Why can't celebrities queerbait?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ต.ค. 2022
- Patreon: / aretheygay
MERCH, LEARNING, AND BUSINESS INQUIRIES: www.itsall.gay
Twitter: / aretheygay
Music: www.itsall.gay/music
Tumblr: / aretheygayvideos
Discord: / discord
The discourse around Harry Styles, former One Direction member and one of the stars of "Don't Worry Darling", has taken an interesting turn. Perhaps it's time someone... said something. Watch to find out whether Billie Eilish, Charlie Puth, Nick Jonas, and Shawn Mendes need to be... CANCELLED!?? In light of the recent heartbreaking tweet from Kit Connor, it's seems like something should be said. Along the way, we'll make friends with Judith Butler and weird gay sociologists and philosophers. Don't you just love Twitter?
SOURCES------------
Literature*** - บันเทิง
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #2 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RMhUgxxD49Q/mqdefault.jpg)
and just yesterday Kit Conner was forced to come out because hounds of people accused him of “queerbaiting” by playing a bi dude in a show literally about people discovering their identity over time, highlighting the fact that no one owes anyone an explanation for their sexuality. how did these people miss the message of the show that badly?
Let’s be real majority of the community superficial… physique over beautifully developing plots n themes that r paramount to current society
The thing is people are referring to this issue as if it was the Heartstopper fandom’s exclusive fault when in reality there are a lot of people within the queer community who did not watch/read Heartstopper who argue that “straight “ people shouldn’t play queer characters which is so dumb because YOU CANT CLAIM SOMEONE YOU DONT EVEN KNOW IS STRAIGHT OR NOT. We from within our own community need to change our mindset and stop gatekeeping and demanding ID at the door.
Even if he was straight, what would be the issue ? He never pretended to be his character, he's only acting. It makes me think of people who sent death threats to the guy who played Joffrey Lannister.
@I'm known to humble people for good Tatum really took it to a whole other level 😮💨
@@xx___x Literally no gay person I know, including myself want this for the future of the industry. That’s your opinion and it’s very new to me and others…
Another point that often gets overlooked is that queer-coded expression isn't an appropriation of something that doesn't belong to you, or a mockery like blackface. It can, instead, be the first, tentative step into a world you're not yet sure you want to be a part of. By jumping down the throat of anyone who's presumed straight but is trying out some Gay Things, we ignore the fact that coming into one's queerness is a process, one that should be encouraged whether or not it's an early sign of something more. Why are we gatekeeping? What is gained from that? Presumably our goal should instead be creating a world in which queer expression is so plentiful, diverse, and ever-changing that the capitalist incentive to bait no longer exists.
I haven’t seen the video yet but I hope this is what it ends up supporting. I understand why queer baiting can be hurtful when it comes to fictional characters, but irl people are sentient beings. *also* so much of the “x celebrity is queer baiting!” accusations has m-spec phobia (bi,pan,Omni ect) rhetoric.
I'd say we should be aiming beyond that even. We should be aiming for the abolition of sexuality as a construct, not working to reinforce it and the ways that queerness is otherised.
Really, I'd say I only resent queerbaiting when it's done with malevolence or cruel callousness---such as when corporations wave the rainbow flag in June and go back to donating to the GOP in July, or when advertisers or screenwriters cynically queerbait "those people" just for clicks and bucks, and actually appear to harbor contempt or, especially, hatred for the very queer people they're baiting.
It's incredibly short-sighted and regressive to scold a presumed-to-be-cishet guy for having the courage to put on a dress, dance in public, or get his nails done.
@@Jane-oz7pp Yeah, no. Sexuality and gender criticism (as in being gender/sexuality-critical) assumes we are in a place in time in which the majority is accepting to the point that the need for visibility and dissection of gender and sexuality is void -- and it is NOT void. It may never be, not fully. It is Crucial to understand that just because we are "otherized" as you say that doesn't mean we begin catering to the comfort of the majority by minimizing what makes queer people different, again, just for the sake of acceptance and safety. On an individual level, this makes sense. On a collective scale, gender/sexuality criticism does a lot more harm than good at this point in our history.
Exactly. All this “queerbaiting” nonsense is only encouraging people to stay in the closet. Nobody is lying about being gay. NOBODY. I don’t know why people think straight people are dying to be gay. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t happen.
I've adored watching the evolution of this channel. The journey from "do professor x and magneto wanna fuck?" To "sexuality and queerness should not be enforced and doing so enforces the capitalist patriarchal status quo"
L I T E R A L L Y
HAHAHA facts its the queer sociologist pipeline 😭😭👏🏼
my life journey in a nutshell
I noticed Dan and Phil are on the board behind you. I would love a video on them. They're kind of fascinating. Their fandom aggressively shipped them to the point that they dug into their online past to compile evidence of them being queer and in a secret relationship. When they denied both of these things, it just made people even more obsessive and invasive. So they switched to not saying anything about their relationship status or sexualities, while still being playful about both in their videos. Then people started to accuse them of queerbaiting. Now, after they've both come out of the closet, there are STILL some people who accuse two gay men of queerbaiting for refusing to disclose the nature of their relationship. Because they make tongue-in-cheek remarks about it in their videos sometimes and use it for clickbait titles. Talk about a perfect example of people feeling entitled to a celebrity's personal life.
I agree with those who took offense
He already has an old video on Dan and Phil.
This is especially horrific when you consider that most of this took place while they were still teenagers
@@Albinojackrussel ugh thats so sad fr /gen
@@Albinojackrussel well, not teenagers, Dan was like 20 or something, but it's still fucked up as fuck /nm
I am not joking. I am sending this to my screenwriting professor. This is a super useful analysis of queerness in media
@@tylers3229 intersectionality theory actually came about to address the limitations of identity politics
@@tylers3229 Notice that he never said identity politics were bad, just that it has limits. Intersectionality builds on identity politics. Identity politics means forming political coalitions based on an identity. Intersectionality, like you said, is recognizing that identity, privilege, and oppression are fluid and that vectors of privilege and oppression can exist within one person. It recognizes and addresses some of the limits of identity politics, though I would note not the specific limit of identity politics being addressed in this video. This video ultimately isn’t about intersectionality, though he does mention it. This video is specifically about queerness and queer culture and there isn’t a good way to address every single possible individual intersection of privilege and oppression that might exist within every queer person in one hour-long video.
@@tylers3229 He literally was joking holy shit.
@@tylers3229 He was joking about intersectionality not having a definition. Notice he then went on to *define intersectionality*
@@tylers3229 He defined identity politics as forming political coalitions around identities, usually saying that people who are part of an identity group should get to define that identity group and its political goals, which is what identity politics is. I don’t think you understand what the point of this video is
i just cannot believe as a society we went from hyperanalyzing harry's relationship with louis wanting to out them two, conspiracy about louis' child being fake... to actually saying harry is too straight to act flamboyant
this right here ladies and gentlemen
idk as a 1d fan I was always annoyed that harry didn't do much to shut down the tinhats. as a result whenever he did anything remotely related to queerness or the queer community (pulling rainbow flags out of the audience, etc) they took it as encouragement to them specifically, and louis and his family were always the ones to suffer from it. is that harry's fault? of course not. I just feel like he has a history of being...idk, careless? with how he presents himself wrt the people around him (see also: nick grimshaw)
when their public relationships was so specialized it became awkward and people said management was trying to keep them apart. and he wasn't even 22
@@bekaz13 a lot of 1D fans at the time were convinced their management was hiding Harry's gayness, but I actually think their management told them not to address it bc they knew it was a core part of the fanbase and didn't want to lose those fans (and their money) by shutting down the rumors.
