Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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.