Queerbaiting or Shipkilling?

At ComicCon the Exec Producer of Once Upon a Time caused an uproar when he announced the show has plans for a gay relationship on the series. The angry mob wasn't the religious right, but fans of the show who ship Swan Queen (a relationship between the Evil Queen and Snow White's adult daughter Emma Swan) because along with the announcement of this future character was an official statement that Swan Queen was never going to happen and that any romantic interest between them was not intentionally written this way.

On Tumblr and Twitter Swan Queen fans are very upset, tweeting messages to the shows creators saying "I'm not intentionally saying this. Fuck You." The Swan Queen ship is one of the most vocal in the Once fandom, and have accused non-shippers of homophobia. This post, resulting from when one of the show actors stated that SQ wasn't going to happen, is a good example of some of the things the fandom says.

As a Once fan, I do NOT get Swan Queen as a couple. Both characters have had exclusively heterosexual relationships, they are constantly at odds, and the Queen tried to kill Emma at least once. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't get together. Spike and Buffy happened so anything is possible! But I never saw the obvious signs that the SQ shippers did.

What I did see was the potential for a different show. Emma is the biological mother of Henry, a child she placed for adoption. Regina is Henry's adoptive mother. Emma and Regina both are emotionally damaged people. Emma was separated from her parents and believed she was abandoned. Regina's mother killed her fiance and forced her to marry a man she didn't love. A lot of the fandom stories stripped away the fairytale background of the series to focus on a modern world where two mothers try to find a family with each other. That's what SQ fans want.

It's just that they are trying to find it in a series that is all about the fairytale background.
 
I can't speak about the difficulty of not being represented in the media. I'm a cis, white, straight, female. I have plenty of characters that represent me. I might hate what that representation is much of the time (like in rom coms) but I have Kitty Pryde and Veronica Mars, and the cat lady from The Simpsons. My grandmother was the daughter of Polish immigrants in a poor Chicago neighborhood. She used to tell me that she was so excited to see any movie where the brunette wasn't the bad girl. She wasn't going to see someone who looked like her or lived like her, but she took her media representations where she could. Some GLBT have told me of similar things in their own life. They didn't have shows that really represented their lives so they'd watch Saved by the Bell viewing Zach as being gay and hooking up with AC Slater.

And even though there is more queer characters in the media now, they still are not representative to the whole community. Finding representation where you can still happens. Sometimes shows take advantage of it and intentionally play up the subtext in order to get LBGT fans to tune in. This is called Queerbaiting.

That Feminist Dyke has a great overview of Queer baiting, although I disagree about the idea that Sherlock started Queer baiting in the first episode. I felt that the "we aren't a couple" was an attempt to make it clear to fans that they weren't going to be a couple. This is because many of the modern readings have included the homosexual context (such as The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes). I do believe that by the second series the show was queerbaiting, possibly because the talk about them not being a couple didn't stop the world from shipping it anyway.

Anyway, Queer baiting is a thing. It's a real thing and a real problem. Rizzoli and Isles admits that they play up the lesbian subtext even though they don't plan to ever have the girls set together. This was their promo poster for a news season.

The Once statement at SDCC seems to be the opposite of Queer baiting.  It's officially not happening. To be fair, there were plenty of reasons to not think it was going to happen before now (like the statement of other writers and actors on the show and the fact that they keep trying to murder one another). And yet people are furious with the series in a way that I haven't seen people angry with Rizzoli and Isles. They are hurt that the show has ruined their ship. I shipped Marian/Guy from Robin Hood. I know about shows killing your ship (literally). But I just didn't watch the final season of the show and went into fanfiction world where they lived happily ever after. I didn't tweet threats to the producers.

But then again, Marian and Guy were a ship for me, not a representation of me. It's natural for SQ fans to be more upset. Still, I don't know what shows are supposed to do when they find out about GBLT fans who are finding unintentional subtext in their work. If they play it up they or continue they are Queer baiting. If they come out and say that it isn't going to happen then they are accused of being homophobic (because they don't come out and state that other non-canon ships aren't real) or killing the ship. 