@@cc-gx8hr I can definitely believe that was modest's plan, but it's still weird to me that harry didn't back louis up once his underage sisters started getting sent p*rn of the two of them. like we get "larry is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard" from one side, and crickets from the other? it's weird, and in the absence of an explanation (not that he owes anyone one, to be clear) I'm always gonna be kinda salty about it.
I didn't watch the video but I feel like I can trust him. He wears glasses
That’s how you know they’re credible
i wear glasses too. can you let me know your credit cards' digit and its expiration date.
I love your profile picture. that was one of my favorite pieces of art ever as a tween
@@tergivesup6783 sameee! It's art goals
i feel like “because i wear glasses is some sort of sleeper agent word”
I'm watching this video shortly after Kit Connor's tweet blowing up, which to me is one of the most heinous examples of the effects of internet "identity regulation." The misuse and abuse of the term "queerbaiting" is a bane of the internet.
I can't believe that two videos by different people on this topic came out, just for the problem with claiming celebrities to be "queerbaiting" to come up blatantly with Kit just a few days later. Like, so topical it's insane.
@@Shadow_from_the_sun what-
@@catsaregreat6314 basically making gay your entire personality
@@EC-yw5hg nobody does that
@@catsaregreat6314 Sadly some people do. But most gay's I know stay to themselves
I think the act of putting queer subtext isn't a bad thing. It is the gaslighting after the fact that is so insidious. They use a film language that is intricately tied to queer identity and history, but when we as a community say 'thats queer' ppl will reply with 'stop over analyzing' and 'cant (gender) just have platonic friendships'. The rest of society treats us like we are just making things up. Just another step in cutting us out of history. They cut us out of film history this time. Then when we go to the creators to confirm what we are seeing is real we get anything from leading coy answers to outright heteronormativity and homophobia. And I think what is happening with celebrities is somewhat tied to the trauma we have about this. A left over nihilism that says relying on subtext will only lead to that same feeling of mounting disappointments and powerlessness. And that really sucks bc it isn't good for anyone.
Another commentor explained it as not using that subtext sincerely which I think is a great way of putting it. And I agree that this is the main issue people have rather than needing explicit representation as the video insisted. I think the step the video didnt cover is its usually after plenty of insencere subtext or dismissal behind the scenes when people get fed up enough to go from hoping for explicit representation to saying the lack of clearly defining queerness within canon is a problem... on several occasions happening because after much queerbaiting the creators insist on making a conical declarations dismissing queerness.
Well said! I resent how cishets have historically been encouraged and celebrating for "shipping" both fictional characters and real people and for assuming cishetness as a default, but when queer folks do it, we're told we're "overthinking it" or "reading too much into things," or scolded for being gay hammers who are always in the search of a nail.
I don’t think the video dismisses this though. The video isn’t about queerbaiting in media in a general sense. It’s about celebrity queerbaiting and the affect of identity politics gatekeeping certain kinds of discourse. While there is a lot of time spent defining queerbaiting, it’s done in a very Death of the Author approach. Like with Ben-Her, he mentions the screenwriter used his bisexuality to inform certain scenes. But ignored that Charlton Heston wasn’t aware of any gay subtext during filming and staunchly denied and rejected any gay reading of the movie after it came out. It’s never said whether or not the gay reading of the movie is the “correct” one. Just that subtext was out there as an established language for certain people to pick up on.
It would be interesting to hear his opinions on the gaslighting that tends to happen after the fact. But that wasn’t a focal point in this particular case.
@@wrmsnicket respectfully disagree. An enter section of the video is about defining queerbaiting which was made necessary because it is generally accepted as a term used to discuss media but is now seeing people utalizing it to apply to real people and their action.
@@wrmsnicket I wasn't trying to argue against the video it's more like a thought this video happened to spawn since he pondered over what the heart of the issue with queerbaiting is and how that plays into how we understand the accusations of celebrities today. I expressed what I feel the answers to these musings are in my original comment with the intent of continuing the discussion.
Something I hate the most about when real people get accused of queerbating is how it often reaffirms outdated, constrictive ideas about gender expression. People seem to think that if a man dresses in a feminine way then he must be queer, and if he isn't then he's queerbaiting. Same for women, if a woman dresses in a masculine way she must be queer and if she isn't then she's queerbaiting. Its a super backward way of thinking, clothing has no gender and people should be able to express themselves in any way they like regardless of gender or sexuality. I get that dressing in a gender non-conforming way is a historically queer form of expression, but I don't think we should be gatekeeping this either. If cis and straight people want to dress in a non-conforming way, in my opinion that can only be a positive thing as it just further breaks down cultural barriers and expectations about gender. I feel like our culture has become more squeamish and less accepting of this in recent decades. Back in the 60s and 70s, straight male rockstars like Jimi Hendrix and Mick Jagger and Robert Plant all dressed in a very flamboyant and feminine way. And of course there were bi icons like David Bowie. The way Harry Styles dresses is nothing new for a male rockstar, and I don't think his sexuality is even a tiny bit relevant. I want to live in a world where the link between clothing and gender and sexuality has been completely torn down and people are free to wear whatever the heck they like
YES
I completely agree! And hair as well.
Very much agree with your point, and I think it's applicable to someone's entire being rather than just the clothes they wear. Trying to label and police a community literally named "queer" as in other and weird the same way you police the norms we already have is harmful, because it turns queerness into just another box when the point of queerness was to rid us of the boxes all together.
Thank you for saying this! People should be allowed to express themselves however the hell we want, otherwise we're just playing right into purity culture's hands. It breaks my heart that people don't realize how policing the way someone should or shouldn't look depending on their perceived identity is exactly what transphobes do.
Can we just take a moment to appreciate whatever is going on on his wall.
It out-Pepa Silvias "It's Always Sunny" 👌
it's basically a piece of artwork
That is creepy
@@Charles01343 Uhhh, how?
I've been thinking about queerbaiting a lot in the past few days, especially when it comes to real people and being 'out'. Queerbaiting should not be applied to real people, because you shouldn't have to declare how you identify in order to avoid being harassed for expressing 'queerness'. If you want sexual/gender liberation you can't get mad at Harry Styles for wearing a dress without saying he's queer first, or get mad at Cardi+Normani for posing nude for their single.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I was thinking of how people call real life celebrities out for "queerbaiting" when a celebrity might say something like "as a man, men are cute" without flat out confirming their sexuality then later date a woman and people call them liars. I feel like in some instances people expect people to be 100% straight or 100% gay when it's a spectrum and for some people labels don't work. It's different for shows because they're not real people so you can make them any way you want. Real people have the right to identify or not identify as a certain sexuality/gender
Well said
I mostly agree but you don't get to use a flag that says "make America gay again" if you're not willing to say you're gay & even if you *are* gay, you still shouldn't use it because it's an insane line that sounds like the gay agenda boogie man bigots fear so much.
