Have you ever watched a show or movie and thought two characters of the same gender should’ve gotten together? Maybe it seemed like they were setting that up the whole time the characters were interacting. Then things go on and on and on and there’s no pay off to the set up. They never get together, they seem to just keep pining over each other. And then the story ends. Well, dear reader, they queerbaited you. What is queerbaiting anyway? Let’s find out!
Definition
Queerbaiting is a tactic used to draw in queer audiences. It’s when a piece of media hints at some form of queer representation with no intention to follow through. This can be through advertising or through making it seem like characters are going to get together and then shutting that down, usually in a harsh way. This phenomenon usually occurs in TV shows and movies. It’s important to note that the term only applies to fiction.
Why is it a problem?
Queerbaiting is a problem because representation matters. Representation is its own separate issue that’s way too broad to get into right now, but we do talk about it here. It boils down to the idea that it’s important for people to be able to see people with similar experiences to them and that they can relate to, and media is a major way that we accomplish that, especially in queer circles.
Examples
- Sherlock: The BBC adaptation of Sherlock is notorious for its queerbaiting tendencies. Time and time again, the show overtly hints at the idea that the two main characters might end up together. Given the source material, this isn’t exactly a new idea. I have my own interpretations that also don’t happen. However, the show proceeds to go out of its way to shut these notions down, introducing love interests for them fairly late in the show out of nowhere.
- Riverdale: One of the most textbook examples of this that I’ve seen is Riverdale. One of the scenes in the first episode featured a kiss between two girls as part of an act. In story the notion that that particular scene is indicative of something queer. The marketing team heavily used the scene out of context leading up to the show’s release though. This intrigued queer audiences, having read into some queer subtext in the source material and assuming this meant that said subtext would become text in this adaptation. The show would develop a queer viewership based on the ads, as people were excited to see explicit representation.
- Supernatural: I’ve never personally seen the TV series Supernatural, but it’s often viewed as a major example of queerbaiting. I watched a couple of episodes at a friend’s house one time. I lost interest in the first scene, which featured a woman violently dying. I like it when the media I consume has living women characters, but that’s also its own issue. From what I can gather, and you can find the whole story from Sarah Z here, two of the characters were functionally a couple for roughly a decade and when the show ended, this came to fruition and one of them immediately died.
- Marvel Cinematic Universe: I’d be remiss to not at least touch on the MCU. Given how expansive it is, there’s no way to cover every possible instance of queerbaiting that it’s guilty of. There are a couple of major ones that I remember. Interpretation is really important when it comes to discussions of media, especially with representation because relatability is so central to it. However, there have been instances where they’ve said that a character would be queer with no follow-through, such Loki. In Norse mythology, the god Loki was what we would identify as genderfluid. When they made a show revolving around the character, they assured audiences that they would reflect that. It wasn’t. Viewers watched the entire mini series waiting for this so-called “representation” and it just never happened, making it a pretty standard example of queerbaiting.
- Disney: They’re guilty of some pretty blatant queerbaiting, particularly in the form of their “first gay character”. It would seem every piece of content that they publish features something to that effect in the advertising. The work itself never mentions this. For example, they confirmed that LeFou would be gay in the live action Beauty and the Beast. This was shown through a tiny blink-and-you’ll-miss-it scene where he dances with another man in the background. That’s obviously not good representation, if you could even count it as representation at all.
Things to Consider
As with any issue like this, there’s a lot of nuance to keep in mind. Because there’s so much discourse, it can be hard to come up with clear answers on whether something is or isn’t queerbaiting.
Fiction vs Reality
Queerbaiting only happens in works of fiction. It’s important to keep in mind with discussion of queerbaiting that it’s a marketing tactic, and nothing more. That is, real people can’t queerbait. Queerbaiting accusations have come up against a number of celebrities. They most certainly were not actually doing so. Someone’s orientation isn’t anyone’s business except for the person in question. Even if the person is a celebrity, no one is entitled to personal information about them.
People can express themselves in whatever way they want to as long as it doesn’t harm anyone. Expressing oneself in a way that could potentially be read as queer as someone who isn’t out isn’t inherently bad. We have to remember that queer culture isn’t as clearly defined as a culture based in ethnicity would be. Therefore appropriation (outside of maybe using slurs that aren’t someone’s to reclaim) isn’t really a thing.
A figure presumed to be straight listening to artists with large queer followings or making an announcement that happens to fall on a queer visibility day (I’m talking about Taylor Swift, if you were wondering) doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re hinting at their audience that they might be queer. While it certainly could, it doesn’t make their audience entitled to confirmation one way or the other. Celebrities are still people, and audiences need to remember that and treat them the same way they would a person who expresses themself in a queer way without actually coming out.
Characterization
Sometimes, setting can impact what would be appropriate in the way of representation. This means that some stories might not explicitly state certain things, and that’s okay. Interpretation is a very important part of how we consume media. While that doesn’t mean that queerbaiting isn’t a thing, there are instances where we don’t need to jump immediately to queerbaiting conclusions.
For example, I was watching this show with my sibling one time, and one of the episodes hinted that a character from the 1940s could potentially be gay. When I say hinted at, I mean it was really obvious. Like, my mother, who watched Fried Green Tomatoes and thought “ah yes, a completely straight story” picked up on it. There’s no confirmation, meaning that it seemed like it would fit the definition, but it made sense in story, and was consistent with the characterization up to that point.
Compare that to something like Sherlock, where it would’ve made sense for the characters to end up in an openly queer relationship. There was definitely build up, and everyone in universe and out assumed that that was already the case. It was just a matter of time before the show runners confirmed it. Instead they put both of the characters into straight relationships that didn’t make as much sense. They paired Sherlock Holmes with Irene Adler, which the source material had shut down. Meanwhile, John Watson got married. If I remember correctly from seventh grade, there was very little, if any, development of that relationship before that happened.
Storytelling
This one can be complicated. At what point can we actually consider something queerbaiting as opposed to developing a build up to a relationship? We wouldn’t bat an eye if a straight couple pined over each other for years. However, it seems like people are quick to jump to queerbaiting lately. For example, in the TV show adaptation of Neil Gaiman’s Good Omens, it felt like people were claiming that there was queerbaiting before the first season had even ended. Maybe I’m just biased because I was fond of Neil Gaiman as a child, although that doesn’t necessarily mean anything (JK Rowling), but it seemed people drew this conclusion fairly quickly. Again, if they were straight, it’s likely this backlash wouldn’t have happened.
Queer people are very starved for representation though. With queerbaiting being such a common thing, it’s understandable that audiences would be skeptical that there’ll be any follow through to a clear set up to a queer relationship, especially if the creator keeps telling viewers to wait and find out when asked about it. Creators disappointed queer viewers in similar situations so many times that they don’t trust it won’t happen again. On top of that, it would seem that shows don’t run for as long as they used to. With this lack of longevity, viewers start to worry that even if a creator has a plan to flesh out a queer relationship, it might not happen due to the unpredictability of networks.
Audiences are completely reasonable to have this line of thinking, but maybe we need to be more careful about jumping on the queerbaiting train when it’s not necessarily the case. Again, there’s a notable difference between Good Omens and the examples listed above. Supernatural took around a decade acting like they would make the queer relationship canon, and its resolution felt very rushed, on top of falling into the “bury your gays” trope. Ultimately, creators can only use the character development excuse for so long before it becomes a problem.