PEOPLE THAT SAY WATCHING/READING BL IS "fetishization" OF GAY PEOPLE ARE DIMWITS

PEOPLE THAT SAY WATCHING/READING BL IS "fetishization" OF GAY PEOPLE ARE DIMWITS

Now recently I've been seeing many people call consuming bl content fetishizers a reason why people say that wanting/ watching/ reading gay content fetishizes gay people is because, "People who aren't gay or part of the LGBTQ+ community like watching gay people have sex, which is fetishizing." Let me explain why this is not the case. There is a lot of straight porn, heterosexual stories, and heterosexual TV shows where the plot typically plays out as "Girl meets boy, boy meets girl," they fall in love (or not), and sometimes they end up having saxophone lessons. This kind of content has always existed, and people generally accepted it. When people didn’t like it, it was simply because it wasn’t something they were into (or maybe the story was bad or the writing was off — these are individual reasons that don't apply to straight romance content as a whole). However, you never see anyone disliking straight romance content because it "fetishizes" straight people, unless the story involves a character changing their sexual orientation just for the sake of a relationship, which is a rare case.

People enjoy straight romance content; they enjoy reading about toxic straight relationships, and they like reading about a guy and a girl being intimate. Even if it's a little odd, it’s not inherently bad, and it can’t really be called "fetishizing." Sure, there's a fetish for toxic relationships, but it's not the gender of the people involved that matters. Straight romance content is acceptable; it's not everyone's cup of tea, but it's okay. So if that’s the case, why are people who consume LGBTQ+ romance content labeled as "fetishizers of gay people”?(Now that just sounds goofy) Just because the characters are the same gender, it doesn’t mean the content should be banned for straight audiences. But gay people can consume straight content — many are even obsessed with it — and they’re not called fetishizers.

This suggests that those making these claims don’t fully understand the definition of "fetishizing." Let me explain. The definition of fetishizing is to make something the object of your sexual desire. The key word here is "object" — when you fetishize something, it becomes something outside of your desires that you view as the object of your sexual desire.

An example would be: Let’s say I hate a dancer. I don’t like the dancer, but I love the way they dance. I actively seek out opportunities to see them dance because it turns me on, even though I don't like the person themselves. I’m making them an object of my sexual desire. That’s what fetishizing is: objectifying someone as a sexual object without any real interest in them as a person.

When people say that watching gay content fetishizes gay people, they are wrongly assuming that people who consume gay content view gay people as objects — which is simply not the case. It’s not okay to make that assumption.

Another reason I see circulating is the argument that “gay people are a minority.” Essentially, this argument suggests that it’s okay to watch and enjoy straight content because it’s common, but being obsessed with gay content is wrong. It’s confusing, and I don’t get it. But here’s why it’s not right, and I’ll use a quick analogy to explain: Just because bananas can’t grow everywhere doesn’t mean that the places where they can’t grow shouldn't be allowed to eat them.  

The fact that gay people are a minority shouldn’t even be part of the conversation when debating this topic. I can have no interest in becoming an "alt-girl," but I can still like people who embrace that style. I can still be attracted to them, get excited seeing people with that style, and respect them. The "alt" style being a minority has nothing to do with how I view it or the people who embody it so why this is even an argument when debating about wanting/ watching/ reading gay content being fetishization of gay people is beyond me. 

The other day, I was watching a video—I don’t even know how to describe it—but it featured two male characters. In the comments, people were saying they had a lot of chemistry and asking if they were gay or together. It was an MSA video, and people were curious if it had any gay representation since MSA has made some lesbian content in the past but hasn’t really done anything with gay male characters yet.

Because of this, people were getting excited, commenting things like, “IS THIS PAY GORN?!”—you know how the internet is. But under every comment like that, asking if the content was gay, there was always someone accusing them of fetishizing gay content and gay people. And that just didn’t sit right with me. You don’t know that person’s ideals, how they think, or anything about them. What right do you have to start calling them a fetishizer?

Wanting more gay media or asking if something is gay doesn’t make someone a fetishizer. And comments like “IS THIS PAY GORN?!” aren’t inherently fetishizing gay people or relationships—they’re just silly internet reactions. People need to stop being so sensitive.

I’m part of the LGBTQ+ community myself, so I understand why we can be sensitive about certain things. But people consuming gay content isn’t something we should be pulling out our pitchforks for.

Argue with me if you want in the comments I will respond to you :p

-XXX, JUNO