I absolutely agree.
Also I somehow missed the or in “or get mad at Cardi+Normani for posing nude for their single” and was like “damn that got misogynistic fast” XD
!!!!!
I think my biggest issue with Harry’s weirdly removed assessment of mlm queer media was also just this obnoxiously puritanical notion that sex must be either tender and sensitive OR “rough,” “hardcore” “animalistic.” For me the subtext is not only is it impossible for sex to be both soft and hardcore, but softer sex is *real* sex.
When we look at the overlap between the queer community and the kink community, we can recognize that sex need not be slow paced and “soft” to be loving, caring, intimate sex. One doesn’t negate the other. And if seeing men “go at it” with one another only bothers him in the mlm context (it didn’t bother him in Don’t Worry Darling or other het portrayals??) Even if Harry is queer himself, I think he’s likely surrounding himself with heteronormative, vanilla people who make HIM feel the most profound and noncomforming in the room. In many spaces a guy like Harry is the least radically noncomforming male identifying person. It’s all relative, of course. But I think it would do him well to make distinctions between his perceptions of a community based on his incredibly specific and removed subject position as a “straight passing” celebrity and the general norms, dynamics, and practices of the community that he may or may not partake in or be exposed to. It’s no less real or valid just because he isn’t aware of what exists in, by and for the queer community!
He was rephrasing something the director said in interviews before he ever said it, and in his own work he has never shied away from queer sexuality, releasing a music video showing himself in bed with three men only a few weeks before and regularly singing a song about sucking dick in his show. His movie has 5 gay sex scenes in it, and his costars have been asked constantly about it in interviews because it is so explicit. People need to admit that they do not engage with his work and comment on it anyway. It's fine to choose to not engage with anyone's work, but it's simply ignorant to suggest that Harry hates gay sex.
This was also my biggest gripe. I don’t know anything about what his real sexuality is but I can’t help but think what that comment perpetuates. Whether he is open or not the ambiguity works in his favor and he’s given a platform to say things like this that stigmatize queerness and kink.
@@gee8419
Edit: context. The person I’m replying to made a comment defending harry because he makes queer content and that one of the creators made the comment about mlm sex that he was just restating. Their comment no longer loads for me but I’m not talking to myself lol.
I’m not sure you actually read my comment to be honest, because I never claimed he himself isn’t making queer coded content. I don’t even believe that he’s straight? I myself am queer and I could post queer content on my social media but that wouldn’t necessarily mean I am exposed to other queer content and the queer community in my offline life. I’m saying if he both frequented queer spaces and engaged the large variety of queer content that exists OUTSIDE his own brand, he wouldn’t make a comment like that. Queer culture is only effective if it’s inherently sex positive. There are already so many pressures for queer people to conform, even within the community (literally why the concept of queer baiting exists, because behaviors and expressions are considered to be more queer than others), we don’t need hyper privileged queers to tell us what *real* queer sex or love looks like, or anyone for that matter! The focus should be on representing the many diverse manifestations of it.
If he is repeating the stupid comment of the creators, it’s still a bad take. They’re all wrong imo. He is a big boy with his own autonomy - if he disagreed with the statement then he wouldn’t repeat it.
To be honest, it just sounded to me like he watches a lot more gay porn than queer cinema.
I really don’t think that’s what Harry Styles meant though. I think if anything he was just trying to say he wished to see more sex scenes of mlm which were more tender and loving (not that one was better than the other, just that he personally prefers the softer more intimate scenes). I understand how people can take what he said in a negative way, but I really don’t think he meant to come off critical. I think it’s just hard sometimes for people to say directly what they mean. It would of course have been better for him to be direct and say, “I would like to see more romantic mlm scenes in film and tv.” But saying that outright might be difficult for someone who is in the closet to publicly admit. (Of course I can’t claim to know what he meant because I’m not him, but that is how I choose to interpret what he said).
Being a big fan of 80's hard rock/heavy metal, the thought on my mind whenever I see these accusations against guys like Harry Styles is: Are they really queerbaiting, or are they just peacocking?
For real, I've seen countless Rockstars just loving to dress up, have long hair and wear makeup because they wanted to look good. And almost all of these guys were exclusively into women, not queer at all.
Why are we in 2022 more judgmental than people in the 70s, 80s and 90s??
Are we forgetting the long hair, skinny jeans and flowery shirts of Led Zeppelin? The high heels and tight leather clothes of Motley Crue and KISS?
Why are we acting like this is new???
literally, my friend once said to me "the internet, today, would bully kurt cobain for wearing dresses on stage" and it stuck with me. i don't think our community (and many "allies") understands how much damage it can do
@@VixxKong2 the reason they think he is gay isn’t really about how he dresses is more of them reading into things about how he seems to have or have had something with one of his band mates (can’t remember the name) and I think the way he refers to himself and the lgbt community but idk exactly I am not into harry styles so idk but from what I have seen it goes more on that way
@@Bluarlequinno
Well people were shipping him with Louis, but that is just how fans are. And a lot of the times, bandmates will do skinship just to exite their fans.
From what I know, nobody sees skinships as queerbaiting. It's seen more as fanservice
@@VixxKong2 It is *now*, yes. I've never been into One Direction, but the level of harassment and insistence that many loud and aggressive fans had about Harry and Louis being in a "secret" relationship was disgusting. I would be entirely unsurprised if part of why Harry only uses labels "with friends" is rooted in his experiences within One Direction.
I think what's missing on the Harry Styles (and about others) analysis is how much the discourse relies on text book biphobia. Ok, it's his position that we should move away from rigid labels and that he does not feel the need to clarify anything (which btw is his position on anything personal), which, regardless of whether u agree or not, is his right. Straight ppl don't need to clarify they're straight before making straight art. So, like u said, he has a song where explicitly says he's been with guys and girls (and points at himself while singing it) plus two music videos where he's with men and women (and ppl of other genders). So it's very interesting that he is accused of faking queerness, that he is asked to prove himself by detailing his dating history. I do NOT believe he would stop being criticised if he came out as bi/pan, bc the only thing twitter is doing is replicating biphobic discourse, regardless of his personal identity label.
Thank you for putting this into words better than I could
ALSO let's take a peak at the HYPOCRISY of how people react to Harry.
Bowie did all this, he did this for decades and he did it while constantly saying that he doesn't want labels on those things. He DENIED labels and normative presentation, and nobody hates him for it.
