#queer baiting vs not queer baiting | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

gold-pavilion · 2 years

Note

hello :) I just found your blog and I think your take on tkrv manga is interesting. May I know your thought about koko & inupi library kiss panel? Does he kissed him as he is or with image of akane in mind? do you think the said panel a queer bait or is there truly something between them? I've been wanting to know (neutral) translator opinion and not from shipper or antis view. Sorry if you have answered similar question, thank you! <3

Hello!! Thanks!! That's alright, it's an interesting topic to discuss and I've barely touched upon it!! To be honest, I'll take this chance to go in-depth, because Inui and Koko's story opens up a whole thing with LGBT rep in manga and the way it's taken by fandom.

Firstly, in order to define whether this is a concrete piece of LGBT content or a case of baiting, we gotta start from establishing what queerbaiting is.

The wikipedia definition is perfect:

"Queerbaiting is a marketing technique for fiction and entertainment in which creators hint at, but then do not actually depict, same-sex romance or other LGBT representation."

There's another concept that I always apply to this, and that's plausible deniability: where is the line between 'hinting' and 'depicting'? Are two people of the same sex, for example, saying they'd die for each other anyday 'hinting' at a romantic bond, 'depicting' a romantic bond or is it meant to be ambiguous? When we just can't be sure of what it is, there's plausible deniability; people who don't wish to see it as LGBT rep will say it's not, people who see it that way will say they do. I, for clarity's sake and to avoid being baited (because I am queer and tired), only consider a canonical depiction one where there is no longer plausible deniability, when no one could argue 'that was platonic, just a friend thing' or nothing is ambiguous anymore.

And when is there no plausible deniability? Normally, when the word 'love' is used or alluded to in a clear romantic context, or an unmistakably romantic gesture (such as a kiss on the lips) appears. Then it's no longer up to interpretation, but a concrete part of that media.

Now, given that Koko and Inui is a romance that took place, ergo, the romantic nature of feelings involved was made undeniably present (the kiss, among other context signs), I don't think we're being baited. It's not bisexual content "hinted, but not given"; it was very much given, fully intended and executed as romantic.

Having said that, I think fandom gets easily confused on what discussion they're having and what discussion they're trying to have.

Is InuKoko a thing that canonly happened? Yes. It took place beyond plausible deniability and has been displayed numerous times in canon as a plot point of romantic characteristics. Is it LGBT? Yes.

Did it happen for reasons that were unhealthy? Did Koko take a romantic initiative because he was grieving? Or because he was projecting? Or because he was confused? Discussing those points doesn't make InuKoko less canon or less LGBT. It can mean we have a messy bisexual story on our hands, or even an unhealthy bisexual story on our hands if you wanna see it that way, but the fact remains that we have a bisexual story on our hands. Fandom can discuss whether Koko thought about Akane while kissing Inui or not; but the fact of the matter is still that he kissed a boy.

In other words, the discussion of whether it's a 'good' or 'bad' ship is free real estate. Have at it. Maybe Koko was a disaster and an absolute dickhead about it. Maybe Inui was too when he wouldn't talk about his doubts for years. But the discussion of whether InuKoko is a ship that canonly happened in Tokyo Revengers is… not a discussion; the answer is yes.

From the standpoint of someone who cares about LGBT rep and its scarcity in mainstream anime/manga, believe me, I find it frustrating when an LGBT storyline happens "for reasons rooted in heterosexuality" (ergo, Koko developing his homosexual interest in Inui as an aftermath and consequence of his previous heterosexual interest in Akane). And I find it frustrating precisely because it makes people confused about what is still, despite any why/how/etc, an LGBT thing. At the end of the day, the fault of that lies less with the content, but with people shifting the conversation to something it's not and putting validity behind gates of secondary relevance.

At any rate, I've said my piece on that. Back to the start of the question! Back to the library scene.

Because, while it doesn't change things in terms that what happened has happened and what's canon is canon (and I wanted to make that very clear, as my top priority), I can sure give my own thoughts on the scene itself. For fun lmao.

We don't truly have anything that tells us, clearly and unmistakably, what was going through Koko's head that time. Personally, I think it may be intended to be ambiguous and/or to match his emotional state; that's to say, in process of figuring out what he felt.

However, nothing in canon has ever pointed to Koko taking Inui as a replacement for Akane, nor confusing him with her in any way (in dialogue, in the recent chapter 252, that has been reestablished too). On the contrary, he's demonstrated to be very aware of Inui as Inui, and to be anguished precisely because of the push and pull of two feelings he has at once. If you ask me, I think there is a reason he said Akane looks like Inui, before likewise implying that Inui looks like Akane too; he has seen them both as themselves.

I don't think any of these things are there for no reason either, as that simply doesn't exist in fiction. Every scene, shot and dialogue is part of a piece of fiction 'cause it is, in one way or another, relevant to be there. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the side of Inui's face that is towards Koko, that is so focused in the scene, is precisely the side with the huge burn mark; the side that isn't Inui-Akane's similarity, but just Inui. I believe there's a reason there for him to have broken down in guilt and grief about Akane after doing that, with someone who was not her.

But that's up to anyone's interpretation.

As a translator, the most I can say is the little parenthesis two paragraphs above: that in the text, in the dialogue, there is no suggestion of replacing or confusion, but a messy case of feelings for two people. Always an Inui and Akane-san, never an Inui as Akane-san. Up until, of course, chapter 252 makes it simply Inui.

The rest is just my impression of the overall material I'm reading, and my take as someone very used to handling fiction. But I'm very happy to be asked about these matters and very honored to be considered someone neutral you'd send this message to!! I hope this has been helpful orrrr at least interesting, 'cause it definitely is to me.

Message again anytime!!

#asks #inukoko #kokonoi hajime #inui seishu #inui akane #thoughts and talk and so #tokyo revengers #tokyo rev #queer themes #let's please not forget that bisexuality exists #but other than that #queer rep vs queer baiting talk

63 notes · View notes

ayowotsdis · 2 years

Text

Canon/writers: *messes up perfectly good ships, queer codes ships for centuries then abandons them and creates ships that make no sense*

Fandom: *left eye twitches*

Canon/writers: so what you gonna do now huh

"A looming dark presence can be felt in the atmosphere."

Ao3 writers: YOUR SAVIOUR IS HERE

Canon/writers: you won't try

Ao3 writers: watch me bitch

44 notes · View notes

starberry-skies · 1 year

Text

watching a show, learning that trans ppl exist, then watching that same show again is such a weird experience bc it feels like the show has completely changed bc i'm able to see the trans/queer coding. it's v v cool but also kinda jarring yk

#all my fav characters are so trans-coded and i've never realizeddddddddd aaaaaaaaa #also i have some words to say abt queer coding vs queer baiting bc there's a lot of nuance that gets overlooked yk #am i getting a book abt queer-coding in media that i learned abt through slash fanfiction? i don't wanna talk abt it agdfjgkjfd #but aaaa it's getting close to midnight so i should sleep #the more awake i am b4 i fall asleep the less likely i'll get nightmares ykykyk #and they're back. which is sooooooo fun. /s #anywayz. night y'all #chirping

2 notes · View notes

sapphicisland · 10 months

Text

There are a few things that irritate me about the way sapphic ships are treated in fandom spaces so I'm gonna rant about it:

First off I hate when fans pretend to ship a sapphic pairing because they want to get the girl from the hetero pairing out of the way of their mlm pairing. I'm looking at you merthur, jegulus, byler and steddie shippers. The thing is if they actually shipped the sapphic ship I wouldn't mind, make everyone gay it's better that way. The problem is when I click on the tab of the sapphic ship looking for some nice fics and see 600 works with 99 percent of them being background blink and you miss it mentions/appearances. I thought the reason the straight ship didn't work was because you just love this one sapphic pairing but I'm not seeing a lot of love right now.

