Submitted by i_love_anachronisms t3_ygq09e in television
PaulFThumpkins t1_iu9zzth wrote
Agreed, there's definitely intimacy and a sort of attraction portrayed in the show, but neither are sexual, at least not necessarily. Whether people feel baited by reading into it I don't know, but the overarching problem will always be discomfort and sexualization of male intimacy in our culture.
xarabas t1_iuam6by wrote
That's exactly what Anthony Mackie was complaining about a while ago.
Basically, he was frustrated that because Sam and Bucky shared some sensitive moments people just started going “they’re gay” and shipped them. I don’t believe it to be coming from a homophobic place, more of asking a question - why does the fact that a man has sensitive moments with another man make people assume they’re gay with each other? I think it’s ok to ask that question.
It is pretty much saying “only gay men can be sensitive and if your male character shows sensitivity with another man he must be gay.” People are more complex than that. A man could be effeminate but not gay, or could be a “man’s man” and also be gay. A well-written character should also share that complexity
Act_of_God t1_iub7zou wrote
people ship characters who in-fiction legit hate each other all the time, it's not about the scene being innocent. Shippers project their own head cannon into the story because to them it's more fun that way, the only problem ends up being when someone doesn't have a healthy separation from the art and they actually get angry about it
Vestalmin t1_iueixu7 wrote
People are free to ship whatever they want, I get annoyed when their rhetoric starts to become how they are written that way, it’s just not stated outright.
Like you can have your fanfic, but don’t start calling it fact
sati_lotus t1_iugvypp wrote
Fans will get entitled over the stupidest things - relationship they think should happen, casting, storylines not being 'correct', CGI not being up to snuff etc.
Marvel just had a show that mocked this type of fan and nothing will change lol
DavidsWorkAccount t1_iub3smw wrote
I don't feel it's male sensitivity per se. Fandoms have been "shipping" characters in the same show for awhile now. While some of these ships are due to things in the story, many times it's just 2 characters that a group of that fandom are attracted to.
Sam and Buckey aren't ugly and sure have some fans that think they are good looking. Just being the same show and they probably would have been shipped, even without that scene. Just like how many fans shipped Sam and Dean from Supernatural (who are clearly brothers and not romantically linked).
Haslinhezl t1_iued5oy wrote
Anyone who ships any characters is mentally unwell
Olddirtychurro t1_iubjy97 wrote
Same with Sam and Frodo. Sure, gay representation is important and there should be more of it but not at the cost of being able to show emotional friendships between two men. Or even men and women actually, the more these things are shown the more they are normalized and we can slowly chip away at certain aspects that lead to unrealistic expectations.
It's why I'm also quite happy with the growing trend in shounen anime that shows more and more platonic friendships between boys&girls with zero romantic tension between them.
matticusiv t1_iuc0wab wrote
Reminds of Sam and Frodo in the LotR, people can’t see two men show affection for each other without screaming “gayyy”. Although these days it’s less derogatory, but still ignorant.
Imaybetoooldforthis t1_iud0acy wrote
The thing I find sad about it is if a man thinks that they’ve clearly never had a meaningful male friendship.
If a woman thinks that they clearly don’t understand good male friendships.
Dread to think of the number of people peddling this narrative that must fall into the above.
OddFeature t1_iuatei3 wrote
Quote from the article:
> “So many things are twisted and convoluted. There’s so many things that people latch on to with their own devices to make themselves relevant and rational,” Mackie said. “The idea of two guys being friends and loving each other in 2021 is a problem because of the exploitation of homosexuality. It used to be guys can be friends, we can hang out, and it was cool. You would always meet your friends at the bar, you know. You can’t do that anymore, because something as pure and beautiful as homosexuality has been exploited by people who are trying to rationalize themselves. So something that’s always been very important to me is showing a sensitive masculine figure. There’s nothing more masculine than being a superhero and flying around and beating people up. But there’s nothing more sensitive than having emotional conversations and a kindred spirit friendship with someone that you care about and love.”