I sometimes wonder if the reason he's not "coming out" (not that I think it is a necessity as my personal belief is that the culture of having to come out reinforces the belief that cishet-ness is the norm, but you do you) is because he also wants to avoid people speculating on his relationship with his friends/coworkers/co-stars as they did with Louis (I believe). Even if not, he doesn't really owe anyone the knowledge about his sexuality but yeah, that was the first thing my mind went to.
@@Saphia_ ABSOLUTELY, ppl also miss that the speculation and debate about his sexuality is not new or something he caused by presenting queer (whatever that means), but it's been happening constantly since he was a 16 yo kid. There's been a dedicated group of ppl on the internet trying to out him for most of his formative years. If the only thing he wants is to be himslef in his terms and for ppl to just leave him alone , he is very well in his right given all of that.
I also think it's disengenous to not actually look into what Harry has done for his queer audience specifically. He is clearly not indifferent and while waving flags and helping ppl come out at his shows (more than dozens of times atp) is not revolutionary, it is a positive aspect of his public persona. Yes he is a rich white man and will never be anything else and ppl should not loook to him to be a revolutionary icon. But he is not just taking without giving in return, he has positively impacted sooo many people.
‘An Overanalysis’ is exactly why we flock here. Thank you for your new video essay which gives us life. I’ve been waiting for this since I saw a sneak peek of it on Twitter.
love that feeling when a video essay squishes your brain around into a new shape
This is such a good way of describing it! I hate that feeling 😃
Ooooh, THIS. You actually put into words some of the things that have been bothering me since 2019 and the "is Good Omens queerbait" discourse (which to this day is enough to drive me into a fury). There is just NO WAY that we can have one specific thing to signify Good Representation™. You want a kiss? I've seen a kiss used for bait before. You want something sad out loud? I could give you multiple things with one-liners stating queerness that are really frikking straight the rest of the time. And then don't get me even started on the "kiss or it doesn't count" crowd equating queerness to romance/sexuality. Screwing over, among others, trans people, aromantic people, asexual people, and queer people with any other kind of relationships. Like, you know. Friends and older queers mentoring younger ones.
Anyway, what I like to look at is how much queerness was used during promotions for the movie/show, and how normal the creators act about it. Your video was really helpful by giving me other questions to ask. The feelings of alienation is a good one.
And yeah, real people are NEVER queerbait. Also, let guys wear skirts in general, jeez. They are comfy and they look good, and it is genuinely not fair that we haven't reached the point yet where anyone can wear them.
As an asexual person, the idea of kissing or it doesn't matter implies that queerness doesn't count otherwise.
That's what really annoyed me about the discourse around Good Omens. For me as an asexual guy, it was really cool to see a positive mainstream representation of an asexual relationship but it seems like, according to the internet, anything other than an explicitly homosexual relationship is queerbaiting...
I think some of it comes from some Straight ppl hating queerness and using any excuse to deny its existence. And queer ppl using the same metric to determine whether it’s queer.
It’s toxic on both fronts
Not gonna lie. I've always found myself in "gay" dominated parts of the internet, vr-chat, certain sub-reddits, this TH-cam channel. I wear dresses on occasion and my favourite colour to wear is pink, I love to bake, I have a teaching role. What I'm saying is I'm a stereotypical straight guy that acts like a gay guy. I fully get Harry's stance here, I'd prefer if all blokes we're more open to feminine traits and activities instead of having to split the line between super gay, and super straight.
Would you call yourself queer?
I'm similar to you, and I do. Partially because its all there is that works. Its all a mess :o
@@lysergidedaydream5970 They just said they're straight.
(Forgive me OP if I'm wrong)
A straight man can be feminine without being gay.
I can't with you correlating a 'teaching role' with gayness 💀
Slay king
@@wrathofthelamb318 You can be queer without being gay
They didn't ask if they call themselves gay, they asked if they call themselves queer. There are spaces within the queer community that considers gender non-conformity as belonging under the queer umbrella. Asking if they see themselves as queer is not answered by referring to their sexuality. Queerness is broader than that
Being a former tumblr-ite at the height of Supernatural fandom - this is the “overanalysis” I’ve been waiting for my entire life. Thank you!!
Holy shit… I think my friend transcended queer.
For a little backstory, this friend was dating someone who identified as a girl, then realised they were some flavour of Non Binary. This friend realised that they didn’t really like this person because of their gender; they just liked THEM. Naturally some people (including myself lol) asked him what this meant in terms of his sexuality, but in a conversation between us, we voiced it; he’s just him. He isn’t really straight, isn’t really bi, he’s not even super queer by some definitions. He’s just him. And that’s kind of how I want to live my life. Labels are helpful and swaggy and awesome, but with labels, there always comes a risk of “policing” how one uses those labels. This has always been something I resented about the community.
It’s taken me a while to realise that I can just be me. I don’t have to find the specific label that feels right. I’m just queer.
I'm only fifteen minutes in, but in my opinion, the problem with the use of queer subtext in media today has a lot to do with the fact that the restrictions that originated the practice are no longer in place. I think that's why people expect an explicit delivery of that promise. Personally, I rarely see queer subtext used sincerely today. And I love subtext. Sometimes I even prefer it to explicitness. However, in cases like bbc merlin, bbc sherlock, supernatural, house md, and many others, I can't help but feel that I'm being used by people who have no real interest in paying homage to that wonderful practice that is the art of queer subtext, and only want to tell a story that draws me in without compromising the loyalty of the heterocis audience.
With regards to applying these same expectations to real life people, though... I don't understand it. We have no right to demand people share anything with us. Famous people seem to lose their humanity for their audience the moment they hit the spotlight. They cease to be people and become commodities, objects to be owned and where all sorts of expectations are placed, with no thoughts spared for the person of flesh and blood buried under the weight of fame. Younger queer people who feel entitled to this information from their favourite celebs would do well to remember what people like Dirk Bogarde and Rock Hudson were put through back in the day. And if that's too far back, then they could think about men like Lee Pace or Daniel Howell, whose lives in the closet were defined by the horde of people that demanded explanations and revelations they never had any right to ask for.
I understand that displays like Harry Styles' might feel tacky and insincere. Hell, I can't say I give a damn about the man myself. But even if that WAS the case, even if Styles was using his "ambiguity" to make a pass at the queer community and profit off of them, that is not his problem. It's us as consumers who choose what we do with our wallets. If you insist on giving your money to ambiguous famous guys because you THINK they might be queer instead of -at the very least- famous OPENLY queer people, then that's your problem and yours alone. Personally, I think that money would be better spent within ourselves and our communities instead of anyone famous at all, but that's just me.
"Used sincerely" is the best description I have come across. Myself and others have used whole paragraphs to explain what you did in two words. From now on I will say it "What makes something queerbaiting is having evidence the queer subtext being utalized isnt being used sincerely.
@@krose6451 for example, the end of Supernatural turning the queer subtext into outright queerbaiting and christo-conservative homophobia.
I think another big issue with modern queer subtext is knowledge of the subtext; you can only say that the queer subtext is representation IF you know exactly how it was used. Most people know about queer censorship, I'd say a lot of people know of queer coding during said censorship, but I think if I pressed any of them to tell me an exact thing in a movie they couldn't.
