April 29, 2026 • 39 mins
Straightwashing has a long history and according to some, has gotten worse in recent years. Anney and Samantha navigate the history off straightwashing and chat about a related topic, placement theory.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Hey, this is Annie and Smantha. I'm welcome to Steffan
never told you protection. I heart radio, And today we
are just continuing my journey of coming to terms with
being ceirbated, which by the way, happened five months ago,
(00:30):
and I'm still wrestling with the fallout. And yeah, I
was looking through the presentation I gave to my friend
if he missed that episode where I talked about that.
I gave it two and a half hour presentation to
my friend about how I had been queerbaited, which by
(00:53):
the way, she agreed at the end. And so I'm
going through some of the beats I haven't hit yet.
But yes, that being said, I have been working through
this for a while. See our episodes on internalized homophobia,
compat Our compulsory headosexuality, and the Happy Hour where I
(01:13):
talked about being queerbaited and how miserable it has made me.
I will also add the episode we did with Joey
on pink washing kind of comes up with this. And
obviously today we're talking about two major beats. One of
them the first one we're going to get into a
straight washing. Obviously, straight washing is related to whitewashing. This
(01:38):
is a very similar idea, so you're gonna hear similar things.
But I wanted to make that clear. So let us
get into a definition of straight washing, since this is
the first topic we're going to tackle. Straight washing, also
called heat washing, is a pretty straightforward thing, no pun intended.
(02:02):
It refers to the practice of making a queer character
appear straight like, just kind of erasing that whole part
of their identity. This often includes changing personal information on
fictional or historical characters and making them fit into heteronormative narratives.
Straightwa washing shows up in the news too, which we
(02:24):
are going to talk about a little bit. Even as
we've seen more queer storylines in media, a lot of
times they are careful and safe on sidelines. Often the
cowardliness ooh my emotions are coming through of not giving
a queer storyline space or backing off entirely from the
(02:48):
storyline are not including any at all are attributed to
producers and studios, which could both be true and also
an excuse. I think both can be true. According to
these powers that be, audiences don't want these stories, and
if they do, only in a very heteronormative way. And
(03:11):
right now, with Trump and the FCC. We've seen some things.
There have been clear instances of things being canceled, likely
because of the inclusion of a queer storyline. It's one
of those things it's hard to prove outright, but several
examples were doing well and got canceled, and one thing
(03:34):
they had in common queer storylines. There's also ciswashing or
portraying trans or non binary actors at CIS. That's an
offshoot of this. And all of this continues to utter
the gay experience because essentially you're saying the heteronormative experience
is the normal one, and this is outside the realm
(03:58):
of that, and we don't want to freak people out,
so they'll they'll be on the outskirts of this whole thing.
So I did want to talk about some examples of
how this has played out in different ways. First of all, entertainment,
so the Motion Picture Production Code or the Hayes Code,
(04:19):
caused major studios to avoid any representation of queerness due
to their ban on quote any inference of sex perversion,
and this was in place from nineteen thirty to nineteen
sixty eight. The nineteen ninety five documentary The Celluloid closet
details how writers and directors tried to find ways around
(04:41):
this whole thing, and how they tried to maybe convince
audiences that it wasn't so strange at all, and you know,
get them to not reject the queer storyline. One of
the examples of the documentary highlighted was how in the
(05:01):
film been Her, Gorvidal wrote ben Her and Massala as
past lovers. I'm sorry if I mispronounced that I have
never seen been Her, something that actor Charlton Heston later
revealed he knew nothing about. He didn't know this was
a whole thing. Queerness was still something largely avoided by
(05:22):
the major studios. Even after the code was dismissed. It
was like still in place. It kind of was dismissed,
but it was still in place. Smaller productions were putting
out some pretty great stuff. And then the nineteen ninety
three film Philadelphia, which was a major studio movie featuring
Tom Hanks that came out decidedly after the peak of
(05:44):
the AIDS crisis, but it was close, was one of
the first mainstream films to center a gay plot. It
was about a man who had HIV AIDS and was
fired from his job because of it. He took the
company to court and was represented by homophobic lawyer. However,
this movie was very much about gay grief and pity,
(06:06):
almost like not gay joy. Look how sad? This is
kind of vibe the nineteen fifty eight film adaptation of Tennessee.
Williams work Kat on a hot tin roof, erased gay
storylines that were at the core of the story and
the emotional beats. It went on to earn several Academy
Award nominations. Anyway, I recommend reading more about that because
(06:30):
I was kind of shocked that they took out what
if they took out?
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Wait? What did they take out?
Speaker 1 (06:35):
So I have never seen or read this, so I'm
going off of the research I did.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
I love that movie.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Okay, well, I've clearly it was well loved, and you
correct me if I'm wrong. In the movie, there's a
character that dies due to a football like injury. Oh,
and they're oh yeah, and there's one that's never mentioned, well,
is mentioned but never seen. Yes, they were in the play.
