#bbcqueerbait

[kind-ich]

man, i really miss bbc sherlock. this time a year ago s4 was happening already but we still had hope and something to look forward to. i miss the excitement and vibes of the pre-s4 days

[opnorbury]

Update

Just in case you're wondering what we've been up to lately: we've been going over the BBC's "Research Update on Portrayal of LGB People on the BBC" from November 2012, which was a follow up of their original LGB Report from 2010.

We keep seeing enormous discrepancies between the BBC's good intentions and the reality of the abysmally bad LGB portrayal on BBC Sherlock, with all its explicitly queer villains as well as its obvious hints at a beautiful queer romance between Sherlock and John that are then invariably just played for laughs and not followed up on.

Just like we did previously with the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines and with their first LGB Report, we've been making screenshots of the most interesting/baffling bits of the 2012 report, that we will soon start posting to our Twitter.

[kajaono]

OMG!

So we have a litte pride in our City and some people from our LGBTQ university group gave me this flyer about queerbaiting.

And i started reading it and suddently: Why are Sherlock and John still not a couple?!

Everyone! My university group is asking the right questions!!!

Btw: The other fyler is about heteronormativity!

[rainbowstarbird]

Coming to AwesomeCon in DC? Join us for our two awesome (pun intended) panels for the Pride Alley track of LGBTQ content. You may or may not get to see us present a panel dressed as Sailor Scouts.

[starlitsecrets]

I don’t think some people understand what queer baiting is...

I see a lot of non-johnlockers (and some johnlockers) screaming about how “moftiss have said for years they weren’t writing johnlock!!! you weren’t baited!!!” and I’m just like...thats not how it works....It actually upsets me to see queer people echoing this sentiment too (fyi I’m gay). Ship whatever the fuck you want but if you’re denying the queerbaiting I’m side-eyeing the hell out of you. Queerbaiting isn’t about what the writers said about their intentions for the text. It’s about what actually happens in the text.

What happens is multiple occasions of people assuming John and Sherlock are romantically involved, what happens is John and Sherlock being put in scenes and situations that (if one of them were a woman instead) would be considered to be loaded with romantic/sexual tension, what happens is John sharing almost word for word the same lines with Molly who is clearly portrayed as being unrequitedly in love with Sherlock. I could go on and on about what actually happens in the text and the thing is, regardless of what you ship, there is no denying that there is a homoromantic subtext portrayed throughout the entire show. Many fans quit the series early on due to comments made by moftiss that then seemed to indicate to them that they were being queerbaited. Others chose to believe that a writing team, one of whom was a proud gay man, couldn’t possibly be queerbaiting them and instead they were building to a culmination of the relationship being textually canonised (finally!).

If you want to continue to throw out the argument that “they’ve denied it for years you’ve not been baited” then I would ask you to consider Mark’s comment: “I find flirting with the homoeroticism in Sherlock much more interesting”. If you’re so hung up on the idea of what the writers have actually said then that quote right there is confirmation that they were queerbaiting the whole time. Intentionally putting homoerotic/homoromantic tension into your show only to end up not delivering on it is queerbaiting. Like thats literally it. Mark has admitted it with that quote regardless of whether he is even actively aware thats what he was doing. I’d go as far to suggest that he didn’t even understand how serious the issue of queerbaiting is taken now given his age and experience with queer media in the past, possibly even felt he was being progressive. That doesn’t change the fact that it was queerbaiting. It doesn’t change the fact that queer fans were baited with the possibility of a romantic relationship between Sherlock and John and were instead delivered the biggest het fest in the entire show run. tl;dr the argument that because moftiss said johnlock wasn’t becoming canon somehow means queerbaiting didn’t happen is ridiculous because of what textually did happen on screen.

[whatwereallyarematters]

Sherlock Novel Casting: Daniel Radcliffe as Sherlock

I’m considering dream-casting for the modern gay!Sherlock novel I’m working on, and my first choice for Sherlock so far is Daniel Radcliffe. I mean, now that he’s exploring his adult-manly-dapperness, I can really see it.

He has that refined, interesting presence thing down. He also has that ethereal, intellectual, slightly mysterious thing going.

He’d look good dressed up to go to the opera.

But he could also convincingly go undercover as a street tough/ruffian (with a little of Holmes’ expert makeup skills).

He could even fit in a period adaptation.

And seriously, how cute would he look giving Watson a smooch?

And the best part is that Radcliffe is a Jewish actor, so he fits my Jewish Sherlock! So thoughts? Can you see him as our great detective? Have someone else in mind? Ideas for who should rep Watson?

[amillionmadmusings]

So I don’t normally post my videos onto Tumblr but….I feel like some people would appreciate this one… 

[keagan-ashleigh]

This (from this post) has been haunting me since the last three weeks. I don’t know what to think of it, but I know this exists and I simply can’t understand why BC would say such a thing if he didn’t want to say that the queer coding and romantic tropes weren’t queerbaiting. “We’re trying to create something here” will haunt me for what will feel like a lifetime.