[Translation of a post on Twitter, I'll leave the link to the original post: here ✨]
An excerpt from an interview with the creators of Wednesday was released, where they state that the relationship between Enid and Wednesday "is about friendship" and not romance.
This reignited the debate about how sapphic couples have been boycotted on TV and streaming.
Netflix and much of the entertainment industry have already proven that audiences can change the course of a series, but this "flexibility" isn't for everyone.
There's a clear and problematic pattern:
• When the friendship is between a man and a woman, the chemistry is celebrated and, with audience pressure, it turns into romance.
• When it's between two women with a strong connection, intimacy, and massive fan base, the narrative insists that "they're just friends," even using all the codes that would be treated as romance in a heterosexual context.
With Wednesday, we see this blatantly happen.
Enid and Wednesday have chemistry, affection, mutual support, and nuances that, if they were a heterosexual couple, would have become a couple long ago.
But no, what we get is more queerbait: innuendos to attract a sapphic audience, followed by scenes without context (like Enid kissing a guy) to reaffirm a heteronormative narrative.
[My personal addition to the text, but MGM and Netflix also approved a novelization of the first season containing queer elements]
And this isn't an isolated case.
The list of queerbait is long: Wenclair, Supercorp (Supergirl), SwanQueen (Once Upon a Time), among others.
When it's not queerbait, it's premature cancellation: Bounty Hunters, First Kill, Gypsy, Warrior Nun.
Even Heartstopper, a global phenomenon, lost the chance for a dignified conclusion after its cancellation.
Meanwhile, male-female friendships like Otis and Maeve (Sex Education), Jim and Pam (The Office), Nick and Jess (New Girl), Castle and Beckett (Castle) are transformed into canonical romances because their chemistry pleased the audience.
This difference is no coincidence; it's veiled censorship.
It's not explicitly cut, but it's written to prevent sapphic romances from flourishing naturally.
It's a strategy that preserves "appeal" in conservative markets and keeps queer audiences trapped in crumbs of representation.
It's not about "forcing" romance where it doesn't exist, but rather about applying the same criteria to all types of relationships.
Because while heterosexual romance is accelerated and celebrated, sapphic romance is slowed down, silenced, or dismissed.
We recognize the boycott.
And we will continue to demand that our stories be told without fear, shame, and censorship.
baratheonpilled
titsay