My second gripe is with people who try to devalue sapphic ships saying they're just best friends, looking at you wenclair antis. First off people have been shipping best friends since the beginning of time whether they be two guys or a guy and a girl but when its two girls suddenly it's a problem. This also applies to the people always bugging catglass shippers like kitty isn't canonically bi with a crush on yuri. Which wasn't random stop saying that. However this is actually an example of the first point but switched around with people pretending to love yuri and her gf to get yuri out of the way so kitty and minho can happen but that's another conversation.

My third one may actually with the community why is it that two male characters who never once interact in canon can get over 20k fics but canon wlw ships fight to reach 5000? And when we do make similar ships to the ones I just mentioned they literally never leave tumblr. You guys will make 100s of memes and edits about ships but when I get to ao3 it's a wasteland.

The final one for now is how we can't seem to have more than one popular ship at a time like the stranger things fandom has three popular mlm ships coexisting but we can only have one and for some reason the queer bait ship always beats the canon one like wenclair vs yokovina why can't we have both. For the love of god someone write a solo yokovina fic I'll take a one-shot at this point.

Anyways....We need to do better people.

#wenclair #lgbtq #yokovina #lesbian #sapphic ships #steddie #jegulus #merthur #ronance #morgwen #catglass #byler #elmax

683 notes · View notes

olderthannetfic · 3 months

Note

https://olderthannetfic.tumblr.com/post/739335177994747904/httpswwwtumblrcomolderthannetfic739061849135#notes

I'm the anon on this post. I fully get the point here in this person's reblog and your addition, and I can see how my ask came across as gatekeeping, but I think what I meant more was in response to the previous anon (that Il inked) seeming to think that a LOT of hetero men needed to enter fandom for F/F to become more popular. As I said, there is some good F/F content written by men; I encountered that even in the brony fandom. (That said, that was a fandom where I very strongly was NOT interested in smut, which is not the case with most of my other F/F fandoms, so that's probably part of what influenced my preferences there.) Like, there was a lot of garbage, but there was so much content that there happened to be a decent amount of good stuff as well even following Sturgeon's Law.

I think what I meant more was disagreeing with the idea that the "solution" to lack of F/F is to have fanfiction become a *much* dudier space. I was trying to give my experience of having been in a fandom like that to suggest that it's a very fundamentally different experience than the generally less-dudey places that fanfiction fandom is in most fandoms, and I don't know that that's necessarily better just because we get more F/F, because in effect it still ends up marginalizing lesbian and bi women F/F fans because so much of the content is not only not for us, but often even hostile to us. (In a very different way from the arguments that are made about women writing M/M, where a lot of it is just stuff that isn't what gay/bi men are looking for. I'm sure any lesbian or bi woman who has had to deal with the kind of men who have lesbian fetishes irl, on dating sites, etc. can relate, but I really hate when people compare those things because it is truly apples and oranges.)

I hope I'm being clear, but I just think there's a distinction to be made between "I do not want F/F fanfiction fandom to become a *primarily* male space, and I think there are some big downsides that people who've never been in a fandom like that haven't seen" vs. "We need to gatekeep F/F so it's exclusively queer women writing it." I'm fine with some guys doing it, of course, but I don't think the fact that fanfiction is a primarily female and queer and nonbinary space is a "problem" to be "fixed" even if it means less F/F. I think that's a big part of the draw, in fact. That's what I was trying to say, but maybe not very well.

I think the point of the other comment isn't so much that anyone wants fic fandom to become dude-y... It's that for f/f numbers to look like m/m numbers, you'd have to have the reverse situation.

Whether that's desirable is another question, but it puts the endless focus on stats and numbers into perspective.

I don't think we really disagree all that much. They were just putting it provocatively to get people to think about why they waste their time yelling about AO3's overall stats "looking bad" and what the so-called solution to that would be.

It's pretty much bait is what I'm saying.

Obviously, as a woman, I only rarely encounter women who are mega annoying about gay men and reasonably often encounter those pestilential men in bars who think "bisexual" means "porn star who wants a threesome". I certainly think they're more of an actual problem IRL... but I'm still not convinced it is entirely apples to oranges when we're discussing online fanfic spaces or... like... stories with plots more complex than "I'm here to fix your plumbing".

Ranma fandom was full of dudes writing f/f that was a little anatomically suspect but reasonably in-character and that sounded like other fanfic with the usual "I like this blorbo and want more content about them" motivations. I haven't seen many fandoms like this, but I run across one now and then. (I agree MLP is fairly distinctive even out of these.)

I think the basic thing here is that a lot of (hostile, loud) people do see the absolute f/f numbers as the problem to be fixed.

And you are right and they are wrong.

There is no real fix if people keep looking at it from this "Winning at AO3 numbers" perspective. The cure would be worse than the disease for many of the people complaining.

Better to focus on the usual "How do I get my specific blorbo to have more content by encouraging authors and writing it myself?" strategies and let someone else worry about the global AO3 numbers.

45 notes · View notes

forgiveness-in-the-misery · 2 months

Text

I think as a retrospective for myself that there are complications on “this show handled queerness as well as it could” vs “this show pretended to have any idea how to handle queerness and used the fantasy of queer romances to bait in audiences then shame them.”

Let us start with Hannibal which falls into the category of handling it as well as it could with the era and the network tv factor. We got to see a lesbian romance between Alana and Margo which is already a plus above some other shows. The relationship between Will and Hannibal is deep and complex and coded with the word friend as we see in shows like Our Flag Means Death, Good Omens, and Righteous Gemstones. The word “friend” does not ever deny or negate the intimacy or queerness between two men, because with Hannibal we constantly get blatantly romantic dialogue between the two men, their final moments are spent in a romantic embrace with Will’s head resting against Hannibal’s chest. They constantly refer to loving each other and outside characters state that they are in love with each other.

The show did not have a faux promise of a gay romance. The romance was there.