(07:07):
One of them confessed his love to the other, was rejected,
and they both died. And it's implied it was because
they didn't get together, they were shoving things down.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Okay, well I do remember now that you say this,
there is because it's been a minute. There is this
connotation that he did not love his wife because he
had been in love with his best friend.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Yes, exactly, they had like a senseless marriage and she
loved him, and.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
It didn't make sense because she's the most beautiful woman
in the world and his father very toxic masculine character.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Really like they go at it.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
In the Paul Newman adaptation with Elizabeth Taylor, burl Ives
as placed the father who is.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Known as Frosty the Snowman.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
I know, not Faly, I'm sorry, the Snowman in the
root off the Red Nows Reindeer.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Yes, I knew we're talking about.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Yes, yes, but yeah, I kind of forgot that plot
when I was very young.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
So but yes, that does yeah, that does go. Yeah,
yeah that is implied for sure.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Yes, yes, yes, okay, Well one of the things we're
talking about are things that are maybe implied in the
film adaptation but were more explicit in the written word. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Yes, and that would make sense for Tennessee Williams for sure.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Yes. Another thing I wanted to mention is the nineteen
eighty five Steven Spielberg adaptation of Alice Walker's The Color Purple,
which seriously watered down the lesbian connection between the two characters,
and that was a hugely important and transformative thing in
the book. Another big example, well, oh no, actually several
(08:54):
big examples, the film Breakfast at Tiffany's, famously written by
Truman Capoti, who was gay. The nineteen ninety four film
Interview with a Vampire Winter's Bone, of past feminist movie
Friday pic Fried Green Tomatoes, which we did talk about
(09:15):
in that episode. There is subtext and the director called
the food fight scene between the two leading women in
that movie as he called it a love scene. But
we want something explicitly romantic, and in the book it
was explicitly romantic. English translations of Sailor Moon, which, if
(09:36):
you don't know, is an anime and manga series. The
English translations minimized the sexual orientations and identities of the characters,
and a number of the characters were queer, and they
just kind of got erased. A lot of stuff that
came out after that, especially media around gay historical figures,
(09:57):
minimized their sexuality, if not erasing it at all a
few quick examples, and I do want to reiterate these
are just a few, because there are some big ones
that I'm not going to mention, but you can find
more about. In John Nash's two thousand and one work
A Beautiful Mind, his sexuality and gay affairs were omitted,
(10:21):
and the two thousand and four film Troy, the long
speculated romantic relationship between Achilles and Patrick Culis was instead
turned into a non romantic cousin relationship. There is so
much at academic writing on that you can read to
your heart's content if you would like. Speculation abounds. Twenty
(10:44):
thirteen Russian biopic on composer Tchaikowsky rushed aside the largely
held belief that he was gay, which would have been
against Russia's anti LGBTQ plus laws. Similar to A Beautiful Mind,
the twenty fourteen film The Imageation Game about Alan Turing
was accused of downplaying during sexuality, especially when he was
(11:06):
living in a time when homosexuality was illegal, and he
was convicted for gross indecency. He was given the option
of imprisonment or chemical castration, and he chose chemical castration,
but died a year later in a believed suicide. The
film only romantically depicts him with a woman. Then in
(11:31):
twenty fifteen, we have the film Stonewall about Stonewall Riots,
but the filmmakers faced backlash for ciswashing and whitewashing by
sidelining the black transactivist who led the riots, Marcia P.
Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. I haven't seen this film, and
I'm told I should not, but it did not get
(11:57):
a lot of positive feedback. That same year, Sony Uk
got called out for straightwa washing a promotional poster for
the film Call Me by Your Name, which is about
a gay relationship between a boy and an older man,
by making it seem like it was about a straight relationship.
And yeah, looking at the poster, I can see it.
(12:19):
I have a picture in here for you, Samantha that
looks like a straight couple.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
There was a lot about this movie that was like controversial.
But yeah, that's a problem.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Yeah, it's a problem in a lot of ways because
you're going in with confused expectations. M M. Yeah. Yeah.
But clearly the idea they well the idea I believe
they had was more people would come in if they
thought it was a straight relationship. But I don't see
how you think it would turn out positively when it
turns out it's not right. Yeah, oh, which is kind
(12:59):
of related. In twenty fifteen, The Guardian reported on the
fact that the USDBD distributors airbrushed the back cover of Pride,
which yes, is about It's about folks who are gay
in the UK who were campaigning protesting on the part
(13:21):
of miners. Miners as in people who mine, not young
people in the United Kingdom, and it was kind of
a big movement in the UK. And this the distributors
removed a sign on the cover that read lesbians and
(13:43):
gays support the miners, and they edited the blurb to
read a group of London based activists, whereas before it
had said specifically like these are gay people who are
fighting for the rights of other people. They erased all
mention of queerness. This was a whole thing. It blew up.
The director had to comment on it. Some people, allies
(14:08):
queer people, argued that this was the best course of
action because it would increase the chance that it would
reach a wider audience. Others argued that it suggested shame
and was a form of a rasure and the director
was kind of I could tell when I was reading
the comments was a little on a tightrope about that.
(14:33):
I guess I can see the point. But if it's
called Pride and we know what it's about, I just don't.
I don't know. If it feels like we're tricking straight
people into going to see a movie, maybe that's the
best way. I don't know what it is. The twenty
(15:02):
eighteen film chronicling Freddie Mercury called Bohemian Rhapsody, was also
called out for straightwa washing and by erasure that got
a lot of stuff written about it. Also in twenty eighteen,
the short lived NBC show Rise got a lot of
heat for straight washing. The lead character, who was a
(15:23):
high school theater director based on a real teacher, and
the real teacher was gay. He'd been closeted for a
long time, but he had come out as gay. The
explanation given for this was that it was quote inspired
by and the head writer wanted to make it his
own story, which I have to say is not the
(15:46):
best quote. Let me take your story and make it mine, right.
Some people have written about this and said it was
taken out of context. I read it and I really
don't feel like it was sticking out of context. They
also said like, well, there are other queer plot lines
(16:09):
in the show, which is true. To be clear, I've
never seen the show, but I did read a lot
about it doing this research, and I read an article
where I felt they made the point that I agree with.
That's great. The author of that article said, you know,
these are they were pretty good representations of queer people,
(16:30):
but they were side characters who weren't you know, like
you might not even be following their story, whereas this
was the main character and it was his story, and
you're basically saying, we didn't give you that, but you
can have this.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Yeah, okay, then all right.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Recently, again this is just like a handful of examples.
There have been a lot of articles written about it
this week about how it has gotten worse and worse,
this straightwashing actually, and some actors being really vocal about
reversing it. There was also a spait of straightwashing and
(17:16):
adaptations of comics. One of the most infamous ones is
Mystique from X Men. In the comics, she is portrayed
as bisexual, and the movies that she has portrayed in
she has been depicted as straight, or at the very
least the part of her identity. That part of her
identity is never mentioned and never explored. The same could
(17:38):
be said of Deadpool. Also in the Guardians of the
Galaxy comics, star Lord is polyamorous and by but that
is not something we've seen in the films. Another thing
that got a lot of attention in the Black Panther comics,
two of Black Panther's protectors, both women, were in a
(17:58):
gay relationship Koye and Io if You're interested, But in
the movies people were disappointed to find their relationship was
not explored at all. On top of that, early screenings
featured a scene that showed the pair flirtatiously dancing with
each other. When it was deleted, Marvel released an official
(18:20):
statement that their relationship was not a romantic one. There
was a whole campaign Samantha Online give Ao a Girlfriend,
which was similar to the previous campaign Give Captain America
a Boyfriend, both of which did not work, and a
Koye ended up in a straight relationship. Also, Roxanne gay
(18:45):
I believe wrote their relationship and she was not invited
to the premiere of Black Panther and said like I cannot.