I hundred percent agree with what you said. I would like to add something about the appeal of the subtext. It reminds me about being a teenager and wondering if x or y was interested in me. In my case, x or y was not interested by me but we spent many a night with friends deciphering every gaze exchange. With the subtext, more often than not we are right to see it. Though, ultimately it is a socialisation medium. You strengthen your relationship with your group by doing that. I'm pretty sure republicans do the same thing about false flag narratives. The will they won't they is very gripping. That being said like my teenage years (I'm straight but painfully akward) it's a no, they won't in most shows. The lack of balance between our investment and free marketing on ao3 and social networks, and the number of shows for which it pans out is hurtful in the end and for queer audience probably just a reminder of the time they fell for someone straight and did not dare make a move. The Mulder and Scully unresolved sexual tension worked to make X-files long lasting. It's just that with a straight ship, ultimately the writers give you what you invested into. Short of making it text, I'm not sure mainstream has any way to make sincere subtext.
That last paragraph really hits
As a queer (pan but in an open m/m relationship) theatre artist, I’ve always had trouble with this when it comes to casting.
It’s always bothered me when people try to gate-keep who should play what roles. We say that coming out isn’t anyone else’s business. And we all admit that sometimes people can claim to be straight when they’re not. I know a trans actor who built their whole musical theatre career as the gender they were assigned at birth. They don’t want to transition until they retire because they don’t want to have to re-build their whole career or learn how to sing again with a new voice.
Maybe a role is the way a person is able to explore a hidden side of themselves or is a stop on the journey to coming out or could be the only way they feel they can truly be themselves- we don’t know.
While I understand about authentic representation and that there are often limited roles for queer people, I don’t think it’s a simple answer. And it gets even more complicated when the actors are teenagers or even younger (a good problem to have as we get more queer media with younger characters or aimed at younger demographics)- we expect them to totally know who they are and to be out?
I think we need to have more grace and leeway for people- while pushing for more authentic representation and roles for queer actors.
Really sad that only two days after this is posted, Kit Connor was forced to out himself after ‘queer baiting’ accusations. Poor guy.
I'd love to see more alternative commentary on how real-life people can be hurt by the notion of queerbaiting, with Kit Connor from Heartstopper being forced to come out recently because people were accusing him of being straight and stealing a queer role. Same thing with Becky Albertali, who was being accused of fetishization and wrote a really heartbreaking letter about how she'd been forced to come out.
Real life people can be hurt by the notion of celebrities, too 🤔
@@mareepthesheep4567 what does this even mean and why is it relevant
@@mareepthesheep4567 their isn't a "notion of celebrities". famous people exist.
I liked how you mentioned you can criticize the way Harry Styles acts without theorizing or digging into his identity. That feels like something both "sides" to this argument were missing
Just gonna throw this out there: if Harry was somewhat attracted to men, but also mostly dating women - and would openly say so, he would likely be criticised for that as well. Bis who are leaning hetero romantic (as I am and suspect him to be) usually end up being either called ‚closeted‘ or ‚fake‘. I‘m not sure how one wins that situation? We gotta be either straight or gay or if we are bi, we need to be exactly in the middle and date gay, cause otherwise we’re not ‚real‘. Maybe the solution would be to just accept that we’re all human and don‘t fit into neat little drawers at all? Instead we inhabit a variety of spectrums, making up a kaleidoscope of our individual personality.
"it's gayer to fail the gay test than to pass any stinky test" I am jumping up and down I am cheering I am tattooing these words to my face I am turning them into a chant my new cult has to recite
I’d like to join this cult plzz
that's a stupid sentiment. being gay isn't about being edgy or rebellious, it's just about being homosexual... there are gay people with all different beliefs and levels of 'societal conformity', and if someone is like, a gay conservative or something, that doesn't make them 'less gay' than someone who's a gay anarchist or whatever. being gay isn't a personality trait or a political statement, it's just who you are.
@@FOXNEWSDEATHCULT In the world as it currently is, particularly in certain Western countries, being ±openly gay *is* actually a political statement.
±EDIT: added word
@@kashiichan it's not inherently a political statement though, only how open you are about it and how you treat it and talk about it. that can be a political statement absolutely, but the sexuality itself has nothing to do with politics. you may as well say 'having brown hair is about defying the system'.
@@FOXNEWSDEATHCULT So long as people in power who want us gone exist, being openly gay will be seen as a statement. We have yet to eradicate hetero & cis-normativity from the greater hegemony, thus queerness is innately part of counter culture.
The exchange section lost me on the assumption that the exchanges aim is explicit declaration/representation. For many its just a matter of 'if you're gonna put rather obvious subtext in you better own it and not put people down when they recognize it or mock them for hoping to see confirmation." I think Hannibal is a great example. A majority of the fandom wouldnt think to accuse it of queerbaiting because of the handling of the creators and cast in regards to what they did and how they treated fans shipping Hannibal/Will. They dont shame, they dont dismiss, and the never insist on "taking it back" in canon by making a point of having it made clear its all hetcis here you silly people. Then there is Sherlock where the creators have openly laughed and treated it as an oddity that even before the BBC show there were people who read there relationship as queer. What they put in the show was obviously meant to titilate shippers while behind the scenes they openly dismisses and scoffed. Hannibal used queer subtext to give characters richness and tell what is fundamentally a queer story even if their isnt explicit rep shown by the main characters. A very different thing to Sherlock, Teenwolf, Supernatural, and others with documented cases of creators judging while using shipping or reading of characters as queer to keep that section of the audience engaged but only in ways they can and likely will definately take back or never acknowledge as genuine.
Exactly! I think queer subtext is great. But the thing about queerbaiting is that the CREATORS, not the fans, usually deny that this kind of subtext can and should be read as queer, both inside the world of the show and in conversations about it. Fine, don’t make it explicit. But at least don’t openly mock queer people for seeing what you purpusefully put in there and then have the "queer" character marry a random, straight love interest they met five minutes ago.
James Somerton has a great video where he discussed this. I believe it was the one on gay nuance in film.
I LOVE HANNIBAL SO MUCH this is so true and it's wonderful how queerness was explored in Hannibal it's really a blessing to queer media
Well hannibal and will were written to be in love romantically after season two. Bryan wrote them to be romatic. Hugh and mads played them that way. No queerbait at all.
It's canon.
I've given this comment a thumbs up because I mostly agree, but BBC's Sherlock was worse than that. Throughout the first season (and maybe the second; COVID has destroyed my sense of time) the writers (one of whom was a gay man) were very careful to answer questions about a potential relationship between Sherlock and John in ways that were vaguely-affirming, confirming only that something was "building" between these two characters. The writers wouldn't agree outright, but were extremely careful about ever explicitly denying it. Eventually, this stance abruptly flipped on it's head; John suddenly had a wife (played by **the actor's actual wife**. For emphasis? Who knows) and the writers were suddenly scorning the fans for seeing things that were "never there". Threads were abruptly dropped, the subtext language became virtually non-existent, and the fans were left reeling. It was a gentle, careful enticement right up until we got close enough to punch in the face.
