Queerbaiting, Fetishisation, and Heteronormativity: A Complicated Relationship
By Elio Wilder (they/them)
CW: mentions of homophobia
Over the past few years, the rise in accusations of “queerbaiting” has seen the term increasingly misused and misunderstood. Valid criticism of actual queer-baiting has been replaced by the perpetuation of heteronormativity and the harassment of individuals. This piece is an examination of several much-discussed examples of queerbaiting and whether or not the label is warranted.
What is queerbaiting?
‘Queerbaiting is a marketing technique for fiction and entertainment in which creators hint at, but do not depict, same-sex romance or other LGBTQ+ representation.’ It is harmful because it allows businesses to financially benefit from queer people and culture without providing explicit or meaningful allyship.
Queerbaiting and music
Despite the original definition applying exclusively to film and television, more recently musicians have face accusations of queerbaiting. In this context, queer-baiting is used to describe a musician that implies queerness without explicitly identifying as LGBTQ+.
It is important to note that individuals cannot queer-bait, only brands can. However, sometimes a brand is so connected to an individual that it can be difficult to separate a person from their brand, particularly when they use the same name. For example, it’s reasonably easy to understand that Katheryn Hudson is a person and Katy Perry is a brand. It is more difficult to comprehend that Ariana Grande is a person and Ariana Grande is a brand. This linguistic stumbling block has made the conversation around queer-baiting and musicians particularly complicated.
Though it is understandable when a musician wants to keep their sexuality private and separate from their brand, it is frustrating when a musician implies queerness without publicly identifying as part of the LGBTQ+ community. Queer people want to feel genuinely represented in media and entertainment. It creates a feeling of belonging and connectedness through shared community, culture, and experiences of oppression. Queer listeners want to support fellow LGBTQ+ people rather than cishet musicians performing queerness for profit.
A recent phenomenon
In 2013 Hozier released the song and music video Take Me to Church, which criticises the persecution of queer people by the Catholic Church. In 2017 Selena Gomez released the music video for Bad Liar in which she portrays a sapphic character. Despite neither musician being LGBTQ+, they didn’t face significant backlash.
Perhaps because the expression ‘queerbaiting’ was lesser known at the time, and rarely used in reference to musicians, but also likely because LGBTQ+ rights were still seen as debatable. Queerness was regarded more as a taboo rather than a marketing tool. Tasteful portrayal of queer themes even by non-LGBTQ+ brands was seen as allyship.
Now, with the de-stigmatisation of queer existence, corporations have realised that queer people can be targeted to increase profits with minimal risk of conservative backlash, making queerbaiting far more commonplace.
Problematic behaviour incorrectly labelled
Unfortunately, the term queerbaiting has become increasingly incorrectly applied to situations that were problematic, but for reasons other than queer-baiting.
Screenshot from Billie Eilish’s instagram, Fair Dealing
For example, in 2019 singer Billie Eilish released Wish You Were Gay which some fans thought would be a coming out song but turned out to be about how she wished a man that rejected her was gay to spare her ego. She was met with accusations of queerbaiting. But the intention of the song was not to profit off of Queer listeners, rather it came from a place of arrogance and self-pity and was certainly tone-deaf.
In another incident, Eilish posted an Instagram promo for Lost Cause captioned ‘I love girls’ and the music video featured many women dancing together at a sleepover party with sexual undertones. She was again accused of queerbaiting. However, the tone was fetishising, so rather than appealing to sapphic women and trixic non-binary people, it was really performing for the male gaze. It would’ve been more appropriate to label this as fetishisation, rather than queerbaiting.
Katy Perry has since admitted that her 2008 hit I Kissed A Girl was problematic. Another example of fetishisation rather than queerbaiting.
Perpetuating heteronormativity
If a musician makes an explicit implication of queerness, it is reasonable that people will ask for clarification, however polite enquiry has been trampled by full-blown harassment in far too many cases.
Musician Conan Gray has written many songs that imply queerness, and he has used love interests of a variety of genders in his music videos. It is reasonable that people are curious about his sexuality, and it is equally reasonable for his response to be that he does not like to label himself. In his song Overdrive, he literally sings the line ‘don’t give a f-ck about labels’. The accusations towards Gray of queer-baiting are ironic, when it is the accusers themselves that are harming the queer community by reductively suggesting that people must label their sexuality. It also suggests that being unlabelled is the same as being straight, positioning heterosexuality as the default.
Queerbaiting and screen
Queerbaiting was originally used exclusively in reference to film and television. This applied when production companies and executives implied queerness to attract viewership without providing meaningful representation or platforming stories created by actual queer people.
A Reddit comment on queer-baiting in Sherlock, Fair Dealing
The TV show Sherlock faced significant accusations in response to the implied tension between the two male leads (and the longstanding belief that Holmes is canonically queer) that led viewers to believe that there would be an eventual romantic plotline. This was discussed extensively online whilst the show was still being written; discussion which the producers/writers would surely have been aware of. Despite this, the plotline never eventuated, leading queer viewers to feel that had been strung along, watching in the hopes that they would see some representation, only to be disappointed. This is now considered a famous example of queerbaiting.
Parasocial Relationships
However, discussion of queer-baiting in TV and film have gone beyond the production companies, with individual actors now being accused. Once again, individual people cannot queerbait.
It is often forgotten that actors are employees, auditions are effectively job interviews, and it is generally illegal to ask someone their sexuality during a job interview. So, unless an actor is already publicly out or they explicitly label themselves during the audition process, a casting company has no actual way of knowing the sexuality of who they are casting.
Although LGBTQ+ actors bring authenticity to their portrayals, many actors prefer to keep their sexuality and dating life private. Additionally, some LGBTQ+ actors specifically avoid queer roles for fear of being typecast.
Societal obsession with parasocial relationships has led some viewers to wrongly suggest that individuals owe the audience a label.
“Seeing sexuality as rigid labels with clear, immutable definitions is contradictory to the fluid understanding of gender and sexuality that is necessary for societal advancement and Queer Liberation.”
Kit Connor’s tweet response to queer-baiting accusations, Fair Dealing
Actor Kit Connor was accused of queerbaiting when he played a bisexual character in Heartstopper. In response, he tweeted, ‘I’m bi. Congrats for forcing an 18 year old to out himself.’
Most frustratingly, Connor had said in interviews that he was unlabelled. Yet, people were accusing him of being a straight actor playing a queer character. Further perpetuating heteronormativity: that someone is straight until proven otherwise.
The lead actors in the recent film Red, White, and Royal Blue have also been accused of queerbaiting. Once again, neither leads have ever explicitly stated their sexuality. It is toxic and heteronormative to presume that they are straight and it is entitled to demand that an individual owes the world a label in order to avoid harassment.
This ties into the broader cultural phenomenon of gatekeeping queerness more is generally. Seeing sexuality as rigid labels with clear, immutable definitions is contradictory to the fluid understanding of gender and sexuality that is necessary for societal advancement and Queer Liberation.
Final thoughts
Queerbaiting is TV shows that imply a queer plot line only for it to never eventuate. Queer-baiting is media companies that fund straight directors and writers to appropriate queer stories. Queerbaiting is social media brands/influencers that pretend to be queer in order to get views from the LGBTQ+ community. Queerbaiting is record labels portraying their straight industry plant as LGBTQ+ in order to attract streams.
We need to give our time and attention to LGBTQ+ media that’s created by people who are part of the community, correctly label and call out harmful behaviour, and release ourselves from the rigidity of labels in order to dismantle heteronormativity and advance Queer Liberation.
Note: The term queer-baiting is usually used in reference to sexuality. For the purposes of this article, I used the term ‘queer’ primarily in reference to sexuality minorities, as trans and gender diverse people are still highly stigmatised, they are impacted by queer-baiting differently.
References
https://www.mookychick.co.uk/feminism/lgbt/sherlock-queerbaiting-toxic-fanfic.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZKXkD6EgBk
https://genius.com/Hozier-take-me-to-church-lyrics