My feelings are hurt. I feel a certain type of way. Yeah, yes,
Constantine in the show and movie versus the comic and
(19:07):
the comic he's by, but he that has not been
demonstrated outside of that. After Archie Comics hammered Home the
fact that jack Head Jones was Ace, the TV show
adaptation of Riverdale pretty much ignored that whole thing and
put him in some heteronormative relationships. The actor that played
(19:27):
the character, Cole Sprouse, advocated for the character to maintain
his Ace identity, but they just did not do it.
I would also add all the build up to Tessa
Thompson's character Valkyrie, where we were promised this gay romance
and we absolutely did not get it at all.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Was there an implication when we were watching the whichever
one where Natalie Portman becomes kind of the youth door.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Yeh, yes, So there was a deleted scene. Again with
these deleted scenes, there was a deleted scene that pretty
much was like a woman leaving her a Valkyrie's room,
very clear what they had been doing. She she is
(20:17):
open that she is by and she's looking for her queen.
But that's it. It doesn't go beyond that, which is
kind of what we keep running into is like, sure,
you've got this character, but they don't ever get to
go beyond that part. And yes, this is just a
(20:39):
few of many, many examples. There has recently been discussion
around straight washing and video games, particularly in the game Undertail,
which I love this game. If you aren't familiar. Undertail
is a critically acclaimed and beloved game that is really creative,
it's really innovative, and it features a lot of queer content.
(21:03):
This led to a lot of people speculating and hoping
that it might nudge the gaming world towards inclusivity. But no,
of course not. Instead it got straight washed by a
lot of the players and even some of the writers,
which does happen. So that's just to say audiences can
(21:24):
straight wash too. I think gaming is an interesting case
because you're interacting kind of on that direct level. I
did not know this about Undertail. It doesn't surprise me.
I was a little shocked when I was researching straight
washing and the first result was Undertail. But unfortunately, because
(21:46):
there's like research papers actually written about it, and it's basically,
you know, straight white men being No, not this game
that I love so much that cannot be gay. Yeah, yeah,
it is. It is one note before we move on.
(22:07):
Sometimes creators and actors claim that audiences are reading too
much into things. I talked about this in my queer
Baiting episode, which if you haven't listened to it, just
as small. I'm really sorry, but I was panicking through
that whole episode, so I was reading it very quickly.
But yes, you can go listen to that. What annoys
(22:30):
me about this argument is a lot of times there
is past content and interviews saying the opposite, and they're
trying to convince you your delusional. When it's been there.
It's like, sometimes yes, I get it. Sometimes no, that
was there and you said it wasn't there, and now
you're trying to convince me you didn't. And that can
(22:54):
be going back to the corporations intervening and telling telling
writers like no, we don't want that, and sometimes they'll give,
you know, the bare minimum a gay character and that's it.
And sometimes it's written by straight writers. A lot of
times it's written by straight writers, and it feels more
(23:15):
humiliating than empowering. Sometimes this gets used politically as and
see how progressive we are when it's not good representation
at all. Like it's not that it isn't even what
the experience of being gay is. Okay, briefly, we're going
to talk about politics, because there are absolutely instances of
(23:36):
straight washing and politics Eva Gore Booth and Esther Roper
or Suffragettes and Companions in the nineteen hundreds, though a
biography on both of them by Gifford Lewis sought to
erase this with this statement, you will be pleased to
know that I could find it not a trace a
perverted sexuality. This despite the fact that the pair published
(24:01):
works together about gender and sexuality, including their thoughts on
why women shouldn't marry. They have a fascinating story for
a different podcast. But I can't believe they had all
these works published. And this guy was like, you'll be happy.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
To know, just kidding, I never saw a video.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Yes. Yes. From the end of World War two to
nineteen sixty eight, the New York Times only published two
front page pieces referencing just referencing gay folks. Most coverage
at the time was negative, and they were in fact
tied to security threats related to the Cold War. Of course, worse,
(24:47):
it took the New York Times two years after the
nineteen eighty one outbreak of AIDS to mention it at
all until they finally featured it in nineteen eighty three.
In general, the media coverage absent are condemning on that
whole thing. I don't think that's newsstandybody, But just to reiterate,
there are also arguments and articles about how lesbians, trans
(25:10):
and non conforming people were completely left out of this
whole conversation around AIDS, and the research also probably not surprising.
One of the most notable incidences in recent history in
straightwashing is what happened in the reporting following the shooting
(25:31):
at LGBTQ plus Orlando club Pulse in twenty sixteen. Several
politicians outright avoided using the term gay or downplayed the
fact that it was a gay establishment and that this
was a hate crime. Forty Nine people died as a reminder,
and more were injured. Trans erasure is a huge topic
(25:54):
in this conversation too, and deserving of its own episode.
But essentially, the current administration and not just them, but
for today, are doing their best to straight wash society
and erase the existence of trans people through legislation. We've
talked before about how official US government websites have removed
(26:16):
the t from LGBT on their websites and in state parks,
and there's even been a fight to keep the gay
flag flying its stone wall, Oh my goodness. And you know,
we've talked a lot about book banning and what's getting banned,
and that that falls in that conversation as well. Not
(26:39):
exactly politics, but previous Olympic broadcasts have been called out
for straight washing their coverage, not mentioning a gay athlete.
Oh once, all right, So another thing I want to
mention before we move on to my next topic is
liberal homophobia. This is just a very brief mention, but basically,
(27:00):
liberal homophobia is the idea of that liberal people are
okay with gay people as long as they stay quiet
and out of the way. It's acceptable as long as
it's not your face, which is kind of funny to
me because that sounds like a lot of people who
would call themselves moderate conservatives have that same mindset. But
one of the big examples that comes up with this
(27:23):
is the Trump is gay for putin jokes, Yeah, because
the implication is that's so disgusting that he's gay, like
you can see what their joke is trying to do, right,
But it's also we've talked about this several times about
who are you actually hurting? Right, because you're saying that
(27:45):
that is a disgusting that if he's gay, that's disgusting.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
Yeah, so that's liberal homophobian. Now let's move from straightwa
washing and talk about placement theory. Okay, So this is
(28:14):
gonna be interesting because this, as far as I know,
people call this a lot of things. I prefer placement theory.
Some people use placeholder theory. Placeholder theory gets used a
lot in a different context than what I'm going to
(28:35):
be talking about. So you actually I saw an article
the other day about placeholder theory, which is essentially, how
do you identify that you're you're a placeholder in someone's relationship? Right,
like you're not the one and they're gonna move on.
