⋆.࿔*My lady!⋆.*⋆

SeaMoon, for those unfamiliar, is the name popularly given to the ship between Sea Fairy Cookie and Moonlight Cookie in Cookie Run. Aside from the ocean and the moon being a common motif for romance in fiction already, the game had hinted at their romance in a lot of in-game and side material. Most namely, Sea Fairy’s line about Moonlight’s heart ‘being the warmest’ and the “I want you Everyday” music video with their moment together + the lines that went along with that moment...

Your love brought spring to my endless winter...

For more examples of where their romance was suggested, I recommend this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LPJU8yBYD8Ng7lhh_lR0bA2XRwmJTtbRceGuKahFxFs/edit

The point is, most WlW in this fandom caught onto the romantic ramifications of the ship long before Moonlight was expanded on in Kingdom and the recent updates all but confirmed their mutual affection towards one another. The two of them even got matching costumes and a bond story that was as close to romance as Cookie Run would do (as it is ultimately not a romance centered franchise).

With who they are established...

Queerbait: What is it?

Queerbaiting most popularly is understood as a marketing gimmick where creators and multimedia companies suggest queerness to draw in LGBT people and allies, only for the rug to be pulled out from underneath fans. Though it has other meanings, especially in other cultures as I'll explain more below. Whether this is utilizing the ‘bury your gays’ trope, the rep being constrained to insignificant side characters/moments, or just not existing at all.

The two most popular examples of queerbaiting would be recent Disney movies and Voltron. Though special shoutout to Harry Potter, as if we didn’t have enough reasons to hate the book series and JKR. As the stuff with Dumbledore was an obvious retcon to go ‘look how progressive I am!!!’.

Voltron’s last season had two key things regarding queerbait: the Klance drama (the ship between Keith and Lance) and Shiro’s bait and switch with his partner.

To the show’s credit, Shiro was actually gay. Even revealed to have had a partner he was engaged to. However, this rug was pulled out from underneath fans when they actively killed said partner. He was given another partner in the epilogue, but the fact he was revealed to be gay only for his partner to be killed off (coupled with the next thing) upset many queer fans.

Klance is a lot more insidious. In the run up to the final season, Netflix and the crew actively promoted the show using Klance and its popular support. Despite the fact they knew the relationship was never intended to be canon. This is one of the most explicit examples of queerbaiting out there, and is foundational to understanding the specificity and insidiousness of the marketing ploy.

For Disney, I would like to focus on the Star Wars sequels and Beauty and the Beast (2017). The last movie of the sequel trilogy had the creators talking about how there would be queer rep... leading many queer fans to believe they were talking about Finn and Poe for obvious reasons, something the creators never corrected/confirmed. Only for the rep to merely be two background characters in one scene.

As for Beauty and the Beast, Le Fou was celebrated as Disney’s first openly gay character, leading folks to believe they’d explore him having feelings for the titular bad guy. But that was never really explored in any meaningful way, and the rep we got of him was a ‘blink and you’ll miss it’ moment between him and an unnamed character. Arguably he could fall more into coding, but the fact Disney actively marketed him for his gayness is where it bleeds into queerbaiting.

In general, queerbaiting is a more modern problem, as companies feel they can say the word gay now. But are still wishy-washy on actual depictions of queerness. So we get them celebrating their inclusion, even if it’s ultimately little to nothing.

Queerbaiting vs Queer Coding

This is when an important distinction needs to be made: what is queerbaiting and what is queer coding. Queer coding is when media uses subtext, but never explicitly says, a character is gay. A good way to understand this is to compare 90′s disney movies to modern ones.

As discussed above, modern Disney will often go on about having queerness in their movies only for it to be minimal at best if not existent. 90′s Disney meanwhile never marketed their movies as having LGBT elements, but many fans could see the way in which queerness came through from characters like Ursula (literally modeled off a drag queen), Scar, and Hades. 

Queer coding can be seen as a product of the Hays Code era-- where positive depictions of ‘perverse sexuality’ (including homosexuality) was not allowed in film, relegating a lot of queerness to the roles of villains (hence the association Disney villains have with it). That, or queer creators had to find ways of coding their heroes in ways that went under the nose of cishet audiences.

Queer coding exists in a net-neutral space. As queer coding, while in many ways is outdated in a world where media can show explicit LGBT rep, was integral to the ways in which queer creators told their stories for years. And actively influences the way many queer creators continue to tell their story (for better and for worse). It can also perpetrate stereotypes against queer people, as we saw with the Disney villains, however.

Still, this is different than the relatively modern concept of queerbaiting as that is largely a negative phenomenon. Queer coding was a tool used and is still used by actual LGBT people, while queerbaiting is more often than not the work of cishet folks or corporations wanting to make a quick buck.

Queerbait: Lost in Translation

Another element of queerbait I did not previously address is how its more commonly understood in the context of cultures' media (such as in Eastern countries like Korea and Japan). As the financial reasoning behind the idea isn't as front and center (for a myriad of complicated reasons regarding how explicit queer rep can be from country to country). Though this definition of queerbait can also apply to US and English based media.

To some, queerbait also applies to coded LGBT relationships that are primarily centered on or meant to appeal to straight audiences (WlW rep meant for the male gaze, MlM rep meant for girls).

In other words, fetishized LGBT coding.

I would personally argue (as a queer non binary lesbian) that this meaning is less insidious than the money making logic behind modern queer baiting that happens in the US mainly, but its for an important reason...

A lot of this queerbait relies on elements of coding still. While the way many Western viewers see queerbait in American media relies on using explicit queerness as a marketing ploy. To compare, let's look at idol/sports anime and the previously mentioned Disney movies.

