(notes: both kyra and megan use queer as an umbrella term. this discussion includes minor spoilers for skins (uk) and for supernatural (season 8), as well as non-spoilery references to bbc sherlock, elementary, community, and the big bang theory.)
megan
okay, queerbaiting!
the way i’ve seen queerbaiting used and defined is: a situation where there is implication and/or subtext implying a character is queer, but that character’s queerness is denied within the canon and/or by the creators of that character. i believe the idea is that a queer audience is led to identify with that character but denied actual representation. i think i first saw the term here although i have some minor disagreements with the original post that the quote is drawn from.
i’ve also heard it used to the practice of attracting a fanbase of straight women through homoerotic subtext between men. i’ve also heard it being leveled at fans who ship slash. since it seems to be a tumblr-centric term, there seem to be some overlapping and/or contradictory definitions.
in my mind, making queerness the butt of a joke (see raj and howard in the big bang theory) is not queer baiting, because i never think those characters are queer (still makes me rageful and is incredibly shitty writing and equally shitty being-a-person).
i also don’t really think shippers are the issue here (although the ethics of shipping are a whole other topic) EXCEPT when shippers claim that a queer ship is canon when it is not (as i saw a small subset of destiel shippers claim after the dean-cas hug in purgatory, and which made me really worried about their ideas about queer representation and also whether they understood what hugging was).
i also don’t really have a problem with relationships like troy and abed’s in community, because i have never heard any of the characters or any one involved in the show going around being all “NO HOMO”, but it might have happened and i missed it.
where i do have problems with are characters like john “i’m not gay” watson and oswin “it was just a phase” oswald, because you have to ask why these parts are being written the way they are. why write two characters who are constantly mistaken for a couple (which usually denotes sexual/romantic tension)? why mention oswin’s sexuality at all, especially if she’s just going to dismiss it a minute later? these kinds of characters seem to be gendered too-the (Too) Close Male Friends and the Highly Ambiguously Bisexual Woman-and they can’t exist without being implied as queer, and they are also not allowed to actually be queer.
supernatural is the other show that seems to get cited a lot it seems, but i’m not sure how i feel about that. despite the amount of slash shipping that goes on, the only character i’ve ever actually read as potentially queer is dean (i could write books about dean winchester and gender and sexuality). and i don’t think that that will ever be canonical and there is probably queerbaiting going on in the show, but i’ve never found that aspect of supernatural as upsetting as other instances that i would qualify as queerbaiting (not sure why. i’ll think about it.)
that’s my understanding anyway. kind of makes me feel like we need a better vocab for talking about queer repesentation.
Kyra
Well like I told you earlier, I hadn’t actually heard the term queerbaiting until you brought it to my attention.
From what I’ve seen since you introduced the term to me and how I personally understand it, I would define queerbaiting as such: when writers intentionally create a character with either explicit or implicit non-heteronormative aspects (such as Oswin Oswald) but then deny that deviation from the heterosexual norm (“I was going through a phase”). I think I am also going to include same-sex friends who are consistently mistaken for a couple in this category, as in heterosexual friendships this does, as you point out, usually foreshadow a future romantic engagement with the other person (for example, Booth and Brennan in Bones, Castle and Bennet in Castle) whereas this is never the case for same-sex friendships (*valiantly attempts to resist bring up Sam and Dean Winchester as an example of this*).
It is entirely possible to have close same-sex friendships without having this problematic aspect. In fact, I think there should be more portrayals of close same-sex relationships, especially between women (though that’s touching on a whole other problem in terms of female representation in film and television). Though there has been an upsurge of the bromance lately. However, it is equally important that non-hetero relationships are also portrayed and allowed to exist. And if a same-sex friendship was allowed to develop into an outright relationship, it makes me very very happy (hello Emily and Naomi from Skins, you are awesome).
I think I’ve never found the aspects of supernatural which might be read as queerbaiting less upsetting because it is much less flagrant than in other shows. Mostly it seems to exhibit itself in highly ambiguous moments of male-male interaction which could be read as sexually charged or could not be – in other words, it is less a blatant dismissal of queer people and queer experiences, and more a subtle bit of fan service (which is a whole other problematic can of worms). When Dean says he is not gay, it is not a loud shout, but a casual, respectful repudiation (in Live Free or TwiHard). There is no one yelling NO HOMO NO HOMO every time Dean and Cas stand a bit too close together. Much like Abed and Troy’s relationship on Community, there is no aggressive dismissal of queerness associated with the implication of queerness.
Characters in television can have interactions which can be read as having homoerotic subtext without that subtext ever being developed (especially since I have to admit that my little shipper heart can find homoerotic subtext in pretty much everything). That is something I can deal with. While this might have some problematic queerbaiting aspects, it doesn’t set my blood boiling (especially since as I mentioned, it might totally not be the writers fault – people have an amazing ability to read into situations what they want to read into them, whether or not the creator intended that reading). It becomes extremely frustrating, and the epitome of queerbaiting, however, when that homoerotic subtext is first acknowledged, perhaps reinforced with reference to previous queer experiences, then dismissed or denied.
Sidenote: I definitely think we should have a conversation about shipping at some point, btw (also, I am dying over “whether they understood what hugging was”).
i think you’re right that the thing that’s trying to be called out with “queerbaiting” is that kind of have-your cake-and-eat-it-too dismissal.the fact that close (hetero) friendships so often develop into relationships also kind of bothers me (although obviously for different reasons)(see number 389 why i’m in love with elementary), but it bothers me much more that close same-sex relationships are often treated as a site for jokes about queerness that are, again, never realized (and usually not even addressed in a respectful way).still not sure about why supernatural bothers me less, although you’re probably right about the tone of the whole affair. probably also because of my plethora of headcanons about dean’s sexuality.i don’t even know what my life would look like without homoerotic subtext, and i really like ambiguous characters as well. but if someone feels they have to deny subtext (and deny actual text, as in the case of oswin) it’s not just lazy and unoriginal, but, you know, pretty textbook homophobia right there.
rhubarbing 