Chels

Much like queer coding, queerbaiting is a term that has become widely used (and widely misused) online over the last decade. The popularity of the term, and the new scrutiny with which we examine media (queer media especially) has almost diluted the concept, and it has strayed a little from its original meaning.

What queerbaiting is

Queerbaiting is the act of hinting at, but never intending to develop, a queer relationship in a piece of media. Whether through small references or implications within the media itself, or ‘clues’ given in marketing or by creatives, even though they know there will be no queer content. It’s an inherently malicious act, capitalising on what used to be a lack of queer representation in popular media to attract queer audiences, especially young people, who are excited to potentially see themselves represented on screen.

Disney is a big offender when it comes to queerbaiting in marketing – so many of their films are advertised as having the first openly gay character or the first queer couple, such a big fuss is made over it, and such uproar caused online from people on all sides of the political spectrum, only for the film to come out, and the queer couple in question merely walk past the main characters in a brief scene, or the gay character is just queer coded and used as a punchline. 

For many years, Sherlock was accused of queerbaiting. Where Disney’s offences were more forgivable, more from seeking the praise of inclusivity, the Sherlock queerbaiting was certainly malicious, on reflection. Of course, Sherlock and Watson are not implied to be a couple in the original books, which would normally be an indication that any implied tension is just audience misunderstanding, but Sherlock really took their hints to the extremes. Characters often presumed they were a couple, and the male leads would deny it, but with knowing looks – to the audience, it seemed as though they were clued in on a big secret. Throwaway lines would imply a relationship, but instead of building up to a relationship, they build to an episode which mocks fans that became invested in hints and clues – not just about a queer relationship, but about the show as a whole.

What queerbaiting isn’t

What queerbaiting is not, however, is inferred queerness. Queerbaiting is entirely based on the actions of creators and the content of media; not the audience interpretation. For example, a potential queer couple that is popular with audiences, but the creators have stated will not become a couple, and have not deliberately hinted as such, is not queerbaiting. It’s often described that way by people who have heard the term queerbaiting used surrounding popular queerbait couples like Sherlock and Watson. I think some of the misconception might come from the name – younger people, or those less familiar with media analysis terms, tend to instinctively think of queerbait to mean ‘bait’ for queer people – simply media and relationships that we are drawn to. They also understand queerbaiting is bad, so wires get crossed along the way.

Similarly, a will they/won’t they relationship is also not inherently queerbaiting. I think this is a more nuanced situation – plenty of books, films, and tv shows employ will they/won’t they relationships – it’s a popular trope for a reason. Of course, the will they/won’t they aspect is key for hinting at a queer relationship when it comes to queerbaiting, but I don’t think that it is inherently malicious. For me, the rule of thumb is that if a straight couple could be expected to act in a similar way, and if marketing and promotion would be carried out similarly, then it’s just a normal part of advertising and drumming up interest in a piece of media. Of course, I think it helps if the characters have already been confirmed to be queer – part of the discomfort of queerbaiting is the hint of queer characters, references that a small in-group would catch, only to be confirmed as straight when the queer intrigue is no longer profitable.

Most importantly, queerbaiting is a term to describe media. Real people cannot and do not queerbait. It’s so common to see people accusing singers or actors of queerbaiting these days, for merely being private about their sexuality and existing on the outskirts of social conformity. It seems to happen mostly with male celebrities – men who explore fashion outside of the typical masculine style face intense scrutiny – people feel they are entitled to know whether they just dress eccentrically, or if they’re queer, when it’s frankly none of our business. Requests for privacy are interpreted as queerbaiting – as if not wanting your sexuality to be discussed and scrutinised online is a big indicator that you must be secretly gay. 

I definitely think queerbaiting is a problem – though we are becoming more adept at spotting it, so it becomes less lucrative (who wants to get invested in a piece of media that is clearly not going to deliver what they’re hinting at? One that assumes its audience is not aware enough to pick up on obvious misdirection?) As well, we’re seeing a rise in actual queer media, from Bridgerton’s upcoming season to Heated Rivalry. Instead, though, the bigger problem has become the misuse of the term queerbaiting to really encompass anything ambiguous, misunderstood, or disappointing when it comes to queer media.