The idea that idol/sports anime is queerbait is... contentious. And one I'm not entirely sure I even agree on. But it is undeniable that some of its more WlW centric scenes appeal to the male audiences that view these shows or games. Still, nothing is ever made explicit. It utilizes elements of queer coding originating from the yuri/gl genre that was built up by queer people themselves.

To some, this may be more insulting. For me personally though coding has always been a net neutral, and this form of coding is just more on the negative end for me. Still, there is something there for queer people to take away.

Meanwhile, the way in which disney queerbaits its audience is by saying their character is LGBT then... doing nothing with it. Not even elements of coding. Just-- 'yep there's a gay character in our movie come watch it'!!! Its a lot more soulless compared to the previous one, and therefore to me is more insulting.

Why SeaMoon falls more into Coding

With the two elements defined, let’s explain why SeaMoon falls more into the realm of coding rather than baiting.

First off, the way the devs write romance is consistent with how they wrote SeaMoon. Most of the ways in which things were left vague before Kingdom could be explained in the devs unfortunate habit of not elaborating on things they really should elaborate on. On top of romance in general being coded rather than explicit in the franchise.

As an example, lets discuss the two closest things to M/F romance we have in the franchise-- PureLily (Pure Vanilla and White Lily) and MintCocoa (Mint Choco and Cocoa). 

PureLily became more explicit in the same update as SeaMoon (with Pure Vanilla wondering aloud if he still loves her), but in general the way their relationship was shown before the Crunchy Dreams event was largely through subtext (how the two spoke of one another, PV’s garden, etc) and outside material (the love quiz).

This also applies to MintCocoa. During the days of OB, the game itself did not elaborate much on either of the two’s characters (just as they didn’t with Moonlight). With most of their romantic subtext (like SeaMoon) being in outside videos, media, and merch. Kingdom in general seems more willing to elaborate on romance, as we saw in the story that came with Cocoa’s release.

And secondly, the devs never really threw SeaMoon around as a way of saying ‘look how progressive we are’ or to appeal specifically to LGBT fans. Anytime SeaMoon was included in media, it was often alongside other coded relationships such as MintCocoa or things like RaspRose (Raspberry Mousse x Rose). And even the times they did do things like promote themselves during pride month, they never used SeaMoon. Instead they used the Hollyberry kingdom (due to its bg having same-gender couples dancing and having drinks together). 

The way SeaMoon was treated up until the recent Kingdom update was more in line with queer coding rather than queer baiting. Which is NOT perfect, as media should go beyond coding in the modern age. But it is not as bad or as insidious as queerbaiting implies.

Not as insidious as either definition of queerbait; as nothing about the relationship between them is really centered on being for the male or fetishized gaze either. They're Cookies... in a series where romance is not a focus. While one could argue their romance is stuck more into the background compared to say MintCocoa and PureLily, it still isn't designed to be fetishized (in canon, what fandoms do with SeaMoon and other LGBT ships is its own matter).

Extra Note on S Class Comparisons

S Class is a trope in Japanese media where two girls will often have a very close bond, akin to romance. However, it is ultimately still platonic and disappears upon either graduation from school or marriage. It is over 100 years old, with some of the first pieces of the genre being in the early 1900′s. And was a major influence on the yuri, more commonly called GL now, genre.

Before anything else, I want to offer a brief aside that maybe we should be careful when comparing a Japanese literary trope to a Korean game. Comparing the two countries can be a very... very touchy subject matter. Especially in the context of this being a genre that rose in popularity during the colonization of Korea by Japan.

I do NOT think you can compare SeaMoon or anything in CR to S Class tropes. But I will discuss it just to clear things up, as I find comparing the trope to queerbaiting problematic.

It is more akin to queer coding rather than queer baiting. Why? Many of the authors who utilized the trope were queer themselves. In fact, “Obuko Yoshiya, a lesbian Japanese novelist active in the Bluestocking feminist movement, is regarded as a pioneer of Class S literature”. Again, a key factor that separates coding and baiting (being that queer creators will often code but won’t bait). 

The genre is at its worst stifling and harmful to the modern day GL genre in Japanese literature, and extremely heteronormative. But to compare it to things like queerbaiting or to entirely dismiss it as a form of WlW rep in the context of how it was used by actual queer people in Japan is entirely unfair to the genre; queer rep does not look the same in every country.

S Class also evades the way in which queerbait can mean being meant for the male gaze, as it is a trope whose origins lie earnestly in media meant for girls. That does not mean it can't be used to appeal to the male gaze, but it is not where it started.

Ending Notes

Are the devs perfect in their representation of SeaMoon and WlW? Of course not, there is a valid conversation to be had on how queer relationships constantly being merely coded rather than explicit is annoying and hurtful. And more and more queer people have this critique of the concept of queer coding. On a personal level, I can forgive it in this specific case cause its in line with how the devs do romance in general. But if it bothers you that it was merely coded for the longest time rather than explicit, that’s entirely valid.

But the idea the devs ever queerbaited audiences is unfair and actively makes many WlW feel invalidated in how they easily saw the coding present in the two’s relationship. Again, queer coding is a net neutral phenomenon while queerbaiting is mostly negative. To subscribe such a notion to what is important rep to so many WlW is hurtful.

Sources

https://www.animefeminist.com/escape-yuri-hell-flip-flappers-critique-class-s-genre/

https://bookriot.com/what-is-queerbaiting-vs-queer-coding/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LPJU8yBYD8Ng7lhh_lR0bA2XRwmJTtbRceGuKahFxFs/edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_S_(genre)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queerbaiting#:~:text=Queerbaiting%20is%20a%20marketing%20technique,romance%20or%20other%20LGBTQ%2B%20representation.