Gotham is a cluster fuck. Gotham on the other hand was the network show where two women are making out and having sex and you assume they are a couple, but the show itself and most promotion for it claims they have an almost sibling bond. They are just friends waiting for men they love. Then the other “queer” rep of the show comes primarily in the form of Oswald, a heavily gay coded male character with no romantic interest, until falling openly and loudly in love with his male friend, Ed. Of course this doesn’t play out but the interviews and social media team fucking went into over kill cramming the idea of these two men becoming a couple down your throat….until they stopped. Suddenly the actors back pedal claiming Oswald isn’t even gay, he’s a virgin so he doesn’t know what he is. Both men are given female interests who act like them and its awkward and forced and dies fast. The show’s final season introduces a bizarre homoerotic relationship between Oswald and an older man…. The showrunners proclaim that Oswald and Mr.Penn have a father/son bond, that Penn is like a father to him…..despite the fact Oswald literally has this man on leash and collar and yknow already has a dad.

The show returns to teasing an idea of Ed and Oswald and a romance only to find them awkwardly embracing and claiming a sibling bond instead as if two seasons ago Oswald didn’t want to fuck his brains out. Allegedly the network is the cause of all this, but I don’t accept that. You would learn quickly if the network would not allow gay romances and work accordingly with that instead of pushing some of the worst handled non romances I have seen in modern TV.

What We Do in the Shadows I still clump with Gotham because I see and have seen the exact same tactics with both shows. The poor handling of queer love is at this point the least of my issues with What We Do in the Shadows, at this point finding out the chairman of FX wanted the sixth season to be the end because Paul Simms fucked himself by turning Guillermo into a vampire for one second then undoing it because Simms wanted to just “get it over with” is hilarious to me at this point. waikiki was open about Guillermo’s final choice as either slayer or vampire would be the story’s end and Simms somehow translated it to mean “get this shit out of the way so we can write jokes about ball hair”. The show had potential overall and was heading in a good direction. Season four was so fucking beautiful I can write a ton of pieces on the beauty and tragedy of it and I despise Simms with an intense passion for spitting on that.

In terms of queerness and romance….Guillermo and Nandor as friends or platonic or family or lovers all work fine narratively. I just despise how the show always promoted the idea and tease of romantic love, only to eventually get to the point of Simms joking or not to ask “who wants to see that?” In response to the idea of two men kissing, treating a kiss or exchange of love confessions as if it is obscene and repulsive.

I think the wildest thing for me is when shows are more and more current and still fall into this pattern of promoting a gay romance that was never truly intended in the first place. Mostly I despise this because shows end up wasting a lot of fucking time they could spend on actual plot and character development instead of polls on twitter about if in this new episode a kiss may happen when they know it never will.

#hannibal #gotham #what we do in the shadows

50 notes · View notes

gu1lty-as-sin · 3 months

Text

˚₊‧꒰ა every breath feels like rarest air ໒꒱ ‧₊˚

hii!! ☆ juno ☆ they/she ☆ minor ☆ bisexual ☆ cancer sun, libra moon, sag rising ☆ intp-t ☆ aus ☆ either a celestial god or a pebble ☆ anxious mess ☆ i change my theme way too much ☆ sparkling water > regular water ☆ in love with piercings and wants all of them ☆ professional procrastinator ☆ a humanities/arts/music girl in a science/maths world ☆ wouldnt survive a day without spotify ☆ free palestine!!

͙͘͡★ i love - literature, the arts, queer culture, astronomy + astrology, witchcraft, feminism (no terfs allowed!!!!), fruit flavoured drinks, flared pants, converse, dark red, nail polish, eyeliner, burgundy lipgloss, tank tops, tote bags, brie (always dreaming of cheese), pinterest, spotify, my headphones, the ocean, my grandparents house, spring+winter, very specific shades of pink and green, black <3, fiddling around on the guitar, fantasising about being a famous musician, finding new music, snow, picking silly little outfits, drawing, writing, going to concerts

͙͘͡★ books - osemanverse, the hunger games, books by rhiannon wilde, tim te maro's subterranean heartsick blues, all the best liars, books by octavia butler (specifically parable of the sower and parable of the talents), the last true poets of the sea, acotar, the weight of the stars, the seven husbands of evelyn hugo, the picture of dorian grey, house of hollow, howls moving castle, harry potter (mainly marauders, FUCK JKR), i kissed shara wheeler, red white and royal blue, song of achilles, wings of fire, the secret history

͙͘͡★ movies + shows - dont look up, little women (2019), scream (i like most of them but 1996 is my fav by far), ladybird, barbie (2023), some of the mcu (thor and guardians of the galaxy <33), spiderverse (itsv is my love), gilmore girls, stranger things, loki, heartstopper, arcane, scott pilgrim takes off + scott pilgrim vs the world, mean girls (i love both hehe), dr who, percy jackson (the show, i um havent read the books), gossip girls, do revenge, my little pony (ignore that i’ve never actually watched it BUT IN THEORY-), the bear

͙͘͡★ music - boygenius + solos, taylor swift, glaive, brakence, paramore, ricky jamaraz, melanie martinez, lana del rey, ashnikko, girl in red, billie eilish, doja cat, big thief, adrienne lenker, ethel cain, mitski, remi wolf, cigarettes after sex, ericdoa, tv girl, clairo, the neighbourhood, bon iver, deftones, maneskin, courtney barnett, poppy, the smiths, american football, susannah joffe, renee rapp, mcr, the front bottoms, pierce the veil, flyleaf, gracie abrams, feeble little horse, esha tewari

͙͘͡★ albums - the record, 1989 tv, around the fur, riot, three cheers for sweet revenge, all we know is falling, hypochondriac, girl with fish, doa, things with wings, punk2, songs, masterpiece, guts, lust for life, dykttatuob, punisher, stranger in the alps, i care so much that i dont care at all, collide with the sky, manic, badlands, folklore, trafoamp, k-12, crybaby, portals, this is why, home video, ttpd + the anthology

͙͘͡★ talk to me - asks and dms are open for chatting/venting/whatever, i might take a while to respond ☆ i rarely follow people without an intro post/descriptive bio (with name, age group and pronouns especially) ☆ discord is astraeasparrow (i dont check it often and dont know how it works very well) ☆ i dont currently have any trigger warnings tagged but just send me an ask/dm if you want me to tag something specific!! ☆ dni: people who are: rude, racist, homophobic, transphobic, zionist, terfs, sexist, ableist, antisemitic

͙͘͡★ tags:

#juno.txt -> ramblings, original posts

#asks -> asks ive answered

#ask bait -> send me asks!

#tag games -> tag games ive participated in

#beautiful mutuals -> interactions with my beautiful mutuals!

#spotify -> my music obsession

(im working on a better taglist with my moots tags)

͙͘͡★ socials: pinterest ☆ spotify ☆ carrd

͙͘͡★ sideblogs: @likeasugarcubeinateacup (notes app poetry) -- @slowrotburiedinthepark (web weaving and random art) -- @stabbingstarsthroughmyback (writing) (im not that active on them though)

͙͘͡★ notes/updates:

☆ previously astraeasparrow

☆ last updated: april 26th 2024

☆ dividers by @dollywons, @v6que, @chilumitos

thats all!! stay hydrated and have a wonderful day/night everyone <3

#juno.txt #asks #beautiful mutuals #them tag <33 #tag game #ask bait #tag games #spotify #intro post #<- you can check out my crusty old intro post there #juno's 270 celebration

39 notes · View notes

bettedavisgf · 7 months

Text

there is such a chasm in quality between fan engagement for queer bait media vs textual canon homosexual media like sorry the way people engage with non textual relationships and completely fabricate insane dynamics is genuinely compelling vs fans of stuff like good omens and our flag means death are like “they are sharing a chaste kiss for the first time in their lives 😍😍😍” you guys need to get more fucked up idk

44 notes · View notes

peachyqueenly · 6 months

Text

Cookie Run, Queerbait, and why the concept does not apply to SeaMoon... 2!!!

