Discussion in 'Pop & Justice' started by Vasilios, Jan 4, 2016.
Same. Someone made a post in here yesterday that was a goddamn mess but deleted it right away and probably thought no one saw it. But I just wanna let that person know that I saw it...and it was a goddamn mess. You know who you are.
Save me from myself.
I can't wait for this bulletin.
......But not nearly as exhausting as people denying the flat out possibility or reality that queerbaiting exists or calling the concept "being precious".
If same gender attracted people find it possibly exploitative, it's good to have these conversations that prompt more clarity and dialogue and keep pushing that same gender attraction is perfectly fine and, if you have it, please feel free to express it, and if you don't possess it, be clear on that. Of course people will still be iffy about being declarative on something like sexuality no matter how accepting the world is, but a celebrity with an invested interest in pulling in certain audiences saying something is a bit different than going up to random people on the street and wanting their entire personal story on their exploration of sexuality. There's precedent, and that's why people side-eye or are cautious.
If he likes men, amazing / wonderful / yas hunty werk. If he doesn't, good for him, but at least he's clear. Again, portraying people who point out the possible exploitative nature of his statement as precious or hateful is.... a lot. As far as I was aware, this conversation ended pages ago with it being a clear objective consensus about the harms of what he's doing if he's doing it before someone decided to get out of their face and look silly and proclaim he's "done ton to prove he's not straight!!!".
He's likely queerbaiting. If he is, he looks stupid. There's no way to now at present if he is. There's really nothing else to say outside those likely truths.
Thank you for your response. It does answer some of my questions, though it raises others too. That's good discussion!
I'm also curious why some celebrities seem exempt from this sort of suspicion based on their claims. I'm not going to name celeb names because the last thing I want to do is cause a stan war, but if Harry is being eyed as potentially shady for refusing to pin his sexuality down for the public, why isn't everyone in the spotlight questioned the same way? I'm not pulling for one side or the other here, I guess I would just like to see some consistency.
You're being dishonest here.
No one is mad if he didn't want to discuss his sexuality. He prompted and initiated the issue by mentioning his sexuality in roundabout ways that can garner him interest yet not harm him (you know.. exploitation).
No one is curious about who, for example, Zayn is attracted to because he's never mentioned it in any way. I'm not going to be shocked or surprised if Zayn says he's straight because he's never once implied otherwise. By saying you prefer not to label your sexuality, the inherent implication is that you're not straight, and given the exploitative nature of previous celebrities to tease such and bait, it's not wild for people to then go - "...okay, can you explain what you mean by that?". It's 100% possible to describe a function of one's sexuality (ie: having even just any type of attraction to even just one member of the same sex) while still not placing a label on it. Cause if it's then more about not wanting to have other people label it something, the question is - why? Do you have something to gain from any ambiguity, or something to lose if you're not ambiguous?
I don't see how I'm being dishonest, but I can see I'm not really going to get an answer without being called so.
So back to the music I suppose. I would be more than willing to discuss this stuff via PM if anyone wants to continue.
You're reframing the issue into something it's not.
If you think the Harry has to say 24/7 he's straight and that's what's being asked for, you're purposely trying not to get it. If he's straight, I'd frankly rather he never mention his sexuality and we'd be spared having to hear the plight of what it's like to be heterosexual. Straight men aren't special. We don't need to hear them discuss their heterosexuality at length.
...but that's not the issue. He implied something and now people simply want an explanation on what he meant. I'm curious as to who you were trying to shade by claiming they queerbait as well.
I wasn't shading anyone; I was asking why responses varied. But again, if you want to continue with me we can through PMs! I'm sure everyone else is over it. *thumbs up*
But I'm not seeing where you get that out of my post at all. Because I don't believe that.
And I'm asking where responses have varied and why, if there is even varied responses, how that changes anything. This feels like it's going to veer into "I think [female act] is ACTUALLY straight despite explicitly calling herself bisexual for years while also thinking Harry Styles is queer for liking buttered toast :)" territory.
You've clearly already decided you're correct no matter what I say, and again, PM me if you want.
Who gives a flying fuck about who he's shagging.
Let's just be grateful for the existence of Ever Since New York, the weirdly Stereophonics-esque summery guitar-pop jam we never knew we needed, and pray to the pop gods it gets the single treatment so it can be number one everywhere. Seems like a more productive use of energy.
Well, I largely agree with most of the points you've made, but if he wants to talk about his sexuality as a straight man, then why not? It wouldn't harm anyone.
Yeah I just wanted to share a perspective of someone who has same sex attraction but honestly would probably be happier not labelling anything. Which again is not to invalidate the queerbaiting criticisms, which I completely see where people are coming from. But there's also a chance that harry isn't straight and he doesn't want to talk about it because of the years of speculation about his sexuality, much of which happened when he was younger and was not invited by him. And there's also a chance that he could have some same sex attraction but primarily be attracted to women (like many bi people who aren't a 50-50% attraction), and thus appear to be straight to the public but not actually be. I mean on the balance of probabilities he's probably straight, but at the same time a refusal to label yourself doesn't automatically mean you're a straight person who doesn't understand why labels can be important to members of the queer community.
I don't even know what I'm saying anymore, I just find the whole issue really complicated when it comes up I suppose.
Separate names with a comma.