I just finished watching my current show obsession, Wednesday (2022-), and it’s gay as fuck. You would think your trusted rainbow dealer would be ecstatic, and don’t get me wrong, I am — very much so. As a certified shipper (not really), I live for those longing gazes and confessions that sound suspiciously like “I will save her or die trying,” which inevitably result in top-notch, chef’s kiss, fanfics.Â
Alas, I’m not feeling very gay right now. The show delivered the romantic hints, so, why am I fretting?! The answer comes as a seemingly harmless question that actually reveals a darker truth, whether people know it or not. The question is: “Why can’t they just be friends?” Innocent, yet vicious because this is used as an argument against making a gay couple officially canon — an argument that, in my experience, rarely shows up until queerness enters the chat. Welcome to my 101 deconstruction of queerbaiting and heteronormative hypocrisy. Let me believe in queer love, dammit!
Reading people’s comments on the Wednesday subreddit, it’s hard not to notice the double standard. It’s impossible to ignore the chemistry between Wednesday and Enid. Their dynamic hits familiar romantic beats and tropes — the grumpy one and the sunshine, opposites who slowly grow closer, moments of emotional vulnerability that they don’t share with anyone else, and even flashes of jealousy in the latest season. One of them sacrifices their humanity to save the other! Yet, their bond is framed as strictly platonic. Meanwhile, Wednesday shares far less intimacy with her male love interests, but those relationships are, of course, still given the romantic spotlight.
If Enid were a boy, the idea of them being a canon couple wouldn’t be debated — it would be assumed. The fact that their ship, Wenclair, is treated as a delusional fan theory and/or the forcing of an alleged agenda rather than a legitimate narrative possibility, reflects a clear heteronormative pattern: a pattern in which same-gender intimacy is often denied the romantic framing it deserves — unlike opposite-gender intimacy that’s presumed romantic by default.
I absolutely understand not making everything about romance or sex — I, too, often get annoyed by media content favouring long sex scenes in lieu of much-needed character development. But there’s a noticeable inconsistency in how audiences interpret intimacy: straight pairings are often granted romantic legitimacy with minimal build-up, while queer dynamics are scrutinized or dismissed under the guise of “just friendship.”
When Harry Met Sally (1989) is often praised as the gold standard of romantic comedy. It operates on the premise that “men and women can’t just be friends” — that emotional closeness between opposite-gender characters inevitably leads to romance. By that logic, this movie represents the exact kind of romantic framing people claim to hate when defending platonic representation. Yet the film’s legacy is rarely questioned. No one asks why Harry and Sally couldn’t have just stayed friends — because the heteronormative assumption is that their intimacy must lead to romance. People don’t complain about them, but when queer-coded relationships arise, the “friendship matters” argument is suddenly brought up — not to elevate friendship, but to deflect queer intimacy.
I’m not at all denying the value of friendship. This is about recognizing that friendship is already richly represented in media, while queer relationships are still fighting for narrative space. And opposite-gender pairings in media tend to evolve into romance far more often than not — so why is romantic potential only controversial when it’s queer? Why are all you homophobic keyboard warriors not fighting against the oppressive heteronormative system instead of shitting on my gay ship? Where is that question about unnecessary romance when one really needs it?Â
I’m tired of the gaslighting, denial, and dismissal that have been present throughout media history. There’s a reason queerbaiting exists. It’s not us being delusional about the characters we want to end up together; it’s the creators purposely hinting at LGBTQIA+ relationships and identities to attract queer audiences with no intention whatsoever to confirm or explicitly represent them in the future.
Even if friendship is what’s currently on the table, does that mean it won’t transform into something else? I don’t think I’ve ever been in a relationship without being friends first. That’s a requirement for me. And it’s okay if it isn’t for you, but why does being friends nullify the possibility of a different type of connection? Are people not friends with their partners?
It’s ironic. We used to yearn for crumbs, with stolen glances and subtle touches. We used to hope for the slightest hint that there was a spark, because society wouldn’t allow for validation. But we’re so far past that point — at least we should be. Don’t give me crumbs, stop playing with my feelings. Enough hiding behind the premise of advocating for friendship when you only apply that to the possibility of same-sex characters becoming canon.
So yeah, my show is gay as fuck. But I want more than breadcrumbs — I want the whole damn cake, and I don’t want Chad to shame me as I eat it. Check your bias, long live queer representation, and thanks for coming to my TED talk.