The answer, of course, if to have more representations of GLBT characters and relationships so that people didn't need to search subtext for characters that they relate with. Of course, that comes with its own set of issues I'll have to write about one day. I will point out that it is hard for me to agree with the charges of Buffy playing into the dead lesbian cliche when EVERY couple on the series met an unhappy ending. If they allowed Willow/Tara to be the only couple to be together it would be awfully paternalistic and pandering of the series.

The Incest Straw Man

Red State's Erik Erickson has written a compelling case against gay marriage called "Why Not Incest".

Did I write compelling. Sorry. It's late. I meant, completely asinine.

The inspiration for the article was noted sociologist and evil lion voice Jeremy Irons, who wrote an equally stupid interview in The Huffington Post where he ponders if the legalization of gay marriage would lead to father's and son's marrying for tax benefits.

(Brief note: isn't it weird how the right argues that actors shouldn't make political opinions when it is George Clooney or Matt Damon doing the talking, but when Simon fron Die Hard With a VEngence says something it suddenly is a compelling revelation)

I'm not angry at Irons, who was clearly just sort of babbling without thinking. This wasn't some well thought out position he was claiming. Just him trying to sound smart by pointing out a legal loophole that would develop. Irons is an actor, and a great one. But he's clearly no policy expert.

But Erickson...well he is paid to be a commentator on these things. So I expect something more (OK, not expect...hope, pray, wish) from him. Instead, he argues that Irons is right! Why Not Incest!

Shouldn’t that include committed incestuous relationships? If love and commitment are the justification for marriage, why exempt this?
But … but … but what about the deformity of the kids, etc. Well, gay couples cannot have kids. Just as gay marriage advocates say the concerns about procreation are archaic when it comes to marriage, they are definitionally irrelevant if we move on to gay marriage.
So why not fathers marrying sons and moms marrying daughters? Is it because of the “ick” factor? Why should that preclude it?

The problem with Erickson's argument (and Irons' too) is that incest laws are not based on genetics. If it was just genetics then same-sex incest wouldn't be illegal, nor would adoptive parent incest, or step-parent. The problem with incest isn't genetic, but the fact that the parent-child relationship is one of unequal power where coercion can easily happen. Even with adult children (see MacKenzie Phillips for an example of this).

Erickson's incest argument actually already came before the courts, and failed, in the wake of the Lawrence v. Texas decision that overturned state laws against sodomy. In State v. Lowe the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Ohio's incest statute was constitutional as applied to an adult child and step-parent, even in the wake of the Lawrence decision. The court said that the state had a rational basis in laws that protect the family unit including punishing consensual sex between step-parents and children.

The legalization of gay marriage wouldn't change the incest argument because incest laws are about protecting the family unit and preventing the abuse of children. Not just preventing procreation. Stop thinking everything is about procreation!

I know this is hard for some people to understand, but two men (or two women, or transgender people) who want to form a legally recognized union is not the same as incest, or statutory rape, or bestiality, or polygamy. When people of the same gender marry there is not concern about consent or about coercion the way there are with all those other things.

I don't know what to do with the fact that Erickson thinks that the only reason why we'd have problems with incest is the genetic problems. He is either being naive or disingenuous to argue that incest is the same as same-sex relationships. Either he doesn't realize the serious abuse of position that happens in incestuous relationships, or he is minimizing it in order to make a better rhetorical argument.

Gay people exist. They have long term relationships. They have children they raise with their partners. They do everything that hetrosexual couples do. What is the argument against allowing them the legal rights of marriage? Incest laws protect children from being taken advantage of because of the unequal relationship between parents and children...is this unequal relationship there in homosexual relationships?

Incest laws also protect the family unit, as discussed in the Lowe case, by criminalizing the act of sex with someone within the family other than a spouse. Lowe's relationship with his step-daughter not only ruined his marriage but also the mother-child relationship between his wife and her child. While I've heard many people SAY that gay marriage will undermine family values, I have yet to see an explanation of why.

Incest laws aren't just about genetics. They have solid logical reasons behind them. So, what about the case against gay marriage? What is the logical argument against that. Or, to quote Erickson, is it just the Ick factor?