I came out recently, at 40, I didn't struggle with internal homophobia, I grew up with homosexuality as nothing more than a biological dimension, but I knew socially I wanted to be sure, because like an internet comment, or peeing n a pool, its hard to reverse, and my catholic family are accepting but not good at nuance.
seeing this in my recommended right after the kit connor situation 😔
I saw this video yesterday and today we have a live example...
A case that always comes to my mind when talking about people being forced to out themselves is definitely David Bowie coming out as gay caused by pressure from the public and ended up expressing a deep regret later on, especially after being criticised AGAIN for then being kn relationships with women after that forced label didn’t quite fit him, as he happened to prefer to be unlabelled. Ofc we need to consider that even the label “bisexual” wasn’t label enought and he was forced to make a choice between “liking men” and “liking women”, but I do believe that there are a lot of parallels to the cases we currently whiteness being discussed all over the media
I'm only 20 minutes in so maybe this concern is addressed later, but I find the comparison of explicit and implicit representation incomplete. Yes, a part of the reason queer people want representation is the internal thrill of seeing one's self reflected in media which is provided by the implicit, but a bigger part is wanting the associated societal effects. When _everyone_ sees something portrayed in mass media as a normal and acceptable part of culture, it becomes normalized and influences wider public perception. But if only people within a specific subgroup who are fluent in the language of the subtext can see it, that effect is completely lost. In other words, many non-queer people aren't even going to see the implicit queer representation and therefore won't be influenced by it. Back when the explicit, confirmed representation was banned, there was a feeling of solidarity with the writers who we assumed were doing as much as they could and signaling to us that they're either queer themselves or accepting of the queer community. But now that signalling doesn't exist because they're _not_ doing as much as they can so the subtext takes on a completely different meaning.
In other words, in the history of implicit "representation", it isn't actual queer representation but rather a sign of solidarity which signals a desire to provide actual representation. When nothing is preventing the actual representation (beyond potential loss of other audiences), it's just a false signal sent to make money.
is Shawn Mendes actually queerbaiting? He seems more like a target of hypocritical queer heteronormative """humour""
Yeah I don't think he is either but it's definitely not only straight people calling him gay.....
yh nothing about shawn screams gay to me, he's just a white guy who seems to give off more sensitivity and leans into a bit of femininity with his looks and energy than the idealised hetero guy (like c'mon, this guy is into meditation and manisfestation). this all about makes him an easy target for both hets and gays to mock for whatever, and i believe he's ragged on more by the gays, it's kind of sick In my opinion with how long it's been and people can't let go of it.
It reminds me so much of Kirsten Stewart's coming out. Both are conventionally attractive, but have visibly queer aesthetics that they aren't ready to address yet.
A baby gay, if you will.
@@338holly 'visibly queer aesthetics' ...have you watched the entire video? I don't think we should be labelling people in such ways because it only ends in more boxes with more restrictions
it's heart breaking to see what happened with kit connor today because of these same archaic notions on queerness, and expectations from celebrities. 💔💔💔
YESS
the content i subscribed for. i've wanted to have this conversation about harry for SO LONG!!!
i can't watch this vid now cos im going into a class but I CANT WAIT TO WATCH THIS LATER alex, gracias!!!!!!!!
I keep thinking about all "queerbaiting is for queer folks to read in, straight guys couldn't catch it". Truth is - I'm queer, and whenever me and my straight friends and family stumbling on queerbait, everyone in the room actually can recognize it. It is often surprisingly subtle, and when I'm pointing that out, most of the times they are agreeing with me. All of the slightest things like touches and look read by them easily, even when they don't recognize the reference.
5:15 This whole part describes way too many Japanese cartoons. They'll go as far as having girls go on dates, make out, & have sex with each other only to later have one of them randomly get together with the male main character & not even acknowledge the cheating aspect even though the other girl is *right there* & they're talking about the main character.
But of course it "doesn't count" as cheating because the girls never actually said "girlfriend" or "partner" or "I love you". They just did & said everything else that could imply it & were consistently monogamous & neither of them had done any of it with anyone before or ever shown attraction to a guy. Also, the reason I say "girls" is because they're usually 14-16.
Alex your videos are seriously so well done!!! So clever and thorough!
I mean, yeah, I kind of do want 'Twilight but gay'...
Identity regulation.... That's it! it sucks I see that becoming so common from a community where I and many others expected openness and acceptance regardless of the details of our private lives. I know how it feels to look forward to and search representation every where on media and irl, but it gets to a point where it stops being fun and becomes obsessive and suffocating.
Kinda frustrating that we want more flexibility when it comes to gender norms then criticize people for not conforming to gender norms. Even if Harry Styles was actually straight I fail to see how him wearing a dress does any harm whatsoever. No one accuses straight women of queer baiting for wearing pants, and that's something that used to be considered super queer up until a few decades ago. Now it's just normal. Men wearing skirts is easy more common throughout history but that's queer baiting somehow.
I think your criticism of the exchange theory of queerness being a paradox only works if we imagine the creators of the shows that queerbait would honestly have a dialog with their audiences claiming that subtextual queer representation is still representation. What we historically got instead was vehement denials that there was anything queer about it in the first place. For the creators there was no promise, textual or subtextual, of queer representation. I get the impression that the creators of the shows had sublimated the language of coded queer cinema and romantic tropes to such a degree that it just seemed natural to portray John and Sherlock staring longingly at one another on screen or use the sexy lady pan-up and nervous man reaction shot for Castiel and Dean. They knew they were riffing on coded gay and romantic tropes, but they never saw doing so as meaningfully transgressive or promissory.
Now, a decade after the original Tumblr queerbaiting criticisms, more creators are actually understanding the meaning of these tropes to queer audience members and do understand them in terms of a promise for representation. See Our Flag Means Death and Sandman. So we got there eventually.
I firmly believe that real people can’t queerbait, or at the very least people can’t blindly accuse real people of queerbaiting. This is simply because, unlike fictional characters, real people can change and develop different interpretations and understandings of their own sexualities with time. Is a person queerbaiting, or trying to explore their own sexuality? Even if someone is outwardly straight or claims to not be queer, that isn’t something set in stone. And even then, there’s a chance that they’re closeted and maintain being straight because of the potential backlash coming out could cause them. Like the whole Dan and Phil fiasco.
Basically, I think “queerbaiting” as a concept can only be applied to fictional situations and characters, and NOT real people or scenarios.
Agreed
This simply isn't true. Queer baiting does exist and is do-able. Nicki minaj literally did it in the early 2000's all the time
@@rawfermews4186 ok, let me rephrase my argument; people can't blindly accuse other people to be queerbaiting, regardless of social status. You can not ever know for sure whether or not a celebrity is queerbaiting unless they admit to doing so. For all you know, that celebrity is experimenting/exploring their sexuality or gender identity. Even if that celebrity is publically straight/cis, that doesn't mean that that information is the same in private, nor does it mean that their perception of themselves will not grow and/or change in the future.