Honestly kinda a weird and confusing take from him. I also want more sensitive straight guys, but there’s literally nothing remotely problematic about wondering if two sensitive dudes wanna fuck each other. I think he’s really overthinking it here and to be honest he does come across as pretty defensive and a little resentful of anybody that thought they might be gay—but whatever it’s just some random quote and doesn’t really matter much.
Also I can’t speak for everyone, but I personally just thought they might be gay because of that scene where they land on top of each other and also the therapy scene where they intertwine legs—which I personally read as similar to the romantic tropes you might see between a man and a woman. Me thinking they might be gay had nothing to do with their sensitivity or how deep their friendship was, I just genuinely thought the writers might be setting that up by including those tropes.
Edit: Curious what people disagree with here that is causing them to downvote. Feel free to leave a comment if you wanna have a discussion.
pasher5620 t1_iubegrn wrote
People are downvoting you because you are doing what Mackie was arguing against. You’re taking things that are not explicitly gay (I.e. two men being close as friends) and turning it into them potentially being gay. The issue is that those tropes are seen as explicitly romantic when it should be instead viewed as intimate instead.
OddFeature t1_iubh3hw wrote
Fair enough—I mostly disagree with Mackie’s point so that tracks. I just don’t see what the issue really is with interpreting a close male friendship as maybe being gay. It doesn’t invalidate the friendship in any way and I feel like he’s in some ways taking gay relationships a bit too seriously and inadvertently misrepresenting what they might actually look like in reality.
Like this comment he made about homosexuality is a little weird
> something as pure and beautiful as homosexuality
Gay dudes that are dating each other often have a deep friendship that in a lot of ways might resemble a deep friendship between two straight dudes. That’s all I’m really saying here. Like cool, they didn’t end up being gay and that’s fine—I just take issue with the implication that thinking they were gay really means anything or lessens the impact of their bond or really just says anything at all about straight male friendships. It’s just kind of a fragile and insecure take and I found it a bit disappointing.
DMPunk t1_iubk7by wrote
The issue is that people see close male relationships as ONLY being gay. The idea that emotional intimacy with a male friend means you want to fuck them is why so many men have difficulty being emotionally open. It's a core component of toxic masculinity
OddFeature t1_iubol6y wrote
I don’t disagree at all that emotional openness being seen as gay is a core component of toxic masculinity, but the best response to toxic-masculinity-fueled accusations of gayness is simply to be unbothered by accusations of gayness. The issue is the toxically-masculine viewpoint of gay = bad.
Also I more or less disagree that people see close male relationships as ONLY being gay. I personally don’t think that, for whatever that’s worth.
MagicTheAlakazam t1_iucut7t wrote
You're right despite being downvoted.
The writers i think intentionally queer baited in this show and then Mackie doubled down with being offended that anyone interpreted his character as queer.
Like it was a bad situation and Mackie came out looking awful.
OddFeature t1_iueb7yk wrote
Ya, agreed to an extent. Though I don’t personally put too much stock into “queer baiting” as a concept, as it implies an intention from the writers to deliberately trick the queer community into watching the show. I think the more likely scenario is actually that a heteronormative writer’s room just thought it would be funny if two straight dudes fell on each other or had to go through couple’s counseling and wasn’t thinking about how queer people would perceive it at all. That seems even more apparent when reading Mackie’s response, as he seems to be speaking directly to who he perceives as the intended audience for the show—straight dudes.
ChristopherCaulk t1_iudc0g5 wrote
How the fuck did the writers queerbait on that marvel show???? Did we watch the same thing or were you watching some xxx parody? I don't think anyone with common sense thinks he came out looking awful, quite the opposite.
MagicTheAlakazam t1_iudelf2 wrote
The couples counciling scene and the fall on each other through the field scene would be setting up romance if you switched one of the genders.
Also look up what queer baiting is. It is by default hinting or doing some subtle setups that the queer community will pick up on to interest them while going over the heads of straight conservative viewers with no intention of actually delivering on the relationship.
Queer baiting is designed to look like nothing when viewed by a heteronormative audience. See bbc sherlock, dean and castiel on super natural or rizzoli and isles.
realblush t1_iub1r3i wrote
The article and Fuller very clearly state that the two are falling into a homosexual relationship.
myassholealt t1_iualnyu wrote
>but the overarching problem will always be discomfort and sexualization of male intimacy in our culture.