//This is a repost of an older post, as something else came up that I wanted to add to this analysis. If you don't want to reread the entire thing, feel free to skip to the section headed with 'Queerbait: Lost in Translation'.//

There are a lot of issues with the way Devsis, the developers behind Cookie Run, handle diversity in their games. Most notably, it falls into the common trap many, MANY gacha games do in that it partakes in a lot of orientalist tropes. But one debate I’ve seen that I just cannot get behind, as a lesbian, is the idea that they have queerbaited-- most namely, with SeaMoon.

Below the cut, I will explain why: what queerbait is and what it looks like, queerbaiting vs coding, and why comparing WlW tropes from other countries to queerbaiting is unfair (and also maybe don’t apply a Japanese literary concept to a Korean game, more on that later). All in a bid to show why it is not only wrong to compare SeaMoon to queerbaiting, it is harmful.

SeaMoon, for those unfamiliar, is the name popularly given to the ship between Sea Fairy Cookie and Moonlight Cookie in Cookie Run. Aside from the ocean and the moon being a common motif for romance in fiction already, the game had hinted at their romance in a lot of in-game and side material. Most namely, Sea Fairy’s line about Moonlight’s heart ‘being the warmest’ and the “I want you Everyday” music video with their moment together + the lines that went along with that moment...

Your love brought spring to my endless winter...

For more examples of where their romance was suggested, I recommend this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LPJU8yBYD8Ng7lhh_lR0bA2XRwmJTtbRceGuKahFxFs/edit

The point is, most WlW in this fandom caught onto the romantic ramifications of the ship long before Moonlight was expanded on in Kingdom and the recent updates all but confirmed their mutual affection towards one another. The two of them even got matching costumes and a bond story that was as close to romance as Cookie Run would do (as it is ultimately not a romance centered franchise).

With who they are established...

Queerbait: What is it?

Queerbaiting most popularly is understood as a marketing gimmick where creators and multimedia companies suggest queerness to draw in LGBT people and allies, only for the rug to be pulled out from underneath fans. Though it has other meanings, especially in other cultures as I'll explain more below. Whether this is utilizing the ‘bury your gays’ trope, the rep being constrained to insignificant side characters/moments, or just not existing at all.

The two most popular examples of queerbaiting would be recent Disney movies and Voltron. Though special shoutout to Harry Potter, as if we didn’t have enough reasons to hate the book series and JKR. As the stuff with Dumbledore was an obvious retcon to go ‘look how progressive I am!!!’.

Voltron’s last season had two key things regarding queerbait: the Klance drama (the ship between Keith and Lance) and Shiro’s bait and switch with his partner.

To the show’s credit, Shiro was actually gay. Even revealed to have had a partner he was engaged to. However, this rug was pulled out from underneath fans when they actively killed said partner. He was given another partner in the epilogue, but the fact he was revealed to be gay only for his partner to be killed off (coupled with the next thing) upset many queer fans.

Klance is a lot more insidious. In the run up to the final season, Netflix and the crew actively promoted the show using Klance and its popular support. Despite the fact they knew the relationship was never intended to be canon. This is one of the most explicit examples of queerbaiting out there, and is foundational to understanding the specificity and insidiousness of the marketing ploy.

For Disney, I would like to focus on the Star Wars sequels and Beauty and the Beast (2017). The last movie of the sequel trilogy had the creators talking about how there would be queer rep... leading many queer fans to believe they were talking about Finn and Poe for obvious reasons, something the creators never corrected/confirmed. Only for the rep to merely be two background characters in one scene.

As for Beauty and the Beast, Le Fou was celebrated as Disney’s first openly gay character, leading folks to believe they’d explore him having feelings for the titular bad guy. But that was never really explored in any meaningful way, and the rep we got of him was a ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ moment between him and an unnamed character. Arguably he could fall more into coding, but the fact Disney actively marketed him for his gayness is where it bleeds into queerbaiting.

In general, queerbaiting is a more modern problem, as companies feel they can say the word gay now. But are still wishy-washy on actual depictions of queerness. So we get them celebrating their inclusion, even if it’s ultimately little to nothing.

Queerbaiting vs Queer Coding

This is when an important distinction needs to be made: what is queerbaiting and what is queer coding. Queer coding is when media uses subtext, but never explicitly says, a character is gay. A good way to understand this is to compare 90′s disney movies to modern ones.

As discussed above, modern Disney will often go on about having queerness in their movies only for it to be minimal at best if not existent. 90′s Disney meanwhile never marketed their movies as having LGBT elements, but many fans could see the way in which queerness came through from characters like Ursula (literally modeled off a drag queen), Scar, and Hades.

Queer coding can be seen as a product of the Hays Code era-- where positive depictions of ‘perverse sexuality’ (including homosexuality) was not allowed in film, relegating a lot of queerness to the roles of villains (hence the association Disney villains have with it). That, or queer creators had to find ways of coding their heroes in ways that went under the nose of cishet audiences.

Queer coding exists in a net-neutral space. As queer coding, while in many ways is outdated in a world where media can show explicit LGBT rep, was integral to the ways in which queer creators told their stories for years. And actively influences the way many queer creators continue to tell their story (for better and for worse). It can also perpetrate stereotypes against queer people, as we saw with the Disney villains, however.

Still, this is different than the relatively modern concept of queerbaiting as that is largely a negative phenomenon. Queer coding was a tool used and is still used by actual LGBT people, while queerbaiting is more often than not the work of cishet folks or corporations wanting to make a quick buck.

Queerbait: Lost in Translation

Another element of queerbait I did not previously address is how its more commonly understood in the context of cultures' media (such as in Eastern countries like Korea and Japan). As the financial reasoning behind the idea isn't as front and center (for a myriad of complicated reasons regarding how explicit queer rep can be from country to country). Though this definition of queerbait can also apply to US and English based media.

To some, queerbait also applies to coded LGBT relationships that are primarily centered on or meant to appeal to straight audiences (WlW rep meant for the male gaze, MlM rep meant for girls).

In other words, fetishized LGBT coding.

I would personally argue (as a queer non binary lesbian) that this meaning is less insidious than the money making logic behind modern queer baiting that happens in the US mainly, but its for an important reason...

A lot of this queerbait relies on elements of coding still. While the way many Western viewers see queerbait in American media relies on using explicit queerness as a marketing ploy. To compare, let's look at idol/sports anime and the previously mentioned Disney movies.