That's not what this is, but some people do occasionally
call this placeholder theory.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Also, I could be wrong, but I think this is
a new I think this is a topic that doesn't
really have a name, but people have talked about a lot,
if you know what I mean. So if you look
up placement theory. I'm not sure what you'll get, but
let me tell you, I've read a lot of essays
about it personally, and I just I can't unsee it
(29:22):
now that I know about it. Okay, And so going
back to that presentation, I gave my poor sweet friend
two hours and thirty minutes. Placement theory was the one
that sold her, she told me later. So I'm going
to give you kind of a hypothetical situation. But I
(29:46):
do want to say before we get into this, this
can happen in straight Basically, what we're talking about is
a love triangle, and so this can happen in a
straight love triangle. We're going to be talking about what
happens when it's in a gay love triangle. Okay, And
(30:09):
I'm gonna specify because it's a little complicated. But let's
imagine you have three characters. In this case, we're going
to go with one woman, two men. One of the
men is gay, and you know it absolutely. One of
them you think is probably gay, but you don't know
(30:32):
for sure. He's dating the woman, yes, and the gay
person and the woman look alike and they wear similar clothes. Yes.
So now you bring in the idea of internalized homophobia
(30:54):
or compulsory heterosexuality. Have this character who doesn't know, maybe
is internalizing that he's not gay, he can't be, so
he's dating a woman to prove that he's not right
and is desperately hanging on to that, and it just
(31:16):
so happens it looks like the gay guy who's his
best friend. So placement theory is the idea that this
character who you don't know maybe they're gay or not,
can't hold these two people in the same space because
(31:39):
if he holds them in the same space, he will
realize that the dude is filling a romantic space and
that if he has internalized homophobia, is gonna make him
freak out. It's gonna make him really uncomfortable. It's going
(32:00):
to make him close down. So he has to keep
them both separated. He can never have them in the
same space, yes, but when he is with them on
their own he can be present appreciate all of that.
He just can't have them in the same space. Yes,
(32:25):
And it's because of the internal conflict of like recognizing,
why do I feel like one of them is replacing
the other in this romantic space. This might mean I'm gay.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Yeah, Like I said, it can happen in queer and
non queer spaces. It can happen like that. But I
think that the shame and the fear and internalized homophobia
of it may it more announced, especially if you're if
(33:06):
a character is clinging to a straight relationship when they
are not straight, but they're trying to prove it to
themselves in any way they can huh. Yes, yes, placement theory.
Have many have read many essays on it. But yeah,
(33:27):
that's essentially what it is. I could go into a
lot more detail, but it's basically, you can't hold two
ideas people in your head at once. You have to
separate them.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Okay, yep, that's in depth.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
Yeah, but I promise you won't unsee it. You see
it like, yes, you could never have your girlfriend and
the guy you love actually in the same spot. God.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Trying to think of examples, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Well, some I.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Could, but I won't. What I will say is that
this is related to the gay best friend trope. I
think it encompasses a lot more than that. I think
it is an evolution of that trope because essentially, in
that case, you've got a gay best friend who's trying
(34:22):
to build up a straight relationship, perhaps to the detriment
of themselves, if they have a crush or love somebody
in that relationship. And I know, I can't remember the name.
I know a John Hughes movie has that plotline. But
that's also like a big issue I have found with
(34:42):
my recent queer baiting experience. But of using queer characters
to fix straight relationships while the queer character is in
love with one of them and then ends up not
finding love at all, I think that's pretty sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
uh close out? What a thing to close out on.
(35:02):
I didn't realize I was doing this. I so, as
you know, did a recent fan fiction update. One thing
I'm not going to talk about, but I did realize
I didn't mention and is a big place of contention
is the argument of who tops and bottoms when it
(35:27):
comes to fictional characters. It is heated, Samantha, and I
didn't realize how heated until one of my favorite stories,
the author all caps had a message of like, back off,
I have tagged it correctly, leave me alone.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
What were people upset about?
Speaker 1 (35:49):
I think, I don't This is so strange to me
because obviously I'm not very sexual, so I feel a
little confused about the whole thing. But I think people
in this case, probably a lot of gay women interestingly,
(36:14):
have these attributes that they place on who is the
top and who's a bottom, and they get wrapped up
in that or this is just how they see that character.
So if they if you don't go along with that,
(36:34):
then they don't want to read it. And so if
they think your tags are not accurate to that and
they read it, then they get angry. I will say,
the author of this particular story, I think it was
appropriate tagged.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
I don't.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
I think people were just mad. And I said that
when we were doing our fan fiction updates. Sometimes I
do think people just don't like where a story went,
and then they complain, oh, you didn't tag it correctly,
but they did, they did. And yeah, speaking of that's
when I learned about weaponized tagging in this space. Damn
(37:12):
are like calling people out and saying you didn't tag
it and trying to get their whole story taken down.
I didn't know this was like such a big, this
top bottom debate. I had no idea. I feel a
little naive I was gonna look into it for this episode,
and then I chickened out. I'm gonna be honest with you,
I really chickened out. I didn't want to put it
(37:36):
in my search bar, and then I don't. I'll look
into it at a future date. This is already a
decent episode without it.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Yeah, things that come, things to come.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
Well, listeners, if you have any thoughts about this, any
examples I missed of straightw washing. If you know, if
there is an actual thing other than a placement theory
of what that is called, and you know it, let
me know. That's what I've seen it generally called. But yeah,
(38:18):
send us all of your thoughts. You can email us
at Hello at Stuffwenever Told You dot com. You can
find us on blue Sky I'm Mom Stuff podcast, or
on Instagram and TikTok at stuff one Never Told You.
We're also on YouTube. We have some merchandise at coom Bureau,
and we have a book you can get wherever you
get your books. Thanks to Casey for helping us out
today with production and editing. Thanks to our executive producer Maya,
(38:42):
and thanks to you for listening. Stuff I Never Told
Me is production by heart Radio. For more podcasts from
My heart Radio, you can check out the heart Radio app,
Apple Podcasts, or reever you listen to your favorite shows.
Hey, this is Annie and Smantha. I'm welcome to Steffan
never told you protection. I heart radio, And today we
are just continuing my journey of coming to terms with
being ceirbated, which by the way, happened five months ago,
(00:30):
and I'm still wrestling with the fallout. And yeah, I
was looking through the presentation I gave to my friend
if he missed that episode where I talked about that.
I gave it two and a half hour presentation to
my friend about how I had been queerbaited, which by
(00:53):
the way, she agreed at the end. And so I'm
going through some of the beats I haven't hit yet.
But yes, that being said, I have been working through
this for a while. See our episodes on internalized homophobia,
compat Our compulsory headosexuality, and the Happy Hour where I
(01:13):
talked about being queerbaited and how miserable it has made me.
I will also add the episode we did with Joey
on pink washing kind of comes up with this. And
obviously today we're talking about two major beats. One of
them the first one we're going to get into a
straight washing. Obviously, straight washing is related to whitewashing. This
(01:38):
is a very similar idea, so you're gonna hear similar things.
But I wanted to make that clear. So let us
get into a definition of straight washing, since this is
the first topic we're going to tackle. Straight washing, also
called heat washing, is a pretty straightforward thing, no pun intended.
(02:02):
It refers to the practice of making a queer character
appear straight like, just kind of erasing that whole part
of their identity. This often includes changing personal information on
fictional or historical characters and making them fit into heteronormative narratives.
Straightwa washing shows up in the news too, which we
(02:24):
are going to talk about a little bit. Even as
we've seen more queer storylines in media, a lot of
times they are careful and safe on sidelines. Often the
cowardliness ooh my emotions are coming through of not giving
a queer storyline space or backing off entirely from the
(02:48):
storyline are not including any at all are attributed to
producers and studios, which could both be true and also
an excuse. I think both can be true. According to
these powers that be, audiences don't want these stories, and
if they do, only in a very heteronormative way. And
(03:11):
right now, with Trump and the FCC. We've seen some things.
There have been clear instances of things being canceled, likely
because of the inclusion of a queer storyline. It's one
of those things it's hard to prove outright, but several
examples were doing well and got canceled, and one thing
(03:34):
they had in common queer storylines. There's also ciswashing or
portraying trans or non binary actors at CIS. That's an
offshoot of this. And all of this continues to utter
the gay experience because essentially you're saying the heteronormative experience
is the normal one, and this is outside the realm
(03:58):
of that, and we don't want to freak people out,
so they'll they'll be on the outskirts of this whole thing.
So I did want to talk about some examples of
how this has played out in different ways. First of all, entertainment,
so the Motion Picture Production Code or the Hayes Code,
(04:19):
caused major studios to avoid any representation of queerness due
to their ban on quote any inference of sex perversion,
and this was in place from nineteen thirty to nineteen
sixty eight. The nineteen ninety five documentary The Celluloid closet
details how writers and directors tried to find ways around
(04:41):
this whole thing, and how they tried to maybe convince
audiences that it wasn't so strange at all, and you know,
get them to not reject the queer storyline. One of
the examples of the documentary highlighted was how in the
(05:01):
film been Her, Gorvidal wrote ben Her and Massala as
past lovers. I'm sorry if I mispronounced that I have
never seen been Her, something that actor Charlton Heston later
revealed he knew nothing about. He didn't know this was
a whole thing. Queerness was still something largely avoided by
(05:22):
the major studios. Even after the code was dismissed. It
was like still in place. It kind of was dismissed,
but it was still in place. Smaller productions were putting
out some pretty great stuff. And then the nineteen ninety
three film Philadelphia, which was a major studio movie featuring
Tom Hanks that came out decidedly after the peak of
(05:44):
the AIDS crisis, but it was close, was one of
the first mainstream films to center a gay plot. It
was about a man who had HIV AIDS and was
fired from his job because of it. He took the
company to court and was represented by homophobic lawyer. However,
this movie was very much about gay grief and pity,
(06:06):
almost like not gay joy. Look how sad? This is
kind of vibe the nineteen fifty eight film adaptation of Tennessee.
Williams work Kat on a hot tin roof, erased gay
storylines that were at the core of the story and
the emotional beats. It went on to earn several Academy
Award nominations. Anyway, I recommend reading more about that because
(06:30):
I was kind of shocked that they took out what
if they took out?
Speaker 2 (06:33):
Wait? What did they take out?
Speaker 1 (06:35):
So I have never seen or read this, so I'm
going off of the research I did.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
I love that movie.
Speaker 1 (06:43):
Okay, well, I've clearly it was well loved, and you
correct me if I'm wrong. In the movie, there's a
character that dies due to a football like injury. Oh,
and they're oh yeah, and there's one that's never mentioned, well,
is mentioned but never seen. Yes, they were in the play.
(07:07):
One of them confessed his love to the other, was rejected,
and they both died. And it's implied it was because
they didn't get together, they were shoving things down.
Speaker 3 (07:23):
Okay, well I do remember now that you say this,
there is because it's been a minute. There is this
connotation that he did not love his wife because he
had been in love with his best friend.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Yes, exactly, they had like a senseless marriage and she
loved him, and.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
It didn't make sense because she's the most beautiful woman
in the world and his father very toxic masculine character.
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Really like they go at it.
Speaker 1 (07:49):
Yes.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
In the Paul Newman adaptation with Elizabeth Taylor, burl Ives
as placed the father who is.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
Known as Frosty the Snowman.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
I know, not Faly, I'm sorry, the Snowman in the
root off the Red Nows Reindeer.
Speaker 1 (08:04):
Yes, I knew we're talking about.
Speaker 3 (08:05):
Yes, yes, but yeah, I kind of forgot that plot
when I was very young.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
So but yes, that does yeah, that does go. Yeah,
yeah that is implied for sure.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
Yes, yes, yes, okay, Well one of the things we're
talking about are things that are maybe implied in the
film adaptation but were more explicit in the written word. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Yes, and that would make sense for Tennessee Williams for sure.
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Yes. Another thing I wanted to mention is the nineteen
eighty five Steven Spielberg adaptation of Alice Walker's The Color Purple,
which seriously watered down the lesbian connection between the two characters,
and that was a hugely important and transformative thing in
the book. Another big example, well, oh no, actually several
(08:54):
big examples, the film Breakfast at Tiffany's, famously written by
Truman Capoti, who was gay. The nineteen ninety four film
Interview with a Vampire Winter's Bone, of past feminist movie
Friday pic Fried Green Tomatoes, which we did talk about
(09:15):
in that episode. There is subtext and the director called
the food fight scene between the two leading women in
that movie as he called it a love scene. But
we want something explicitly romantic, and in the book it
was explicitly romantic. English translations of Sailor Moon, which, if
(09:36):
you don't know, is an anime and manga series. The
English translations minimized the sexual orientations and identities of the characters,
and a number of the characters were queer, and they
just kind of got erased. A lot of stuff that
came out after that, especially media around gay historical figures,
(09:57):
minimized their sexuality, if not erasing it at all a
few quick examples, and I do want to reiterate these
are just a few, because there are some big ones
that I'm not going to mention, but you can find
more about. In John Nash's two thousand and one work
A Beautiful Mind, his sexuality and gay affairs were omitted,
(10:21):
and the two thousand and four film Troy, the long
speculated romantic relationship between Achilles and Patrick Culis was instead
turned into a non romantic cousin relationship. There is so
much at academic writing on that you can read to
your heart's content if you would like. Speculation abounds. Twenty
(10:44):
thirteen Russian biopic on composer Tchaikowsky rushed aside the largely
held belief that he was gay, which would have been
against Russia's anti LGBTQ plus laws. Similar to A Beautiful Mind,
the twenty fourteen film The Imageation Game about Alan Turing
was accused of downplaying during sexuality, especially when he was
(11:06):
living in a time when homosexuality was illegal, and he
was convicted for gross indecency. He was given the option
of imprisonment or chemical castration, and he chose chemical castration,
but died a year later in a believed suicide. The
film only romantically depicts him with a woman. Then in
(11:31):
twenty fifteen, we have the film Stonewall about Stonewall Riots,
but the filmmakers faced backlash for ciswashing and whitewashing by
sidelining the black transactivist who led the riots, Marcia P.
Johnson and Sylvia Rivera. I haven't seen this film, and
I'm told I should not, but it did not get
(11:57):
a lot of positive feedback. That same year, Sony Uk
got called out for straightwa washing a promotional poster for
the film Call Me by Your Name, which is about
a gay relationship between a boy and an older man,
by making it seem like it was about a straight relationship.
And yeah, looking at the poster, I can see it.
(12:19):
I have a picture in here for you, Samantha that
looks like a straight couple.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
There was a lot about this movie that was like controversial.
But yeah, that's a problem.
Speaker 1 (12:33):
Yeah, it's a problem in a lot of ways because
you're going in with confused expectations. M M. Yeah. Yeah.
But clearly the idea they well the idea I believe
they had was more people would come in if they
thought it was a straight relationship. But I don't see
how you think it would turn out positively when it
turns out it's not right. Yeah, oh, which is kind
(12:59):
of related. In twenty fifteen, The Guardian reported on the
fact that the USDBD distributors airbrushed the back cover of Pride,
which yes, is about It's about folks who are gay
in the UK who were campaigning protesting on the part
(13:21):
of miners. Miners as in people who mine, not young
people in the United Kingdom, and it was kind of
a big movement in the UK. And this the distributors
removed a sign on the cover that read lesbians and
(13:43):
gays support the miners, and they edited the blurb to
read a group of London based activists, whereas before it
had said specifically like these are gay people who are
fighting for the rights of other people. They erased all
mention of queerness. This was a whole thing. It blew up.
The director had to comment on it. Some people, allies
(14:08):
queer people, argued that this was the best course of
action because it would increase the chance that it would
reach a wider audience. Others argued that it suggested shame
and was a form of a rasure and the director
was kind of I could tell when I was reading
the comments was a little on a tightrope about that.
(14:33):
I guess I can see the point. But if it's
called Pride and we know what it's about, I just don't.
I don't know. If it feels like we're tricking straight
people into going to see a movie, maybe that's the
best way. I don't know what it is. The twenty
(15:02):
eighteen film chronicling Freddie Mercury called Bohemian Rhapsody, was also
called out for straightwa washing and by erasure that got
a lot of stuff written about it. Also in twenty eighteen,
the short lived NBC show Rise got a lot of
heat for straight washing. The lead character, who was a
(15:23):
high school theater director based on a real teacher, and
the real teacher was gay. He'd been closeted for a
long time, but he had come out as gay. The
explanation given for this was that it was quote inspired
by and the head writer wanted to make it his
own story, which I have to say is not the
(15:46):
best quote. Let me take your story and make it mine, right.
Some people have written about this and said it was
taken out of context. I read it and I really
don't feel like it was sticking out of context. They
also said like, well, there are other queer plot lines
(16:09):
in the show, which is true. To be clear, I've
never seen the show, but I did read a lot
about it doing this research, and I read an article
where I felt they made the point that I agree with.
That's great. The author of that article said, you know,
these are they were pretty good representations of queer people,
(16:30):
but they were side characters who weren't you know, like
you might not even be following their story, whereas this
was the main character and it was his story, and
you're basically saying, we didn't give you that, but you
can have this.
Speaker 2 (16:51):
Yeah, okay, then all right.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Recently, again this is just like a handful of examples.
There have been a lot of articles written about it
this week about how it has gotten worse and worse,
this straightwashing actually, and some actors being really vocal about
reversing it. There was also a spait of straightwashing and
(17:16):
adaptations of comics. One of the most infamous ones is
Mystique from X Men. In the comics, she is portrayed
as bisexual, and the movies that she has portrayed in
she has been depicted as straight, or at the very
least the part of her identity. That part of her
identity is never mentioned and never explored. The same could
(17:38):
be said of Deadpool. Also in the Guardians of the
Galaxy comics, star Lord is polyamorous and by but that
is not something we've seen in the films. Another thing
that got a lot of attention in the Black Panther comics,
two of Black Panther's protectors, both women, were in a
(17:58):
gay relationship Koye and Io if You're interested, But in
the movies people were disappointed to find their relationship was
not explored at all. On top of that, early screenings
featured a scene that showed the pair flirtatiously dancing with
each other. When it was deleted, Marvel released an official
(18:20):
statement that their relationship was not a romantic one. There
was a whole campaign Samantha Online give Ao a Girlfriend,
which was similar to the previous campaign Give Captain America
a Boyfriend, both of which did not work, and a
Koye ended up in a straight relationship. Also, Roxanne gay
(18:45):
I believe wrote their relationship and she was not invited
to the premiere of Black Panther and said like I cannot.
My feelings are hurt. I feel a certain type of way. Yeah, yes,
Constantine in the show and movie versus the comic and
(19:07):
the comic he's by, but he that has not been
demonstrated outside of that. After Archie Comics hammered Home the
fact that jack Head Jones was Ace, the TV show
adaptation of Riverdale pretty much ignored that whole thing and
put him in some heteronormative relationships. The actor that played
(19:27):
the character, Cole Sprouse, advocated for the character to maintain
his Ace identity, but they just did not do it.
