Looking at the Moon

There is two big differences between the Lunéville style and the indian style :

- with Lunéville embroidery, you work on the wrong side of the fabric, while the indian works on the right side of it, which makes the thread visible between the beads

- with the indian style, you pick up the beads with your crochet, that also means that the minimum size of the beads is limited by the size of your tool. With the Lunéville style, the beads are already on the thread so you can use the tiniest ones you want regardless of your tool (as long as the beads can't go through the fabric I guess)

The most relevant bit excerpted here:

Another illustrative situation is in Sense and Sensibility. At the very beginning, it’s laid out:

Old Mr. Dashwood invited Henry Dashwood, his wife, and their three daughters (Elinor, Marianne, and Margaret) to live with him

The first Mrs. Henry Dashwood brought a large portion, and in their settlement it was agreed that their son John would have half of it when he was twenty-one; the other half would go to him when his father died (presumably there were jointure provisions, but as she predeceased her husband they didn’t kick in)

The second Mrs. Henry Dashwood brought no portion, which apparently resulted in no jointure in their settlement

Old Mr. Dashwood left his estate to John’s son, with successive life interests for Henry and John, as well as £1,000 for each of the daughters

Henry Dashwood had £7,000 of his own, either inherited or saved from the income he’d had a life interest in, all of which he gave to his wife and daughters in his will

Welp. Time for plan B.

If the themes in the story are viscerally feminine, as one might say, of course women are more likely going to click with it on a more visceral level.

It's almost like lived experience informs our interpretations of art and the world...!!!

Sure, men can get it, through empathizing with and analyzing the feminine experience. No one's saying they can't do that, only that it takes conscious effort to put yourself in someone else's shoes, an effort plenty of people might choose not to do for a game.

By definition you can't accidentally queerbait. Queerbaiting is specifically using a same sex pair from the show to market the show to queer audiences with no intention of ever following through on a romantic relationship.

There is officially licensed Destiel merch signed off on by Kripke. Teen Wolf had a commercial with the actors for Derek and Stiles draped over each other talking about being "on a ship." Both shows actively used scenes between them as marketing while actively mocking fans for wanting them together. Sherlock has multiple characters refer to Johnlock as a couple, including characters we're supposed to believe are never wrong about human behavior and pushed those scenes in marketing. Then they acted insulted when fans saw them as a couple.

That's queerbaiting.

Done on accident it would just be queer subtext. Done because they had no other choice due to censorship is queer coding.

The specific meaning of the word is really starting to get lost and it's a pretty important one to keep accurate. It describes a very specific phenomenon that was done repeatedly and maliciously for decades and is meant to examine that specifically.

Basically, they just want to make money off of us.

A good way to tell the difference between baiting and accidental heterosexual ignorance is in how they respond.

If they egg it on (in marketing), and then turn around and mock it, like the examples given above, its baiting.

On the other hand, if when presented with the queerness they respond kindly, and if the marketing isn’t overtly about that, its probably accidental heterosexual ignorance.

An example of unintentional heterosexual ignorance is Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street.

The creators didnt consider they would come off as a gay couple.

When presented with this, they denied it, but they did not start marketing Bert and Ernie to gay audiences.

Eventually, they came around and explained that although theyre touched that gays see themselves in the characters, they dont feel they could authentically write a gay couple, as two straight men.

This is why you dont often see Bert and Ernie coming up in (older) discussions of queerbaiting-because it wasnt marketed directly at us, its more obvious that this was just accidental heterosexuality.

The difference is important, because queerbaiting is cruel, but accidental hetero ignorance is simply that: an accident (and sometimes kinda hilarious, I mean, cmon).

While we’re here: lets also please remember that this term applies to art, not living people.

Pop stars marketing to queer audiences without ever coming out or confirming rumors, are not “queerbaiting” as much as they are marketing to a queer audience.