Viewers are rethinking how the word “queerbaiting” is used, particularly after debates around Jack Innanen’s fluid character in Adults and Dylan O’Brien’s gay role in Twinless. The distinction matters because genuine LGBTQ+ representation is very different from teasing a romance that never arrives.
The original meaning was about deliberate teasing
Queerbaiting began as a criticism of popular entertainment that hinted at LGBTQ+ relationships without ever allowing those relationships to become real. It was especially visible during the peak of online fandom, when viewers dissected every glance, joke and emotionally charged exchange between characters.
The frustration wasn’t simply about fans wanting a particular pairing. It was about shows appearing to court queer audiences while keeping representation safely ambiguous for wider markets. Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary and Dictionary.com both centre on that deliberate coyness, rather than on the sexuality of an individual actor. [4]
That distinction has become blurred online. Today, “queerbaiting” is sometimes used for almost any situation involving a straight performer, a queer character or a popular same-sex ship, which risks stripping the term of its original force. [3]
Paul Baker’s story is more than a suggestion
Jack Innanen’s Paul Baker in Adults doesn’t fit the classic pattern because the character’s sexual fluidity is part of the story, not merely a teasing detail. He also has an on-screen same-sex romance, giving viewers an actual relationship rather than a trail of suggestive moments.
Speaking to Variety, Innanen acknowledged the early criticism aimed at a fluid character who’s also involved with a woman. But he argued that the love triangle reflects Paul’s personality and relationships, rather than disguising a queer storyline that the programme refuses to show. [2]
That’s the useful test: is the story genuinely exploring queer desire, or is it dangling the possibility to keep audiences talking? A bisexual or sexually fluid character can have a heterosexual relationship without the writing becoming deceptive. Life, inconveniently, is usually more complicated than a neat fandom label.
When does casting become part of the debate?
A straight actor playing a queer role isn’t automatically queerbaiting. The term describes a marketing or storytelling tactic, not a performer’s private identity, and confusing those two issues can make serious conversations about representation harder.
Still, casting choices can raise valid questions about access and authenticity. Dylan O’Brien discussed this tension after appearing in Twinless, crediting gay writer-director James Sweeney with providing guidance, support and a trusted creative perspective during production. [2]
O’Brien also recognised why audiences have become wary when straight actors play queer characters without apparent emotional or cultural connection to the material. That concern is about performance, power and opportunity, rather than whether a film has secretly promised a romance it never delivers. [3]
Real romance changes the conversation
Nicholas Galitzine has spoken about feeling uncertain over taking queer roles, particularly when queer performers might have been considered for the same parts. His comments reflect a broader industry conversation about who gets opportunities to tell LGBTQ+ stories and who benefits from their success.
But his characters in projects including Red, White & Royal Blue, Mary & George and Handsome Devil are not examples of queerbaiting simply because Galitzine identifies as straight. Those characters participate in explicit queer relationships, so the stories aren’t relying on insinuation alone. [2]
The more useful questions are whether queer characters are fully developed, whether their relationships are meaningfully shown and whether creative teams have treated the subject with care. Representation can be imperfect without being fake, and audiences deserve language that reflects that difference. [4]
Use the word carefully, not casually
Queerbaiting still exists. It can appear when a series repeatedly markets a same-sex possibility, encourages queer viewers to invest in it, then retreats into deniability once attention has been secured. Online fandoms have documented that pattern across television, film and other media for years. [5]
But calling every straight actor in a queer role a queerbaiter muddies the issue. It also shifts attention away from the actual problems: tokenism, evasive writing, uneven representation and an industry that has historically treated queer stories as risky while happily borrowing their emotional appeal.
A sharper definition helps everyone, including viewers trying to decide whether a programme is genuinely inclusive or simply flirting with the idea. The word has more impact when it’s saved for stories that truly use queer possibility as bait.
It's a small linguistic distinction, but it makes conversations about representation far more honest.
Source Reference Map
Story idea inspired by: [1]
Sources by paragraph: