lh-moth: Apparently, there are currently accusations

Sun, 07 Jul 2019 23:40:59 GMT

via https://ift.tt/2FYwwi2

lh-moth:

Apparently, there are currently accusations floating around about “Good Omens” using queerbaiting? Specifically, that the relationship between Aziraphile and Crowley is queerbaiting. The relationship that is written, directed, acted, and even scored like it’s a romance? The one that everyone involved, to the best of my knowledge, has specifically said is a romance?

Ah yes. Classic queerbaiting. How could I have missed it? Silly me. (Sarcasm!)

To be fair, I am not actually following the fandom closely, and I’m not seeking out any discussions about this topic. I’m only reacting to the things I’ve seen going across my dash, and those are usually already being strongly refuted. That being said, I still have something I’d like to get off my chest regarding this topic.

Which is, this talk of queerbaiting seems to be less about criticising the show and more about spitting vitriol at certain sections of the LGBTQ+ community.

The first time I saw someone argue there was queerbaiting - and this is the variation I have seen most often to date - they were saying that the show wasn’t explicit enough. The relationship was only implied.

Which…okay? I think we may have been watching a different show. As previously mentioned, everyone involved with the show has done and said pretty much everything they can to make it clear that this relationship is a romance. There’s also quite a bit of painstaking detail put into the development and portrayal of the emotional intimacy. And in-universe, the characters are repeatedly treated as a couple. Even a random passerby on the street sees them and thinks “ah, a couple!” As in, canonically.

So what here isn’t explicit? What, exactly, is lacking?

…oh right. They never kiss. And, as we all know, it’s not a real relationship unless there’s sexual intimacy! There’s no romance without sex!

Wait. That sounds awfully familiar… In fact, it’s pretty much word-for-word that thing that people say to asexuals. You know, about how our relationships aren’t real because it may not involve sexual intimacy? Wow, some things really never die. This one’s been floating around since long before Tumblr even existed. Let me tell you how much I didn’t miss hearing it.

There’s another variation of this accusation that I just saw recently. Thankfully, I’ve only seen it once, and I’m sincerely hoping it will fail to catch on. According to this version, the queerbaiting doesn’t have anything to do with the actual material. Rather, it’s because Neil Gaiman refuses to describe the characters as being gay.

Well. That’s certainly a…very selective interpretation of his words. I believe what he actually said - and I am paraphrasing a bit here - is that neither Aziraphile or Crowley are human men, but rather are genderless angel and demon, respectively. Therefore, describing them as gay would be inaccurate in this context. Now, we could go off onto a tangent about applying human ideas of sexuality to non-human beings, but I’d rather focus on the other part of that description.

Genderless.

These characters have no gender. Aziraphile, Crowley, all the angels and demons - all of them are genderless. If I remember correctly, this was made fairly clear in the book. And, in my opinion, they did a pretty good job of bringing it across in the series as well.

As a genderqueer person, I can tell you that the question of gender-based sexualities is a very complicated one for non-binary, genderqueer, and/or agender folks. It’s also a very personal one. We’re the only ones who get to decide whether or not we want to describe ourselves, individually, as gay or lesbian or straight or another term altogether. Yet here people are, insisting that Aziraphile and Crowley must be described as gay. And when half of the team who created these characters states that this isn’t the correct term to use, people start accusing him of not only being disrespectful, but of being exploitive?

It is not queerbaiting for an author to express what labels (if any) their characters would or would not use. And in this situation, it’s far from being disrespectful! I’d say it’s much more disrespectful to declare that you get to decide another person’s sexuality for them. Not to mention the underlying assumption going on here - that Aziraphile and Crowley are men, despite all the information to the contrary. There’s a phrase to describe when one person thinks they get to determine another person’s gender based solely on their physical appearance. What was it…? Ah, yes. Blatant cissexism.

Just because a story doesn’t portray the queer relationship you, personally, wanted to see doesn’t mean it was done wrong. It may be a different narrative than the one you’re used to, but that doesn’t mean it’s deceitful or “tricking” you. If this story isn’t your cup of tea, whatever, that’s fine. Just move along, stop trying to poison the well, and let the rest of us who are enjoying it get on with things.

comments

lupin5th

lh-moth: Apparently, there are currently accusations