My perspective is that of a gay woman who in past shows would, for my own entertainment, decide I'm gonna pretend these two characters are together (biggest example that comes to mind is ADA Cabot and detective Olivia Benson in SVU).
One of the reasons I would read into interactions what is or isn't there is because back in the day there were not a lot of options to see a genuine lesbian relationship on my TV. The level of closeness and intimacy that you see all the time portrayed between a man+woman wasn't something queer audiences got to experience often if at all. So when you'd find a show that portrays a relationship that seems deeper than a typical friendship portrayal, you get a bit excited. And you assign this additional context to the scene.
So I would say it's not just a discomfort but sometimes a response to something you don't get a lot of but would like to. So when you see hints of it, you latch on. And often what you're reading into the scenes is not what's happening. But then sometimes it feels like it's exactly what they want you to think even if it's not what's happening. Hence the queer baiting label.
OddFeature t1_iuc4i8d wrote
>but the overarching problem will always be discomfort and sexualization of male intimacy in our culture
We definitely need to get over our discomfort of male intimacy as a culture, but I actually think the first and most important step for that is to completely discard the “no homo” mindset and fully embrace that a deep and intimate relationship with another man will inevitably share a lot of similarities with the relationships of gay men, who are also having a deep and intimate relationship with another man. We need to fully deconstruct our society’s belief that male intimacy is the sole domain of gay dudes and become completely comfortable with embracing our friends in a way where we don’t care whether people think we’re gay or straight. That will also inevitably lead to the realization that the belief in “sexualization of male intimacy” as a problem is itself a product of that same dynamic we just deconstructed.
omg-sheeeeep t1_iue4i9x wrote
I absolutely agree with your take.
A big part of the problem is the constant quantifier of male friendships a la 'its not a gay thing but they hug a lot'. If we can just get rid of that kind of thinking then ultimately it won't matter whether it is or not.
And especially right now when more and more people speak out about how lonely they are I think it is important to embrace a dynamic that a lot of men especially only associate with romantic partners.
PreenerGastures t1_iua3jxn wrote
This is well said
Modoger t1_iuadjn1 wrote
The “at least not necessarily” is what makes it queer baiting, or as I like to call it schrodingers gays.
PaulFThumpkins t1_iuadt1m wrote
Remembering that they said they shot some kissing takes does put a bit of a wrench in my argument. I should say that a bigger problem is the discomfort I talked about, along with a dearth of genuine gay relationships in mainstream media.
Modoger t1_iuae3pn wrote
Agreed. I haven’t actually seen this show so can’t speak to this specific example. I have no problem with veiled homoeroticism between characters if it makes sense. In a show/movie without any queer relationships whatsoever it can get annoying and feel exploitative.
highdefrex t1_iuapeuv wrote
> I haven’t actually seen this show so can’t speak to this specific example
That's why these things are nuanced. No offense, but you saying "The 'at least not necessarily' is what makes it queer baiting" while then admitting that you haven't even watched the show and therefore don't have any context on it from which to draw from is exactly the type of knee-jerk reaction that robs these sorts of conversations of said nuance.
Hannibal and Will's dynamic is unique, to say the least, but using OP's "at least not necessarily" as a way to dismiss it as queer baiting paints it as a black and white thing when the show itself is tackling the grey area, which, again - and I say this respectfully - you'd see (and get why OP said "not necessarily") if you watched the show before making a judgment.
Modoger t1_iuapwod wrote
I’m not making a judgement, if you read the rest of my comment, I find veiled homoeroticism fine and dandy if it serves the story. Still fits the terminology of queer baiting. I very specifically said that I can’t speak to this specific example (and was inferring that I can’t make judgement on whether this case of “queerbaiting” ie unresolved ambiguous homoromantic relationships, fits that definition or not) no need to jump down my throat friend, just having a conversation. I mean no harm.
Queer baiting is a loaded term, (which is why I prefer schrodingers gays). It’s often exploitative and annoying but not always.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments