Queerbaiting is a term that’s recently soared to prominence in discourse surrounding popular media and people in the public eye. The very definition of queerbaiting identifies it as a marketing technique that aims to attract LGBTQ+ audiences by hinting at queer relationships or characters, without alienating homophobic audiences or censors by not explicitly portraying those relationships. Though the concept of queerbaiting has become more common in public discourse surrounding characters in popular culture, it is often forgotten that queerbaiting explicitly applies to fiction and entertainment. Misuse of the term occurs when it is applied to real people, often those in the public eye or entertainment industry, leading to speculation surrounding their sexuality and accusations of exploiting queer identities for financial gain.
“Misuse of the term occurs when it is applied to real people, often those in the public eye or entertainment industry, leading to speculation surrounding their sexuality and accusations of exploiting queer identities for financial gain”
One such figure that has been under fire for exploiting queer culture without clarifying his sexuality is Harry Styles. The British pop artist is known for his flamboyant style, often wearing looks similar to that of Prince, Billy King and David Bowie. However, Styles has not publicly declared his sexual orientation, and fans were quick to theorise how genuine his connection is to the queer community. We can see this pattern cropping up time and time again. A more recent example of this is the young actor Kit Connor feeling pressured to come out; the Heartstopper actor was accused of queerbaiting because he was perceived to be straight whilst playing a bisexual character. This misplaced outrage on individuals in the entertainment industry can potentially lead to feelings of isolation and anger towards the queer community, leading to further division rather than a supportive confluence of individuals.
“This misplaced outrage on individuals in the entertainment industry can potentially lead to feelings of isolation and anger towards the queer community, leading to further division rather than a supportive confluence of individuals”
We are now living in a world where, though there is extreme pushback against queer rights and identities, there has been a huge step forward in mainstream media recognizing the LGBTQ+ community and advocacy for positive and nuanced representation. We have seen characters in TV shows question their sexuality and gender identity, arriving at a variety of conclusions. So why is it that we deny celebrities this same experimentation and exploration, and instead label them with an identity that may not even apply to their sexual orientation?
On one hand, it could be a symptom of heteronormative societal ideals – people are perceived to be straight until they’re confirmed not to be. By assuming celebrities or individuals in the public eye are heterosexual unless they have explicitly come out, fans often jump to conclusions which serve as a base for their outrage. This outrage could also be an extension of the parasocial relationship fans often develop with their idols. Parasocial relationships are defined as one-sided relationships between an individual who is extremely emotionally invested in another party who tends to be unaware of the other’s existence. Though it has been popular for fans to develop parasocial relationships with their favourite characters through physical manifestations of “headcanons” or fanfictions, it is dangerous to apply these standards to real people for several reasons. A character’s story will always have an ending that is open to interpretation – if an anime character dies, their fans will continue to write fiction about their survival. However, this cannot happen with a celebrity, as they are rooted in reality. Celebrities are also still people, and the commodification or objectification of them denies these individuals of their agency, ultimately resulting in them being a brand rather than a person.
The concept of a real person “queerbaiting” extends far beyond the desire for queer representation in celebrities and popular culture. By hounding and even harassing entertainers to state their sexuality in explicitly labelled terms, these “fans” are adopting a transactional approach for a one-sided relationship: I invest time, money and interest in you, and am therefore owed information about you. This is a harmful presumption, as it further objectifies people in the public sphere, and removes any privacy or security from their lives. This transformation of celebrities into spectacles rather than people results in a society where any celebrity’s actions or relationships are open to the public.
“The concept of a real person “queerbaiting” extends far beyond the desire for queer representation in celebrities and popular culture. By hounding and even harassing entertainers to state their sexuality in explicitly labelled terms, these “fans” are adopting a transactional approach for a one-sided relationship”
This is not to say that celebrities cannot and do not exploit the queer community for their own interests. However, this disingenuous support is referred to as pinkwashing, a strategy which promotes queer rights as supposed evidence of liberalism, and is a more accurate expression for the behaviours individuals apply the label queerbaiting to. By aligning themselves as allies or supportive members of the community and then acting otherwise, they are creating displays of false allyship which are far more harmful to the queer community than a celebrity who is reluctant to label their sexual orientation.
Ultimately, the term queerbaiting cannot be applied to celebrities: queerbaiting is simply a tactic used by the media to dehumanise and further force people in the public eye to be treated as objects of entertainment rather than people working in a public industry. This is a societal issue, rather than an individualistic problem, as it further perpetuates heteronormative standards and identifies being straight as the default, rather than another equal option. By extending compassion, privacy and understanding to the complex issue of identifying your sexual orientation, we can as a collective move towards a more inclusive and accepting society, leaving the queerbaiting to characters only in fiction.