@@mochibunnyan6556 The reason people are drawing criticisms and conclusions is because they are actors (it’s their job) and the representation doesn’t exist without a camera around. These criticisms are fair, unless we want to excuse straight men romanticizing each other for our pleasure but I personally would rather a world that’s more genuine. I think that’s the point of this video that you’re missing.
@@mochibunnyan6556 Also, can you justify why someone would admit to queer baiting? Are we implying that liars fess up all the time? Why would they explore their sexuality exclusively on-screen?
i always watch one of ur videos before writing a sociology or philosophy essay it gets me in my argumentative mode,,, great video as always!!!
Im only 30 minutes into this video so far, but I just want to write a huge thank you! Your helping me build a better understanding around my relationship to media that is uncommunicative of explicit queer text/subtext but yet feels as if it holds something beyond the hetronormative constraints of many mainstream medias products. Much of the more nuanced+quasi academic language that you use is going over my head, LOL, but I am happy to say I am taking at least a small part of what your saying and hopefully digesting it in a way that will leave me able to better navigate the media I consume!! Again thanks for your content, cant belive you publish this for free! Will definitely be subscribing to your Patreon as soon as possible! Are they gay? Who knows!
well this quickly aged well with Kit Conner being bullied into coming out. Shame on anyone who participated in that
this
I just don’t think I can ever forgive Derida for stealing Foucault’s hair and grafting it to his own head smh
Kit Connor, one of the stars from Heartstopper, has been forced to out himself which he did a few hours ago. A section of the fandom repeatedly harassed him and his co-stars on Twitter and other platforms up until a point where apparently, Connor had to step forward in order to prevent his career from taking a heavy hit as well as protecting the Heartstopper Cast&Crew. Prior, said section from the fandom accused Connor of "queerbaiting" which led to him coming out even though he didn't actually want to.
This is a new perspective on the subject. Please consider it.
I hope he is oke
Why would he feel so cornered when there’s a large portion of us that are glad for genuine representation. This is sad
@@ThatFont yeah, this is the very kind of ignorance that led to this whole mess. you're not entitled to someone coming out publicly. respect people's privacy. you never know why exactly they're reluctant to speak up about something as intimate as their sexual orientation. jesus effing christ. shouldn't us queer folks know all too well that exposing yourself like that might have an extensive negative impact on your life?
besides, social media didn't "ask" for him to out himself. cut the sugarcoating, please.
@@merlinhlr3553 lol rude. It’s a general concern for how sexuality is represented in the industry as a whole, if it’s not genuine it’s almost always misrepresented, not about how this individual practices their interests.
@@ThatFont It's not his job to be our representation. And people should be allowed to come out when ever or if they want to.
i like your funny words, magic man.
watching his videos while not having english as your first language really is like listening to the longest spell being said.
@@chaipivo ikr
coincidentally, I'm writing an article for my school magazine about queerbaiting!! I will be definetely borrowing some info from this video😈
dont forget to credit the twink in glasses
something i really resonate with is you mentioning how queer ppl often want to enforce heterosexuality by being so rigid with queerness. this is something i’ve been noticing more and more as i settle into my own identity, and it makes me wonder if i’m thinking too hard sometimes. so i appreciate that point being brought up multiple times and discussed in depth
youre my favorite youtuber actually
you put my opinions into words with sociological terms im obsessed
Good job putting nuance and interesting theory in what is, indeed, very annoying online discourse. And thanks for breaking down Judith Butler's writing, it's not the easiest to get into !
I can't describe in words how much i enjoy your new content!
Thank you for your hard work 🤝
you and your content/contents skills have really evolved and grown with your audience.
I remember watching the merlin bbc edition of “are they gay?” what seems like a very long time ago (I couldn’t even touch the foot pedals five years ago. now I can legally drive a car??). now I’m watching this very well researched video essay from you. it goes further in depth and really showcases the work and effort you put into these videos.
(also, I like that you still keep humor and references in your videos.)
insanely brilliant and an astute break-down of identity politics uses and limitation and a stern reminder queerness is a social construct. thank you!
This video was really insightful and managed to articulate the criticism I already had about real people being "queerbaiting". I also found the criticism of identity politics very insightful and also relevant to my own current trouble with labels. It really comes down to criticising the actions of a person, not the person itself or their identity.
On the topic of gay media that just perpetuates cis-het tropes/structures, I can’t help but think of (and I’m so sorry to bring this up in your Good Christian Comments Section) the abundant use of “omegaverse” in media depicting gay relationships. The whole thing kind of originated in the realm of slash fanfic writing, but now it seems to be expanding into more commercial areas, and I’m sure there are already people who have made a lot of money off of media featuring it. I just think the trope is so ironic, if that’s the correct word, as it is mainly utilized to depict gay relationships in the most heterosexual way possible. Like we invented a separate universe for fiction where there isn’t homophobia, but there are still all the deep-rooted prejudices and controlling systems that come along with it, just ascribed to a new set of identities. And for sure, such a thing can be interesting to explore, but only if you’re actually inspecting and subverting the whole thing. But the majority of omegaverse narratives I’ve seen do nothing to challenge any of it. In fan fiction, it was just an innovative excuse for the characters to fuck, which I’m certainly not opposed to, but I think sex pollen is a perfectly fine trope that can serve the same purpose without making it so weirdly cisnormative. My unemployed ass could write fifteen essays on this but I’ll stop here.
I feel like the way omegaverse codifies its particular family of romance tropes puts it in a weird spot, morally. It picks out destined love, uncontrollable lust, and obligatory monogamy and makes them biological imperatives, rather than patriarchal social constructs. And that simultaneously creates a permission structure where characters have no choice or culpability in perpetuating this model, while implicitly acknowledging that this scenario belongs in an alternate reality. I don't see that as necessarily bad or good, because the appeal of fic often isn't being realistic or aspirational, but the sheer popularity of it is fascinating.
i love this video so far (20 minutes in) but had to pause and comment because im losing it at the "trust me im wearing a shirt" joke, that was so well done. ur script writing for these videos is so high quality
New drinking game: take a shot everytime Alex adjusts his glasses
Loved the video as always, the continuous jokes kept my ape brain on track and i love it
Edit: word
Thank you for all of your hard work, Alex. Your videos are so careful and loving and reflective and so obviously well researched.
I think all of this sounds like a really nice pipe dream- to be able to define ourselves without relation to straightness. But I feel like it doesnt hold up in a society that revolves around straightness. Maybe in 40 more years
That legitimately blew my mind. thank you amateur internet sociologist.
This was insanely good and really accessible. Thanks for making this video!
Now, Kit Connor had forced to out himself because of accusations of queer baiting, this video you are making is VERY important right now!
This was definitely the hardest I've had to think in a long time. I really appreciated how challenging this was.
I’m only ten minutes into the video, and I’ve already laughed out loud multiple times! Your sense of humor in combination with genuine informational queer content is always a delight!