The idea that idol/sports anime is queerbait is... contentious. And one I'm not entirely sure I even agree on. But it is undeniable that some of its more WlW centric scenes appeal to the male audiences that view these shows or games. Still, nothing is ever made explicit. It utilizes elements of queer coding originating from the yuri/gl genre that was built up by queer people themselves.

To some, this may be more insulting. For me personally though coding has always been a net neutral, and this form of coding is just more on the negative end for me. Still, there is something there for queer people to take away.

Meanwhile, the way in which disney queerbaits its audience is by saying their character is LGBT then... doing nothing with it. Not even elements of coding. Just-- 'yep there's a gay character in our movie come watch it'!!! Its a lot more soulless compared to the previous one, and therefore to me is more insulting.

Why SeaMoon falls more into Coding

With the two elements defined, let’s explain why SeaMoon falls more into the realm of coding rather than baiting.

First off, the way the devs write romance is consistent with how they wrote SeaMoon. Most of the ways in which things were left vague before Kingdom could be explained in the devs unfortunate habit of not elaborating on things they really should elaborate on. On top of romance in general being coded rather than explicit in the franchise.

As an example, lets discuss the two closest things to M/F romance we have in the franchise-- PureLily (Pure Vanilla and White Lily) and MintCocoa (Mint Choco and Cocoa).

PureLily became more explicit in the same update as SeaMoon (with Pure Vanilla wondering aloud if he still loves her), but in general the way their relationship was shown before the Crunchy Dreams event was largely through subtext (how the two spoke of one another, PV’s garden, etc) and outside material (the love quiz).

This also applies to MintCocoa. During the days of OB, the game itself did not elaborate much on either of the two’s characters (just as they didn’t with Moonlight). With most of their romantic subtext (like SeaMoon) being in outside videos, media, and merch. Kingdom in general seems more willing to elaborate on romance, as we saw in the story that came with Cocoa’s release.

And secondly, the devs never really threw SeaMoon around as a way of saying ‘look how progressive we are’ or to appeal specifically to LGBT fans. Anytime SeaMoon was included in media, it was often alongside other coded relationships such as MintCocoa or things like RaspRose (Raspberry Mousse x Rose). And even the times they did do things like promote themselves during pride month, they never used SeaMoon. Instead they used the Hollyberry kingdom (due to its bg having same-gender couples dancing and having drinks together).

The way SeaMoon was treated up until the recent Kingdom update was more in line with queer coding rather than queer baiting. Which is NOT perfect, as media should go beyond coding in the modern age. But it is not as bad or as insidious as queerbaiting implies.

Not as insidious as either definition of queerbait; as nothing about the relationship between them is really centered on being for the male or fetishized gaze either. They're Cookies... in a series where romance is not a focus. While one could argue their romance is stuck more into the background compared to say MintCocoa and PureLily, it still isn't designed to be fetishized (in canon, what fandoms do with SeaMoon and other LGBT ships is its own matter).

Extra Note on S Class Comparisons

S Class is a trope in Japanese media where two girls will often have a very close bond, akin to romance. However, it is ultimately still platonic and disappears upon either graduation from school or marriage. It is over 100 years old, with some of the first pieces of the genre being in the early 1900′s. And was a major influence on the yuri, more commonly called GL now, genre.

Before anything else, I want to offer a brief aside that maybe we should be careful when comparing a Japanese literary trope to a Korean game. Comparing the two countries can be a very... very touchy subject matter. Especially in the context of this being a genre that rose in popularity during the colonization of Korea by Japan.

I do NOT think you can compare SeaMoon or anything in CR to S Class tropes. But I will discuss it just to clear things up, as I find comparing the trope to queerbaiting problematic.

It is more akin to queer coding rather than queer baiting. Why? Many of the authors who utilized the trope were queer themselves. In fact, “Obuko Yoshiya, a lesbian Japanese novelist active in the Bluestocking feminist movement, is regarded as a pioneer of Class S literature”. Again, a key factor that separates coding and baiting (being that queer creators will often code but won’t bait).

The genre is at its worst stifling and harmful to the modern day GL genre in Japanese literature, and extremely heteronormative. But to compare it to things like queerbaiting or to entirely dismiss it as a form of WlW rep in the context of how it was used by actual queer people in Japan is entirely unfair to the genre; queer rep does not look the same in every country.

S Class also evades the way in which queerbait can mean being meant for the male gaze, as it is a trope whose origins lie earnestly in media meant for girls. That does not mean it can't be used to appeal to the male gaze, but it is not where it started.

Ending Notes

Are the devs perfect in their representation of SeaMoon and WlW? Of course not, there is a valid conversation to be had on how queer relationships constantly being merely coded rather than explicit is annoying and hurtful. And more and more queer people have this critique of the concept of queer coding. On a personal level, I can forgive it in this specific case cause its in line with how the devs do romance in general. But if it bothers you that it was merely coded for the longest time rather than explicit, that’s entirely valid.

But the idea the devs ever queerbaited audiences is unfair and actively makes many WlW feel invalidated in how they easily saw the coding present in the two’s relationship. Again, queer coding is a net neutral phenomenon while queerbaiting is mostly negative. To subscribe such a notion to what is important rep to so many WlW is hurtful.

Sources

https://www.animefeminist.com/escape-yuri-hell-flip-flappers-critique-class-s-genre/

https://bookriot.com/what-is-queerbaiting-vs-queer-coding/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LPJU8yBYD8Ng7lhh_lR0bA2XRwmJTtbRceGuKahFxFs/edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_S_(genre)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queerbaiting#:~:text=Queerbaiting%20is%20a%20marketing%20technique,romance%20or%20other%20LGBTQ%2B%20representation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer_coding#:~:text=Queer%20coding%20is%20the%20subtextual,character%20in%20media%20as%20queer.

#cookie run #cookie run kingdom #crk #sea fairy cookie #moonlight cookie #seamoon #media analysis #lgbt writing #lgbt #queer coding #queerbaiting #crob #cookie run ovenbreak

38 notes · View notes

thelostgirl21 · 9 months

Text

Tips for those of you that wish to enjoy Geraskier as a romantic couple, without erasing Jaskier's greyromantic (more specifically sapioromantic) identity.

Alright, here's the deal...

I've recently gone on a very long rant re: how queer baiting has conditioned most of us, in the queer community, to read any emotionally intimate friendship between two same-gender characters as romance.

Because:

A) The lack of officially acknowledged same-gender relationships on screen - in major TV shows and series that aren't specifically about LGBTQ+ themes - has put us in a situation where, if he want to enjoy any same-gender romance at all, we are forced to interpret close "officially platonic" (*cough*StormPilot*cough*) pairings as romantic couples.

B) The TV and movie industries have been purposefully encouraging such perceptions, and inserting as many "romantic cues" as they can into such same-gender "friendships", to keep their LGBTQ+ audience involved in those stories without alienating their more conservative audiences by having to depict some actual queer romances.

So, not only are non-queer people under the impression that it's perfectly typical, for same-gender friends, to constantly become so emotionally and physically close and intimate with each other that they behave as if they are almost dating while also being 100% straight.

But, they don't realize that there is barely any equivalent of straight men/women characters on screen developing such emotionally and physically intimate friendships without them inevitably "getting together" romantically at some point.

Unless one of them is already romantically taken, that is (and even there, a dreaded "love triangle" may occur and they'll still wind up together anyway!).

But, if the boy and the girl are both straight and available, and they behave as you would expect a married couple at some point, obviously they are romantically/sexually into each other! What else?!

If it's two same-gender characters, however?!

Well, it's obviously a friendship all the way (while nevertheless often heavily dousing that friendships with romantic subtext).

And sadly, the way queer baiting has been heavily messing with our perceptions of platonic vs romantic relationships is putting the aromantic community at a huge disadvantage.

What huge disadvantage, I hear you ask?

I mean, after all, if all those emotionally close and intimate relaltionships remain platonic in canon, shouldn't people on the aromantic spectrum be happy about it, and feel represented? Don't they have tons of "queerplatonic ships" to choose from, and enjoy as such?

Sadly, no.

The answer is firm and resounding NO.

Wanna know why?

Because, most of the time, whenever a relationship might read as "potentially queerplatonic", it is virtually never acknowledged as such.

It is virtually never about them.

It has absolutely nothing to do with both, or one, of those characters being on the aromantic spectrum.

When we talk about classic models of "bromances", those are virtually always occurring between two men that are assumed to be otherwise straight (or, at least, one of them is, ex: Jace Herondale & Alec Lightwood from "Shadowhunters"), or two women that are assumed to be otherwise straight (or, at least, one of them is).

When "bromances" occur between a man and a woman (I'm thinking Steve and Robin, from "Stranger Things"), it is usually because one of them is gay.

The implication and the message being sent to us with all those close friendships is thus a very clear:

"You can only achieve such emotionally close (queer)platonic friendships, and/or companionships, because you are not sexually compatible.

Otherwise, you would already be forming a romantic couple, and/or secretly longing to be in one.

If Robin wasn't a lesbian, she and Steve would obviously be dating."

And the reason why Steve and Nancy still love each other that deeply - despite no longer being a couple - is because they still have romantic feelings for each other despite Nancy also having romantic feelings for Jonathan and having chosen him as a romantic partner...

So, that has nothing to do with queerplatonic relationships, either, at all!

Also, can someone please sit these three kids down and have a good discussion regarding polyamorous relationships with them? Thank you!

So, how could anyone on the aromantic spectrum identify with those friendships, and/or feel represented by them, when they are always treated as being either "lesser than" a romance, or "a consolation price" when romance isn't an option?

That's not even bad representation, it's a complete lack of representation!

Yet aromantic love (be it defined as alterous, platonic, etc.) can be as beautiful, intense, and sincere as a romance, and there's a deep, almost spiritual connection there.

It is not "lesser than", but simply different.

The kind of emotional intimacy you share, and the way you connect together with the person you "platonically/alterously fell in love with" feels different.

The relationship dynamic you may achieve together, and the kind of commitment you may choose to make with those friends (that may even become life partners), as well as your needs and expectations, tend to be different than what would be expected of a romantic partnerships, although there can be many overlaps.

Aromantic forms of platonic/alterous love aren't a consolation price when romance isn't an option!

They deserve to be seen and treated as a first choice.

Those relationships provide a unique and profoundly valuable way of emotionally and sometimes even physically (because physical attraction can be sensual rather than sexual, and there are best friends that are comfortable enough to be sexually intimate together without any desire to form a romantic couple, too, by the way) connecting and being intimate with another person.

And what currently makes Geraskier unique in canon, is that they've established that Jaskier, at the very least, would have been 100% compatible with Geralt romantically and sexually (given he's a panromantic pansexual).

What makes the way Jaskier has been canonically falling in love with Geralt different from the usual BrOTPs the queer community are usually offered, however, is the fact that Jaskier's desires for Geralt are not romantic, but platonic in the way aromantic people are known to experience love.

Jaskier having no romantic crush for Geralt would thus not prevent him, at all, from wanting to share a loving relationship, and even perhaps queerplatonic partnership with him.

He could still love him in an amorous way. He could still yearn for sharing some sensual (or even sexual) intimacy with him.

Between having what people typically consider "purely platonic" and "purely romantic" feelings, there is a wonderful universe of affections and attractions for Jaskier and Geralt to explore together!

And aromantic people can experience the same level of heartbreak and loss upon losing their "best friend in the whole wide world" than they would a romantic partner.

I mean, when you listen to Jaskier sing:

Did you ever even care With your swords and your stupid hair?

in "Burn Butcher Burn", I've always felt like it was a callback to the very first things that Jaskier physically noticed about Geralt, and what initally sparked his (platonic? alterous? sensual? sexual? aesthetic? all of the above? other?) attraction for him!

If we compare the way Geralt and Jaskier behave together on screen with queerplatonic partners in real life, there is no proof of anything romantic going on.

I can't stress this enough.

HOWEVER, sadly, queerplatonic partnerships aren't really ever explored and acknowledged as such on screen. So, most people are very unfamiliar with them.

Instead, the TV and movie industry typically makes same-gender characters behave in an amorous manner to suggest romance and bait their queer audience.

AND it took them 4 FREAKING YEAR (we're actually a bit closer to 5 now) to confirm that Jaskier fell in love with Geralt platonically, rather than romantically, while canonically establishing Radovid as being Jaskier's very first sapioromantic crush.

This is where real life collides with fiction in a deeply heartbreaking way, to me...

Because during those 4 years, the queer community has been reading Geraskier as a romantic couple the way they've been taught and conditioned to identify queer romance on screen.

Most of them likely haven't even considered the possibility that Jaskier could have been on the aromantic spectrum, and thus "squishing" (hard) on Geralt rather than "crushing" (romantically) on him.

I don't believe that any of those fans would have had any desire to ignore and/or reject aromantic love and/queerplatonic relationships representation, if they'd known earlier on that Jaskier simply wasn't someone that experiences romantic desires (unless certain very specific conditions are met).

And 2 complete seasons is a very long time for romantic Geraskier fans to get profoundly attached to their ship, and feel somewhat gaslighted by the show's producers and writers when suddenly they're told "Oh no, they were 'just friends' all along! Nothing romantic to see here!"

(Of course, with the establishment of Jaskier as a greyromantic, they were never 'just friends' in the typical sense, but I've feeling that many fans have missed how significant Jaskier experiencing his very first crush was to the narrative.)

So, I believe that the knee-jerk response of pure disbelief that Geraskier could have been representing anything other than a romance can be expected and understood within that context.

HOWEVER, the unfortunate consequence is how that anger and disbelief has lead some fans to claiming that Geraskier can only be read as romantic.

Using some arguments such as: only someone romantically in love with Geralt could ever have experienced the level of heartbreak that Jaskier did, and written a song such as "Burn Butcher Burn", following their breakup.

I've seen some arguing that, if Jaskier's feelings had been "platonic", he wouldn't have been so hurt by their "break-up".

What those that have been shipping Geraskier romantically for over 4 years are truly expressing, I believe, is:

"Once again, I feel like I've been emotionally used and baited by the TV industry that keep on denying any romantic intent whenever they heavily layer a same-gender friendships with romantic subtext; and I can't agree with what they've done, or accept that Geraskier should be read as platonic!"

And I do hear you, I get it, I see how wrong it is that you have been made to feel that way, and I do not believe that you should be forced to embrace Geraskier as being aromantic / queerplatonic, or made to feel guilty for wishing to continue to ship Geraskier romantically.

But what I want to help you realize, is that by using such arguments, what your fellow queer siblings, on the aromantic spectrum, are hearing is:

"The way you love not only does not exist, but even if it did it can't be as strong, nor as valuable, as romantic love."

And that's not okay. The anger and hurt you feel is okay and 100% justified, but insisting that aromantics are not capable of such love, by saying that Jaskier's behavior with Geralt has always been obviously romantic, is not okay!

If you've been using those arguments before, first take the time to acknowledge how you feel, realize that you are not to blame for those feelings, remember you're still an amazing person, and take a fucking deep breath, alright?

Because you're 100% entitled to blame the people that have kept messing with your head and your perceptions through their queerbaiting practices for those mistakes you just made.

If we go purely by classic TV show queerbaiting standards, that relationship did seemingly present itself as romantic. You weren't wrong for seeing romance there.

But queerbaiting isn't real life.

Remember this: queerbaiting is not at all representative of how relationships work in reality.

In reality, you have romantic same-gender relationships that read as romantic and that are romantic.

In reality, you also have queerplatonic relationships that people often mistake as romantic, but are nevertheless queerplatonic.

In reality, queerplatonic relationships do happen between same-gender partners, but also between sexually compatible men and women, too.

In a strongly stereotyped TV and movie world, where relationships are oversimplified and watered down to follow rigid rules and expectations, canon Geraskier is a relationship that feels refreshingly real.

This is the kind of friendship I have with some of my own best friends. I know at least 5 friends (and maybe more, but they're the first 5 faces that popped to mind), for whom I've got 100% platonic feelings for, that I'd feel 100% comfortable rubbing chamomile onto their lovely bottom, alright?

On TV? Thanks to a legacy of queerbaiting, such a scene feels gay as hell!

In real life? Look, if you've pulled a muscle in your buttocks, and a massage will do you good? Pants down, my friend! Pass me that chamomile oil, I'm here for you buddy!

You're a heterosexual man and I'm a pansexual woman? I don't see how that changes anything to the task at hand! Or how that would be supposed to make me suddenly develop romantic feelings for you I've never had! You don't suddenly fall romantically in love with a best friend just because you've *gasped* "touched the butt", for frak's sake!

Just... give me a moment to recover from that ludicrous idea...

So, you want that butt massage or not, dude?

The physical contact might be affectionate, sensual, and feel intimate... but friendships are emotionally and quite often physically (though a bit more rarely sexually) intimate, too.

And demisexuals, like myself, might actually tend to favor and enjoy sensual intimacy (tender caresses, kisses, snuggles, etc.) more than they enjoy sexual intimacy, even with their romantic partners.

So, I can't blame any of you for how you might have instinctively responded to the announcement of Geraskier being canonically platonic.

But, now that it's done, and you've hopefully let that frustration out, I am inviting you to shake off all that queerbaiting conditioning, reclaim power over your own mind, and reflect on how love happens in real life, outside of those distorted TV standards.

I am inviting you to reflect on how those arguments might accidentally be invalidating the love that is experienced by another marginalized queer community.

And hopefully, bringing some measure of comfort to the aromantic community, as well, by letting them know that the vast majority of Geraskier fans that did have that knee-jerk reaction of saying "Geraskier is obviously romantic because there's no way Jaskier would have responded like this, or loved him so much, if there was no romance!" likely have been reacting that way because the TV and movie industries have been constantly "teasing them" with romance, while laughing in their faces and telling them that they are crazy for reading romance into those dynamics (hence why I'm calling it downright gaslighting)!

As aromantics, you did not deserve having your own sexual identity invalidated.

After all, I think this is literally the first time that aromantics have been offered some actual representation on a show that does not specifically revolve around queer characters or queerness, and a chance to openly explore a (queer)platonic ship where one of the two characters is an acknowledged greyromantic.

The last thing you need, is to have people come and mock Jaskier and Geralt's relationship, by saying that it can't be anything other than romance.

But, knowing where that hostile response towards the idea that Geraskier might be platonic comes from, might help you hopefully understand that the hostility wasn't meant for you, and that I'm sure the vast majority of the fans of that pairing would have been more careful, with the way they've been expressing their own hurt, if they'd realized the kind of message it sent.

Because if there are people that should understand how having their own sexuality being erased in fandom hurts - ex: whenever someone decides that they are going to start writing a canonically bisexual or pansexual characters as either straight or gay, depending on the gender of the character they are pairing them with - it should be bisexuals and pansexuals.

So, if you are unfamiliar with sapioromantism, here's what to know:

Sapioromantics are greyromantics that experience romantic attraction towards a person in response to the way they perceive that person's intellect.

This is what awakens their desire to form a romantic bond with another person and, under the right circumstances (because I'm guessing they might also need to find the other person aesthetically attractive, for example), allows them to fall romantically in love.

Otherwise, they can still fall in love with people, but platonically/alterously.

The show officially decided, this season, that Jaskier was to experience his very first crush with Radovid, feel confused about his feelings, sense that there's something different about the way he's attracted towards him, etc.

BUT there's no obligation for you to follow the show canon when it comes to Geraskier.

There's no obligation, at all, to give up on Geraskier as a romantic ship or pairing.

The fact is that Geralt is a deeply intelligent and insightful man, too. So, it's not unrealistic that a sapioromantic could have been attracted to that side of him, and fallen in love with Geralt romantically as well.

Yennefer is another smart, brilliant woman that can absolutely be romantically shipped with a sapioromantic.

There are many, many different types of intelligence, and what Radovid appears to specifically be displaying is more specifically high levels of emotional/relational intelligence, true.

But that's how the show decided to portray the specifics of Jaskier's sapioromantism.

And you won't be erasing a character's sexual identity if you decide to have your own version of Jaskier romantically connecting with other forms of intelligence.

People mention that Geralt, in the books, uses way more words than on the show, and would apparently rather discuss philosophy with Jaskier, at times, than hunt monsters.

You won't be disrespecting or erasing the aromantic community if you make Jaskier become romantically attracted to other models of human intellect.

You really don't have to accept Geraskier as a platonic ship after having grown attached to them as romantic partners for over 4 years! I don't believe it would ever be fair to ask that of you or even remotely necessary!

And, as far as I'm concerned, I'd never dare tell you that you "misread" Geraskier as romantic. I think Joey Batey might have been exploring the idea of Jaskier being an aromantic or greyromantic seeking a queerplatonic relationship with Geralt since seasons one, yes...

However, as he said in interviews, he had never received any clear answer regarding his portrayal of Jaskier's queerness before Season 3.

So, you couldn't really have "misread" something they hadn't fully made up their minds about now, could you?

Queerplatonic relationships do often read as romantic, too, as they tend to share many similarities.

What hurts, is when Jaskier's behavior and the strength of his love for Geralt is being used as proof that his emotions can't be platonic, and/or ignore that Jaskier is being portrayed as a greyromantic in Season 3.

Aromantic representation matters.

I'm therefore hoping that we can find the right balance between allowing everyone to ship their favorite character(s) with who they want romantically if they need to; while at the same time avoiding to erase Jaskier's sapioromantism, and/or arguing that platonic/alterous attractions can't be as important nor as strong as romantic attractions.

I think with a little empathy, the queer community can find the right point of balance between everyone's needs, and be given the opportunity to ship and enjoy Geraskier (queer)platonically and romantically, without invalidating Jaskier's sexuality in the process either way.

I know this post is similar to that other one I'd made, but I've heard few a-spec people saying that they'd had to stop following certain fans, because of the way those fans were were aggressively arguing that it was impossible for Jaskier to have been loving Geralt platonically in Season 1 and Season 2.

And so, I felt it needed to be said again, with this time giving a bit more importance to the aromantic side of that issue, and offering fans that ship Geraskier as a romantic pairing some information on what sapioromantism is, and how you can make Jaskier's greyromantic identity work as part of your own romances and headcanons.

You could decide to have Jaskier experience romantic feelings for the very first time with Geralt (instead of Radovid), and be adorably awkward about it! The possibilities are pretty much endless!

I just hope you can realize that what's happening on the show is not yet again another case of "Stormpilot" or "Stucky", or any other same-gender straight guys acting queer together!

Geraskier is canonically queer. Possibly queerplatonic, but most definitely queer, because Jaskier is a pan greyromantic that fell in love with Geralt in a platonic/alterous way, and might have experienced sensual and sexual desires for him.

It's a queer ship, regardless of whether you ship them platonically or romantically.

Personally, I think I'm likely to enjoy

But that is entirely up to you.

Just please be mindful that, when you start mocking the idea of Jaskier and Geralt having platonic feelings for each other, you are ridiculing a canonically queer ship, as well as the type of love experienced by a canonically queer greyromantic character, though.

This is what I have a problem with.

And no, saying "Well, I can headcanon that Jaskier isn't a greyromantic because he hadn't come out as greyromantic in Season 1 and Season 2, so I'll continue to write him as being able to fall romantically in love with anyone!" is not okay.

Back in 2012, when Mass Effect 3 came out, Kaidan Alenko was revealed to be a canonically bisexual character, available to be romanced by both fem!Shep and m!Shep.

However, since some women were uncomfortable with Kaidan's bisexuality, they decided to continue writing him as straight in fanfiction arguing that, because he could only be romanced by fem!Shep in ME1 (and everyone had thus assumed he was straight since 2008) they were allowed to continue to write him as straight, and ignore the character having been established as bisexual in the 3rd game.

Yet, the fact that Kaidan is bisexual, rather than straight, does not create any obstacle for him to be in a romance with fem! Shep!

There is no rational reason to headcanon him, or continue writing him, as a straight character moving forward once he's come out as bisexual!

"Well, my Kaidan Alenko is straight!"

Congratulations! You are expressing a biphobic view of the character!

Understandingly, the bisexual and pansexual communities were angry about it, and called them out on it.

So, let's not put the aromantic community through the same thing, shall we?

Because there is absolutely no reason to ignore Jaskier being on the aromantic spectrum while romantically pairing him with Geralt, Yennefer, or even both!

If you purely go by the books or the games, it's another story. They have their own canon.

But if you are writing / using the TV show character, Jaskier being a sapioromantic has been made canon, and is not creating any obstacle for him to experience romantic love for other characters than Radovid.

Other characters are plenty intelligent enough to realistically spark a sapioromantic connection with him, should you wish to!

Have Jaskier be intrigued/enamored with some of their intellectual features, and you'll be doing just fine.

If you're unsure how to do that, simply ask.

Ex: once that romantic spark has been ignited, you don't need to have the character continue to constantly obsess about the other character's intellect... I'm demisexual, and I don't keep obsessing about how trustworthy I find my sexual partner to be, despite the fact that my own sexual desires are usually "sparked" by a deep sense of trust/emotional safety with the other person.

There is also the notion that you can occasionally find yourself with an exception that feels different without the character themselves knowing why. Ex: a friend that identified as a lesbian (romantically and sexually) found herself desiring a man for the first time and, to this day, she still has no clue what was special about THAT man, but she decided to go with her instincts rather than "Oh no! It doesn't fit my label or established orientation, and therefore I shall skip a chance at romantic love and sex with this wonderful man!"

You want to introduce a bit of flexibility to Jaskier's sapioromantic instincts? You can do it respectfully, while still finding a way to point out, in your writing, that him having a crush on Geralt, Yennefer, or [insert name of the character here] is still an uncommon occurance.

You can enjoy what you love, without erasing a canonically queer character's identity to suit your own romantic narrative, is basically what I'm saying.

And you can enjoy your own romantic ship, especially, without mocking or belittling a canonically queer aromantic ship (Geraskier).

The rest is 100% up to you!

Our sweet aromantic sisters, brothers, and non-binary siblings deserve some love and visibility, too. And to enjoy things that have been made canonically theirs without becoming the unfortunate casualties of other people's disappointment.

If you hadn't realised canon Geraskier was a queer ship, and/or understood/noticed that Jaskier was being portrayed as a greyromantic that experiences romantic attraction for the first time in Season 3, it's okay.

Once again, I'm not taking the time to explain all this to blame those that jumped on the "b-but... Jaskier so obviously has romantic feelings for Geralt!" conclusion.

Had they been a sexually straight man and woman on a TV show, chances are they'd be "romantic endgame" or at least go through a "romantic phase" (a practice that is deeply wrong and damaging, too, IMHO, and does not allow to properly represent what platonic / alterous love is, and/or offer queerplatonic relationships any actual visibility), yes.

And, like every instance of queerbaiting, it ended up with the close emotional and physical intimacy between them not leading to any romantic conclusion.

But it did lead to a very much queer conclusion, and Jaskier having been portrayed as a character that fell in love with Geralt aromantically, thus being highly representative of a queer community.

This is that "but" that I sincerely hope you now understand, and will be treating with the same care and respect that you want others to show the representation of your own sexuality.

If you are a fellow panromantic/pansexual, or even bisexual, omnisexual, polysexual, etc. Yes, the representation also affects you / is close to you.

But Jaskier has been canonically established as more than pan. He's also a-spec on the romantic side, and it's actually the first label that Batey used to describe his romance with Radovid.

That his romantic desires be triggered specifically by the way he connects with a person's intellect, rather than their gender, matters to the community it represents.

Now that it has been brought to your attention, please do not lose sight of that over your own joy of him being queer, and romantically/sexually compatible with men. It's all I'm humbly asking of you.

48 notes · View notes