative makes zero sense without destiel, but this season has really been going there and with this? i... actually have hope. despite what people are saying about this being a bury your gays thing, i don’t believe for a minute that cas’s story ends here. dean never gives up on cas, and cas always comes back to dean. this has set up the finale for something truly beautiful, if they can just bring it home and see it through.

i completely understand 15 seasons being a huge, imposing commitment; i was wary about making a commitment to watching it back when it was in season 8. but i wouldn’t know how to write a “here’s what you can skip” guide, because each season builds on the previous season, and a lot of the episodes that are filler are still really fun, interesting episodes to watch, and typically relate to the main storyline somehow.

in the past day i’ve written this reply and this reply to people asking similar questions about how to experiment with watching to see if you like it enough to actually commit to the whole thing. ultimately, the show will make the most sense and have the most emotional resonance if you start from the beginning and watch straight through, but that’s such a tall order that i think it’s fine to skip around and try watching some single episodes or seasons to get a feel for if you enjoy it enough to make that commitment.

try not to think about the whole 15 seasons going in, try to just decide if you enjoy it. of course it’s not for everyone, and it’s okay if you don’t like it. but if it turns out that you’re one of ones who love it despite its significant flaws, 15 seasons isn’t a burden, it’s an enormous treasure trove of wild adventure. 

so, bottom line, “is it worth it” is a question only you can answer by trying it and discovering if it hooks you or not. it’s totally fine if it doesn’t do anything for you, and, despite the overwhelming attitude that it’s cringey to like spn, there’s nothing wrong with being excited about a show that brings you some happiness in this hell world, despite all its flaws. i’m sick to death of people acting like it’s the most embarrassing thing in the world to enjoy a tv show. carve out whatever serotonin you can get.

sherlock and doctor who are a whole other rant. i used to love sherlock, but its last season sort of retroactively tainted everything and imploded the fandom. i admit that i still have a lot of sherlock feelings deep down, but i try not to think about it or i just get angry and upset. doctor who had a rough patch with a shitty showrunner, but altogether i think it’s definitely worth watching. the seasons with david tennant and peter capaldi (seasons 2-4 and 8-10) are my favorites, and it’s been really exciting seeing a woman play the doctor the past few years. a couple of her episodes have irked me, but overall i think she’s pretty great. 

doctor who is a weird fucking show that is often way scarier and way sadder than you’d ever imagine, but i think bottom line, it’s a quality show.

good omens is only six episodes, but it’s a wonderful show. it’s not explicitly queer, but the creator specifically said that he wrote it as a love story, and it absolutely feels like a love story that was made with respect and affection for the people watching it. it’s one of the best things i’ve ever watched.

i’ve been into the untamed the past few months, and it’s very complicated and very confusing if you’ve never watched a chinese drama before, but i honestly just completely love it. the plot is engaging, i adore the characters, and it is as explicit a romance as they could get past chinese censors. there’s a lot of grief and angst, but it’s a beautiful love story with a really heart-warming happy ending. i highly, highly recommend it.

beyond those, it sort of depends on what kind of show you’re looking for, like if you want fantasy drama, comedy, or just whatever has queer rep. i watch tv shows really slowly so there are a lot of tumblr-popular shows i haven’t seen myself, but i enjoyed the witcher, the good place, stranger things, and star trek: picard. others that are popular on tumblr include black sails, killing eve, schitt’s creek, she-ra, hannibal, avatar: the last airbender, and what we do in the shadows, to name a few.

i hope that answers your questions - as you can see, they’re really complicated questions, lmao. feel free to come back if you have more. 👍

[af105-spngay-blog]

finally, the ultimate ship. the pinnacle of ao3. destroyer of american politics. bearer of news.

destiel my beloved

really the pinnacle of any queerbait ship is if you described the relationship to someone unfamiliar with them while swapping one of the genders, and it sounds obviously like a romance, it probably is. the amount of homoerotic tension in their first scene alone is enough to base an entire essay on. and the rumours that originally the angel pulling dean from hell was supposed to be a love interest, well it just makes sense that they should be together.

"I gripped you tight and raised you from perdition"

"you don't think you deserve to be saved"

"we do share a more profound bond"

*breaks mind control from actual heaven to save him*

*breaks mind control from mark of cain to save him*

*becomes borderline suicidal whenever the other is in danger or dead*

*parallels with Sam's relationships*

"You asked what about all this was real. we are"

*raises the son of lucifer together*

"you can't spell subtext without S-E-X" (authors note: this show is entirely too self aware about these ships for it not to be intentional)

eye sex, no personal space, no privacy, so protective, excruciating jealousy, the goddamn pining. its relentless.

its so blatant I hardly know what to say about them. they even hit some of the beats of romcom plot structure (meet, work together, fall apart, come back together through mutual understanding, rinse and repeat like 8 times)

its interesting because everything about cas fundamentally obliterated all of the plans for him, both in reality and in the show (quite an ironic parallel actually). he was originally only supposed to be in three episodes, then twelve years later he's confessing his love. he broke heaven's mind control for dean, he betrayed everyone he ever knew and abandoned his life for dean, but he also defied all odds of tv programming and survived being in "just three more episodes" enough times to become a lead character. just like how team free will 2.0 saved the world from chuck through. basically sheer force of will, the fandom saved cas from getting written out by the showrunners through similar force of will and volume. and not only saved him from getting fired, but they let him actually speak his feelings out loud. I'm still the biggest hater of that scene and the finale, but when you stop and remember that cas actually told dean he loves him. officially. on screen. not in a blooper. the fandom is not crazy for thinking there's something between them, and we know this for certain, outside of cryptic tweets from Misha from like 2013. they put these things in this show, and they are owning up to it (mostly). and hell, if you watch the spanish dub you can even get it reciprocated!

But even through all of this Jensen maintains that Dean loves Cas like a brother, Kripke never acknowledged ships as anything more than a stupid joke by Becky-Rosen level fangirls, and they wrote in jabs at the fandom in basically every opportunity because making it too gay means that the homophobes would stop watching and they would make less money. and because they waited until the third last episode to let cas confess, there were huge viewer populations still watching and contributing to ratings and profit margins because they were waiting for that day.

thank you for coming to my tedtalk.

Dean Winchester is inherently queer and the only reason they don't come out and say it is because the writers are cowards who care more about money than the fans they call their family and as much as destiel is canon in my heart its nowhere near the only evidence for Dean being not straight. in this essay I will

[thedogsled]

I'm interested in hearing about the Merlin queerbaiting thing because I seem to remember someone saying that this homoerotic subtext was upped after the producers or writers or whoever had been asked whether the queer subtext was intentional or something like that.

tbh the likelihood is you probably heard this from me, but who knows. I think it’s clear to a lot of people in Merlin fandom either way, although maybe not everyone feels that way. I’m going to go riiiight back to the beginning, though, to the very first episode where I was coming off my last fandom (Harry Potter) and had nowhere else to go, and there was this awesome show on TV…

First of all I’m going to drop this here:

So this was my experience, back in 2008, when I got to go to MCM London. The show had been on maybe a few weeks at the time, and not much had been developed back then, but there was no doubt that they were writing the pair of them very well as a strong male/male friendship. Now the subtext was glorious, because as you can hear right here it wasn’t the intention of the writers to put any of it in there, and it came off so naturally as a strong set of bonds forming between two guys. Nobody was aware of it, and then bam there’s all this fanfiction being written. This was the first ever question these guys had been asked on a panel ever. We’re not talking like the pussyfooting into asking those kinds of questions like you see with SPN panels, these guys were fresh and green and had no idea what they were getting into, and the unequivocal downplay from the writer ‘No, this is a story about friendship’, well it should have stopped there. But as you hear the writer go on to say, as they laugh about the idea of people shipping Merthur at all, these sorts of heroes journeys do have a homoerotic subtext. He acknowledges that, but he’s also forthright in saying ‘no, that’s not what this is, end of story’.

So for me, that should have been what it is, i.e. it’s not queerbaiting because there’s absolutely no intention of going there, and they’ve made it clear. Unfortunately that’s not what happened, and the consequence is that it wasn’t made clear to the audience. Sure, that crowd at comic con of a few hundred people, but not the audience (also I’m disappointed there wasn’t more to that clip, because the writers (there was at least one other person, a woman there, backed and forthed briefly on the topic, “is that a thing?” or something like that, but it was ten years ago so I’m afraid I can’t remember exactly. By this time next year people were cosplaying Merlin, it had played in the USA and everything was really taking off, but that first season was in the can at this point, and consequently precious and innocent. The friendship between Arthur and Merlin was as untarnished as you could get, because the writers had no idea what they were doing, and the actors had no idea of what was coming across in those intimate moments, so that was perfect too. Seriously, that first season of Merlin is superb.

But now everyone is self conscious. They know they have this audience and they’ve been exposed to how loud it is, how superbly influential. The feeling of watching Merlin season 2 was therefore entirely different to watching season 1. Bradley and Colin carry themselves differently. The wording choices in the scenes become deliberately nudge nudge wink wink. The scenes themselves are more homoerotic because of this conglomeration of ideas and acting choices. Merlin talks about how he ‘feels’ about Arthur and there’s shitloads more shirtless scenes and long silences and held glances between Merlin and Arthur than Arthur and anyone else. 

I’m saying this as someone who didn’t fall for the queerbaiting, because I knew from that unequivocal “this is a profound friendship” declaration that they were never, ever going there, that Arthur was destined to get with Guinevere (that was the societal wall i.e. class, that he had to jump over) and they weren’t ever going to do anything but straight and hetereosexual on Saturday night on BBC1 (an opinion I changed for Sherlock but very quickly changed back when I saw the same tone and delivery grabbing for and successfully pulling in the audience who so desperately wanted to see what they were being teased at. Merlin and Sherlock really coincided at the sweet spot of queerbaiting (which incidentally is when Cas joins SPN, and coincides with the most queerbaiting seasons of SPN as well.) But I was at ground zero for Merlin, before shipping Merthur was cool, and you can betcha that the writer declaring that there were only straights here put a dead end to that before it could begin. Just imagine a writer saying something like that now. We track all the panels, we record everything. We’d tear them to pieces in a second flat.

The mood in S2 just changes. Here’s a bunch of clips from S2. I’ve stuck it on a late timestamp, but that’s only because that particular scene is a standout example: gay 4 comedy. By the middle of S3 filming, everyone is well briefed on the interest in the ship. The baiting gets really hard and comedic by season 4. I’ve jumped to some of the worst offending moments in this series of clips here. And remember Sherlock’s first season aired just before this, thus my accusations of a queerbaiting heyday. It was all getting into stride about this time, carte blanche to suck in queer viewers with no intention of following through and use ‘they might be gay’ both as an endless mockery, as in these Merlin clips, and as a way to add seriousness to some scenes. My memory of feeling mocked and ridiculed by Merlin is just so strong, and reviewing some of the episodes really nails that down for me. Having known where the writers come from, knowing the sentiment behind their approach to their queer audience…it drives me up the wall even right now.

So season 5 they pull it all together, and - spoilers - Arthur dies in Merlin’s arms, and there’s an unspoken I love you, and Merlin waits for centuries for the return of the Once and Future King. And this, coming back to the strongest part of the story in order to deliver the final emotional punch, the part that carried it through (the relationship which could be misconstrued between the main characters) and offering a flimsy not quite there delivery of yet more subtext (because you have to be in on the queer reading to see it), was a final spit in the eye. It’s why you’ll see a bunch of people in fandoms who are disgusted by the idea of a kiss in the last scene, they die together, or a subtextual drive off into the sunset ending, because it’s such a familiar and heart wrenching and aggravating cop out. It’s not even Thelma and Louise, you know? Because over years and years, you’ve been driven by this show, by what you’re seeing on screen, and your reward is a lacklustre nod in the last few seconds; what you’re there for you never get, and yet at the end of the day you’re supposed to be delighted they gave you even 50% certainty that your ship would end up together. Fuck you.

Merlin could easily have been read as not queerbaiting. That’s the thing. Some people will outright tell you that Sherlock is easily read as not queerbaiting too. Those people will also say ‘why is it that two guys can’t have a relationship without people thinking it’s romantic.’ Well, they can. They can. But I point you to the word ‘bromance’. These shows deliberately either take romantic storylines and apply them to those characters, or play up the gay for laughs. Especially at this sort of 2008-1016 sweet spot, pre The 100 drama, they absolutely did. They didn’t see the harm, and what they got back in return from fandom involvement and viewership and repeat viewing was absolute justification for those choices. Merlin benefits from it’s queer audience, but it also benefits from a storytelling perspective as having been intended as a heterosexual friends only story in the first place, and the first season (and season 3 largely, idk why) play out like that. That’s what lets it off the hook when people are looking for queerbaiting in the show, because it’s absolutely not from the get go. Like with Destiel it establishes naturally, both as a result of the story and because of the vibe the two main actors have with each other. 

Compare to Sherlock, which went for it right out of the gate “Is this a date?” and never backed down, applying the queerbaiting consistently until they were done as though I think to legitimatize the writing choice. “See, it wasn’t queer, that’s just how we wrote it, you’ve all got dirty minds.” That same show will be defended with ‘why can’t guys just be friends’, and implications that any suggestion of physical intimacy doesn’t make it gay and is harmful to guys in general. There may be some truth in that, but there is also truth in the use and manipulation of queer audiences, and there are plenty of touchy feely male/male relationships which aren’t queerbaiting; look at most buddy cop shows (I exclude due South from this), JD and Turk, McGee and DeNozzo, Esposito and Ryan. Well written brotherhood and friendship is out there which does not rely on one character waiting for another to come back from the dead for centuries, or casually delivering that Cas ∴ Cas

I’ve been going on for a while, but I’m going to just make one last swing for it before I conclude. Take in mind that original quote, then. Look at this article. The quotes here are notorious in Merlin fandom, of course, but even from an outsider they leave a bad taste in my mouth. 

“Murphy points to the moment where Arthur finally dies as what the entire series has been building towards. At the “just hold me,” Murphy justifies to a shocked McGrath that, “well, he’s dying, the man he loves is dying, so he’s holding him.””

Maybe it wasn’t queerbaiting to start with, but Merlin knew what it was doing. S1: “Merlin is about a friendship between Merlin and Arthur, and they do care about each other hugely, but um it’s not necessarily, you know, it isn’t a gay love story, no.” vs. S5: “I think you maybe just confirmed what a lot of people thought, and I’m glad that Julian could do it, because he’s probably the only one who could have gotten away with that commentary.”

I don’t know where Merlin fandom stands on this. I know there’s an undercurrent - because I’ve read it - that some people like the ending as it is because they don’t think that all love has to be shown in smooches. But that would be fine if it wasn’t raising a strawman to argue against (I see it a lot in these conversations). Nobody is even talking about kissing. A relationship of any shade which is confirmed and genuine is fine. But queerbaiting specifically is this kind of stringing people along by dancing around the suggestion of something, and then coming back to state that it was there all along, or worse still just go “Maybe~ If that’s the way you see it~”. Nobody is saying they have to bang it out in a clearing in order for it to be legitimized, but that’s a whole other level from ridiculing people who see it that way, playing it as a joke, or stringing those people along right to the very last gasp.