I love the bisexual lighting you're using. Gay subtext
TBH I don’t agree with every conclusion you drew (yet, I might change my mind) but I feel shaken to my core by this entire piece. I am rethinking some things in very unique ways. Im a big fan. You’ve got the power to stimulate the noggin in the media critic space that I crave.
yes! finally a video essay on this. when those tweets blew up about harry styles I was so confused
Lestat said it right when he said he was "undefined" in the new Interview With The Vampire show. I have always felt that way. Why box myself into something that makes other people feel more comfortable. Who I'm attracted to is no one's business besides mine. Sure it helps people find out who is safer to be around and gives something to bond over, but limiting people just b/c of who they might want to sleep with or date is baffling. It took me so long to realize these things about myself b/c a solid definition was hard b/c of how society views this stuff.
I do get disappointed in media that hints at something and nothing happens, sure but outright displays aren't always necessary. We don't need to see someone confirm it physically or verbally sometimes.
this is an amazing anaylisis and dissection of a topic that ends up branching out into so many different directions. it's like super impressive that you were able to tackle so much of it and keep it all wrapped together. i honestly think this will be a video i send to people because the evolution of "what is queerbaiting?" to "what does it mean to be visably/tangibly queer?" (what whatever sense that question even means) is an important one to ask ourselves whether we subscribe to strict labels or not. fantastic video.
I really like this argument! I’ve long been nervous when the internet tries policing what people do unless they outright say they’re gay. It’s almost like they’re trying to forcibly out people. Always gave me a bad feeling.
This. It's essentially harassing people to disclose personal information about themselves, especially when that information has consequences.
Commenting for the algorithm gods. This was an amazing watch. Your videos keep getting better and better!
Man I'm loving these essays. Keep it up Alex!
Wow. As much as i enjoyed your are they gay videos, i am so glad you're pursuing video essays. This is pure gold
Oh boy, I'm soooo hungover. Also this is the first post-arethey video I've watched, hooray? idffk, my head hurts, maybe this helps?
I just wanna say how glad I am that you decided to spent your wit and precious time on making hourlong videos on the tube and that the algorithm has led me to them!
This is one of the best video essays I've every seen! So many great points!
Man, I have been on my feet for 26 hours, working a shift, then going to London and back. I was about to faceplant thw pillow but now I see this has been uploaded... damn it.
as a queer sociology major these videos always make me so happy, I love the sociological perspectives you bring to queerness
your videos (essays) are always so well written i love the comedic aspect.. and of course the knowledge you bestow upon us 🥸
love the new style of content !
I think we want explicit queerness because we want the stories to explore queer experiences and love, not just say "these two are implicitly queer" and treat that like it's representation. We want love stories, and passion, and feelings- not just the implicit knowledge that maybe that is going on behind the scenes. We deserve narratives that in some way touch upon what it is to be gay, and to be lesbian, and to be bi, and to be trans, and all the other stripes of the infinite rainbow.
Or at least, that's my two cents.
Oh and also, its really annoying when the implicitly queer couple gets paired off with straight lovers and makes it clear that they never loved each other because the producers wanted to quash the subtext. All your implicit-but-nonetheless-valid representation can be crushed like a delicate flower.
And, I want the queer narratives in stories to exist for everyone, not just the people on the lookout for them. I want straight people to see a story about gay or lesbian romance, not just have it encoded in a way that only we can parse.
That's all the change in my pocket. Guess I had more to say than I thought.
BRAVO
Still mad at the Janis and Kevin G curveball at the end of Mean Girls
I agree but queer baiting and subtext gay narratives have affected the way queer representation is presented and it is hard to have quality explicit representation
This is definitely the vibe and has been for a minute. Great stuff
I think that any type of policing of individuals (yes famous ppl are individuals too) can be dangerous. Ofc there's levels to it and what not, but as a queer myself I would rather use my energy to call out big companies for pink washing and queer baiting. A lot of companies go "yay pride month hey gays" at the same time as not treating their lgbtq+ employees well, donating to anti gay organisations etc. To me, that is a far more important activism to tend to than getting on someone's case for wearing "too gay clothes". But that could just be me 🤷♂
that was a big and very very interesting video with a lots of different ways if thinking this problematic. I'm sure i'll have to watch it again bc it' that kind of question when you want to find a opinion but the more you think about the more complex it become. And rethinking queerness is the kind of discourse that maybe we need more and more since capitalism have rebrand it with family-friendly and heterosexual code or code that reject other community like ace ou poly.
But in summary, very good, love your channel as always ^^ (my english is bad sorry)
loving your style and the tender bisexual lighting. You´ve done it again Alex!
I’m gonna source this video for part of a presentation I have in a sociology class! Thank you for being such a great educator and theorist, you put these concepts into much more digestible terms and it’s so important.
What a timing. Haven't watched the video yet, but in the light of Kit Connor being forced to come out because of accusations of queerbaiting literally yesterday this is an incredibly timely conversation.
ACAB includes policing gender and sexuality
The problem I have is when celebrities are celebrated and rewarded for their (perhaps superficial and brand-oriented or even mocking) transgressions of gender or sexuality norms while other people (perhaps doing it more authentically) are targeted for violence, and then the celebrity doesn’t devote time or resources to draw attention to or to combat that violence. Harry’s groundbreaking for wearing a dress, meanwhile families are fleeing Florida and Texas and Tennessee so that their trans children can do the same thing, and I don’t see Harry doing nearly as much about that as I see him trying to get the intrigue about The Spit to last another news cycle.
thank you SO MUCH for this essay it's freaking brilliant and frankly so is the comment section (so far of what im seeing anyway). really great and substantial discussions going on here that i genuinely wish is what we could see more of on social media at large
I'm only at @18:20 and i already have lightbulb moments going off. Of course the culturally reinforced expectations of fan entitlement to "Explicit" queerness would snowball from fictional characters in 2014 into our largely unhealthy parasocial expectations of entitlement to "explicit" queerness in real people in 2022. I adore this channel so much! Thank you for everything you do.
Your videos make me think that Philosophy isn't actually lame and my surface-level analysis of the world is insufficient. Thank you ❤️
Returned to this video after the low-key outing of Billie Eilish
I love the visuals and the little gags and of course the nuanced and very informative analysis
This was incredible. I would love to get my hands on the bibliography!
I think this better explains the opinion I've had on queer representation and what I wanted to see more of, better.
Ive always explained it as "I want all the queer-bait, but then eventually, they get together." When I said queer-bait, I meant the subtext, the stares, the gestures, the hints. I genuinely like seeing a lot of subtext, the thing that always annoyed be was that there was no expansion on the subtext, the two never got together romantically etc at any point and it was left at that. Although explaining it as "I want to see this type of queer representation in par with another type of representation (sub textual and explicit)" definitely puts it into better words. Yes I dislike it when queer-baiting occurs, and I'm an advocate for explicitly queer representation, but I dont want to get rid of sub-textual queer representation, nor do I want sub textual representation to be called queerbaiting as a default.
came here for your amazing analysis on a complicated topic and polished production… stayed here for the jokes.