I would also add all the build up to Tessa
Thompson's character Valkyrie, where we were promised this gay romance
and we absolutely did not get it at all.
Speaker 3 (19:46):
Was there an implication when we were watching the whichever
one where Natalie Portman becomes kind of the youth door.
Speaker 1 (19:55):
Yeh, yes, So there was a deleted scene. Again with
these deleted scenes, there was a deleted scene that pretty
much was like a woman leaving her a Valkyrie's room,
very clear what they had been doing. She she is
(20:17):
open that she is by and she's looking for her queen.
But that's it. It doesn't go beyond that, which is
kind of what we keep running into is like, sure,
you've got this character, but they don't ever get to
go beyond that part. And yes, this is just a
(20:39):
few of many, many examples. There has recently been discussion
around straight washing and video games, particularly in the game Undertail,
which I love this game. If you aren't familiar. Undertail
is a critically acclaimed and beloved game that is really creative,
it's really innovative, and it features a lot of queer content.
(21:03):
This led to a lot of people speculating and hoping
that it might nudge the gaming world towards inclusivity. But no,
of course not. Instead it got straight washed by a
lot of the players and even some of the writers,
which does happen. So that's just to say audiences can
(21:24):
straight wash too. I think gaming is an interesting case
because you're interacting kind of on that direct level. I
did not know this about Undertail. It doesn't surprise me.
I was a little shocked when I was researching straight
washing and the first result was Undertail. But unfortunately, because
(21:46):
there's like research papers actually written about it, and it's basically,
you know, straight white men being No, not this game
that I love so much that cannot be gay. Yeah, yeah,
it is. It is one note before we move on.
(22:07):
Sometimes creators and actors claim that audiences are reading too
much into things. I talked about this in my queer
Baiting episode, which if you haven't listened to it, just
as small. I'm really sorry, but I was panicking through
that whole episode, so I was reading it very quickly.
But yes, you can go listen to that. What annoys
(22:30):
me about this argument is a lot of times there
is past content and interviews saying the opposite, and they're
trying to convince you your delusional. When it's been there.
It's like, sometimes yes, I get it. Sometimes no, that
was there and you said it wasn't there, and now
you're trying to convince me you didn't. And that can
(22:54):
be going back to the corporations intervening and telling telling
writers like no, we don't want that, and sometimes they'll give,
you know, the bare minimum a gay character and that's it.
And sometimes it's written by straight writers. A lot of
times it's written by straight writers, and it feels more
(23:15):
humiliating than empowering. Sometimes this gets used politically as and
see how progressive we are when it's not good representation
at all. Like it's not that it isn't even what
the experience of being gay is. Okay, briefly, we're going
to talk about politics, because there are absolutely instances of
(23:36):
straight washing and politics Eva Gore Booth and Esther Roper
or Suffragettes and Companions in the nineteen hundreds, though a
biography on both of them by Gifford Lewis sought to
erase this with this statement, you will be pleased to
know that I could find it not a trace a
perverted sexuality. This despite the fact that the pair published
(24:01):
works together about gender and sexuality, including their thoughts on
why women shouldn't marry. They have a fascinating story for
a different podcast. But I can't believe they had all
these works published. And this guy was like, you'll be happy.
Speaker 2 (24:18):
To know, just kidding, I never saw a video.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Yes. Yes. From the end of World War two to
nineteen sixty eight, the New York Times only published two
front page pieces referencing just referencing gay folks. Most coverage
at the time was negative, and they were in fact
tied to security threats related to the Cold War. Of course, worse,
(24:47):
it took the New York Times two years after the
nineteen eighty one outbreak of AIDS to mention it at
all until they finally featured it in nineteen eighty three.
In general, the media coverage absent are condemning on that
whole thing. I don't think that's newsstandybody, But just to reiterate,
there are also arguments and articles about how lesbians, trans
(25:10):
and non conforming people were completely left out of this
whole conversation around AIDS, and the research also probably not surprising.
One of the most notable incidences in recent history in
straightwashing is what happened in the reporting following the shooting
(25:31):
at LGBTQ plus Orlando club Pulse in twenty sixteen. Several
politicians outright avoided using the term gay or downplayed the
fact that it was a gay establishment and that this
was a hate crime. Forty Nine people died as a reminder,
and more were injured. Trans erasure is a huge topic
(25:54):
in this conversation too, and deserving of its own episode.
But essentially, the current administration and not just them, but
for today, are doing their best to straight wash society
and erase the existence of trans people through legislation. We've
talked before about how official US government websites have removed
(26:16):
the t from LGBT on their websites and in state parks,
and there's even been a fight to keep the gay
flag flying its stone wall, Oh my goodness. And you know,
we've talked a lot about book banning and what's getting banned,
and that that falls in that conversation as well. Not
(26:39):
exactly politics, but previous Olympic broadcasts have been called out
for straight washing their coverage, not mentioning a gay athlete.
Oh once, all right, So another thing I want to
mention before we move on to my next topic is
liberal homophobia. This is just a very brief mention, but basically,
(27:00):
liberal homophobia is the idea of that liberal people are
okay with gay people as long as they stay quiet
and out of the way. It's acceptable as long as
it's not your face, which is kind of funny to
me because that sounds like a lot of people who
would call themselves moderate conservatives have that same mindset. But
one of the big examples that comes up with this
(27:23):
is the Trump is gay for putin jokes, Yeah, because
the implication is that's so disgusting that he's gay, like
you can see what their joke is trying to do, right,
But it's also we've talked about this several times about
who are you actually hurting? Right, because you're saying that
(27:45):
that is a disgusting that if he's gay, that's disgusting.
Speaker 2 (27:50):
Right.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
Yeah, so that's liberal homophobian. Now let's move from straightwa
washing and talk about placement theory. Okay, So this is
(28:14):
gonna be interesting because this, as far as I know,
people call this a lot of things. I prefer placement theory.
Some people use placeholder theory. Placeholder theory gets used a
lot in a different context than what I'm going to
(28:35):
be talking about. So you actually I saw an article
the other day about placeholder theory, which is essentially, how
do you identify that you're you're a placeholder in someone's relationship? Right,
like you're not the one and they're gonna move on.
That's not what this is, but some people do occasionally
call this placeholder theory.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (28:57):
Also, I could be wrong, but I think this is
a new I think this is a topic that doesn't
really have a name, but people have talked about a lot,
if you know what I mean. So if you look
up placement theory. I'm not sure what you'll get, but
let me tell you, I've read a lot of essays
about it personally, and I just I can't unsee it
(29:22):
now that I know about it. Okay, And so going
back to that presentation, I gave my poor sweet friend
two hours and thirty minutes. Placement theory was the one
that sold her, she told me later. So I'm going
to give you kind of a hypothetical situation. But I
(29:46):
do want to say before we get into this, this
can happen in straight Basically, what we're talking about is
a love triangle, and so this can happen in a
straight love triangle. We're going to be talking about what
happens when it's in a gay love triangle. Okay, And
(30:09):
I'm gonna specify because it's a little complicated. But let's
imagine you have three characters. In this case, we're going
to go with one woman, two men. One of the
men is gay, and you know it absolutely. One of
them you think is probably gay, but you don't know
(30:32):
for sure. He's dating the woman, yes, and the gay
person and the woman look alike and they wear similar clothes. Yes.
So now you bring in the idea of internalized homophobia
(30:54):
or compulsory heterosexuality. Have this character who doesn't know, maybe
is internalizing that he's not gay, he can't be, so
he's dating a woman to prove that he's not right
and is desperately hanging on to that, and it just
(31:16):
so happens it looks like the gay guy who's his
best friend. So placement theory is the idea that this
character who you don't know maybe they're gay or not,
can't hold these two people in the same space because
(31:39):
if he holds them in the same space, he will
realize that the dude is filling a romantic space and
that if he has internalized homophobia, is gonna make him
freak out. It's gonna make him really uncomfortable. It's going
(32:00):
to make him close down. So he has to keep
them both separated. He can never have them in the
same space, yes, but when he is with them on
their own he can be present appreciate all of that.
He just can't have them in the same space. Yes,
(32:25):
And it's because of the internal conflict of like recognizing,
why do I feel like one of them is replacing
the other in this romantic space. This might mean I'm gay.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (32:44):
Yeah, Like I said, it can happen in queer and
non queer spaces. It can happen like that. But I
think that the shame and the fear and internalized homophobia
of it may it more announced, especially if you're if
(33:06):
a character is clinging to a straight relationship when they
are not straight, but they're trying to prove it to
themselves in any way they can huh. Yes, yes, placement theory.
Have many have read many essays on it. But yeah,
(33:27):
that's essentially what it is. I could go into a
lot more detail, but it's basically, you can't hold two
ideas people in your head at once. You have to
separate them.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Okay, yep, that's in depth.
Speaker 1 (33:43):
Yeah, but I promise you won't unsee it. You see
it like, yes, you could never have your girlfriend and
the guy you love actually in the same spot. God.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Trying to think of examples, I don't know.
Speaker 3 (33:58):
Well, some I.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
Could, but I won't. What I will say is that
this is related to the gay best friend trope. I
think it encompasses a lot more than that. I think
it is an evolution of that trope because essentially, in
that case, you've got a gay best friend who's trying
(34:22):
to build up a straight relationship, perhaps to the detriment
of themselves, if they have a crush or love somebody
in that relationship. And I know, I can't remember the name.
I know a John Hughes movie has that plotline. But
that's also like a big issue I have found with
(34:42):
my recent queer baiting experience. But of using queer characters
to fix straight relationships while the queer character is in
love with one of them and then ends up not
finding love at all, I think that's pretty sure. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
uh close out? What a thing to close out on.
(35:02):
I didn't realize I was doing this. I so, as
you know, did a recent fan fiction update. One thing
I'm not going to talk about, but I did realize
I didn't mention and is a big place of contention
is the argument of who tops and bottoms when it
(35:27):
comes to fictional characters. It is heated, Samantha, and I
didn't realize how heated until one of my favorite stories,
the author all caps had a message of like, back off,
I have tagged it correctly, leave me alone.
Speaker 2 (35:47):
What were people upset about?
Speaker 1 (35:49):
I think, I don't This is so strange to me
because obviously I'm not very sexual, so I feel a
little confused about the whole thing. But I think people
in this case, probably a lot of gay women interestingly,
(36:14):
have these attributes that they place on who is the
top and who's a bottom, and they get wrapped up
in that or this is just how they see that character.
So if they if you don't go along with that,
(36:34):
then they don't want to read it. And so if
they think your tags are not accurate to that and
they read it, then they get angry. I will say,
the author of this particular story, I think it was
appropriate tagged.
Speaker 2 (36:47):
I don't.
Speaker 1 (36:48):
I think people were just mad. And I said that
when we were doing our fan fiction updates. Sometimes I
do think people just don't like where a story went,
and then they complain, oh, you didn't tag it correctly,
but they did, they did. And yeah, speaking of that's
when I learned about weaponized tagging in this space. Damn
(37:12):
are like calling people out and saying you didn't tag
it and trying to get their whole story taken down.
I didn't know this was like such a big, this
top bottom debate. I had no idea. I feel a
little naive I was gonna look into it for this episode,
and then I chickened out. I'm gonna be honest with you,
I really chickened out. I didn't want to put it
(37:36):
in my search bar, and then I don't. I'll look
into it at a future date. This is already a
decent episode without it.
Speaker 3 (37:45):
Yeah, things that come, things to come.
Speaker 1 (37:56):
Well, listeners, if you have any thoughts about this, any
examples I missed of straightw washing. If you know, if
there is an actual thing other than a placement theory
of what that is called, and you know it, let
me know. That's what I've seen it generally called. But yeah,
(38:18):
send us all of your thoughts. You can email us
at Hello at Stuffwenever Told You dot com. You can
find us on blue Sky I'm Mom Stuff podcast, or
on Instagram and TikTok at stuff one Never Told You.
We're also on YouTube. We have some merchandise at coom Bureau,
and we have a book you can get wherever you
get your books. Thanks to Casey for helping us out
today with production and editing. Thanks to our executive producer Maya,
(38:42):
and thanks to you for listening. Stuff I Never Told
Me is production by heart Radio. For more podcasts from
My heart Radio, you can check out the heart Radio app,
Apple Podcasts, or reever you listen to your favorite shows.
Stuff Mom Never Told You News
Hosts And Creators
Anney Reese
Samantha McVey
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.