For sure, if you don’t think it was queerbaiting then that’s great, and I’m actually glad for you! I’m sure people disagree with me on a handful of things I’ve said here, but Merlin was a huge disappointment for me as a creative. I wanted to play in that universe, but the seed was planted that every hint of homoerotic subtext was targeting me, or making a mockery of me, and it poisoned that well from the get go. That I’m still harboring those feelings a decade later probably shapes the way I interact with canons now, but it also is an indication of how strongly I feel about Destiel that I can get over it; once burned twice shy usually applies; it harmed my viewing experience of Merlin, Sherlock, and Hannibal, and I won’t deny it affects me when I watch SPN (and some other shows) too. It’s part of why I think this show has such an opportunity to do something different. But there’s still that tugging part of me that insists that because this is a show nurtured in that sweet spot, I have no reason to believe it should do anything outside the norm. Perhaps the situation with The 100 doesn’t affect it, or maybe it will have learned from it? Some things, like the queer hires to the writers room, fill me with hope. But who knows? That’s unfortunately the state of the uneasy relationship I have with it, particularly as a queer person who wants to see those stories on TV. To tell the truth, this uncertainty and unease is the damage that queerbaiting causes in the long term, and we deserve better stories.

This got super duper long, so thanks for sticking with it.

[killawayfanboys]

So I'm posting this here instead of my main blog because this is something in fandom I feel needs to be talked about.

The idea that cis straight women shipping mlm is inherently fetishization and/or predatory.

There is nuances to this topic, because are there women who take this too far? Of course, in every conversation there will always be exceptions or out of the majority voices/people. Yet, it is extremely toxic to believe that a woman shipping two men is in some way a regression of male platonic relationships.

Overall there are just (in western media) more depictions of close heterosexual males than there are of women, or healthy depictions of men and women relationships. Women tend to unfortunately be the less developed characters in media, with less complexity and less often shown as black or white characters. Evildoers or saints. Oftentimes dying in order to progress the stories of male counterparts, or being so irrelevant to the plot as a whole that their characters end up being tiny plot point/safe havens for men in their story.

Take Marvel for example, Black Widow is a very obvious point to this, being underdeveloped compared to the rest of the roster, ends up dying for a man, and her whole backstory revolves around pleasing and being abused by a man.

Lord of the Rings is also another example. The only female characters are used as plot devices for telling the men's story, acting as godly saviors in times of turmoil. While another is constantly belittled for wishing she could fight with the men around her, being forced to disguise herself as a man to even do so.

It is not fetishization to see subtext in two close male relationships as queer, nor to write or fantasize about these to men together, due to how little interesting or complex relationships they have with women. Inherently there is more fictional romantic interests in characters that survive together, go through hardships together, and have close interactions with one another. Because this is how real relationships develop.

What interest is there in a relationship that doesn't happen naturally or feels forced because of some capitalistic rule of "natrual" heterosexuality?

Then there is the fact that many of these relationships are queerbaited in the first place, taking Teen Wolf for a huge example. Many writers know exactly what they're doing but will wholeheartedly deny it's very existence, or straight up lie about why a relationship between the two wouldn't ever happen.

People are complex, relationships are complex, and how humans form bonds is muddied and weird, with exceptions and "but"'s everywhere.

Societal expectations of men is inherently more toxic with the idea that no men are allowed to show emotions unless a very serious situation occurs. Very hyper specific situations as well. But this is fundamentally wrong, because men just like anyone else feel emotions all the time. Anger, sadness, joy, depression, anxiety, fearfulness, love. Either platonic or romantic men feel and experience love just like anyone else.

When media about men and their relationships can be changed from platonic to romantic in a single scene, it's not wrong for women or queer people to see that nor want that experience represented. Human's as a whole want connections and want to experience those connections through the media we watch.

Men can still be good friends with men, they can still be nonromantically intimate with close friends or best friends. Men can cuddle other men or make jokes or act domestic without it meaning anything more than platonic friendship. But we can see when it's not just platonic in media, when if one of the men was a woman it would be romantic. That's not fetishization that's subtext or sometimes just text itself.

The censorship of mlm relationships in media is violent and rampant, while depictions of mlw are often unhealthy or abusive and wlw are often underdeveloped or written with a heteronormative lens.

Stop acting like shipping in fandom is predatory.