Okay. This is gonna be an ongoing #VirtualPopcorn thread about how sexuality is represented in the TV show Lucifer.
I'm gonna start with some links to tweets where we've talked about this topic in other TV shows for context, and then get into it.
1/prolly too many
I'm gonna start with some links to tweets where we've talked about this topic in other TV shows for context, and then get into it.
1/prolly too many
So first, the prior art.
We talked about "He's not my boyfriend" in The Old Guard.
I, a queer, can tell and appreciate that that scene was either directed or acted or both by a queer person. But I don't explain WHY I can tell.
We talked about "He's not my boyfriend" in The Old Guard.
I, a queer, can tell and appreciate that that scene was either directed or acted or both by a queer person. But I don't explain WHY I can tell.
I mention a similar thing again with respect to Orange is the New Black.
Point of clarity for the masses: "het" is short for "heterosexual." I shy off of "straight" as a descriptor because I'm not crooked, thank you very much.
Anyway again I don't explain, and this time I joke about it.
4/
Anyway again I don't explain, and this time I joke about it.
4/
With Lucifer, I'm gonna explain a little more, because the particular circumstance of Lucifer makes it a little easier to explain.
Because Lucifer demonstrates the ABSENCE of things that it would be hard for me to explain the significance of the PRESENCE of to a het audience. 5/
Because Lucifer demonstrates the ABSENCE of things that it would be hard for me to explain the significance of the PRESENCE of to a het audience. 5/
With Lucifer, it appears that several of the decisions about queer scenes or queering characters were made by het people.
I can tell because inaccurate assumptions made by unrepresentative decision-makers distracts from the plot of the show. 6/
I can tell because inaccurate assumptions made by unrepresentative decision-makers distracts from the plot of the show. 6/
Now before I go on, lemme remind you of something: I LIKE Lucifer, as a show. It exceeded my expectations.
My expectations going in were low because it is marketed in a way that centers and caricatures heterosexual desire in a way that I've frankly seen enough of. 7/
My expectations going in were low because it is marketed in a way that centers and caricatures heterosexual desire in a way that I've frankly seen enough of. 7/
OK. Here we go.
So, Lucifer is portrayed as het for all of Season 1 and most of Season 2.
He's had intimate conversations, and any suggestion that he ain't straight never comes up.
8/
So, Lucifer is portrayed as het for all of Season 1 and most of Season 2.
He's had intimate conversations, and any suggestion that he ain't straight never comes up.
8/
Do some people keep their private life private? Sure. But let's be frank, Lucifer doesn't.
And even if he and the detective never broached this, Maze has known Lucifer for thousands of years. It never comes up between THEM either. Hets, this is not how this goes.
9/
And even if he and the detective never broached this, Maze has known Lucifer for thousands of years. It never comes up between THEM either. Hets, this is not how this goes.
9/
Suddenly, in the back half of Season 2, a victim comes up that it turns out Lucifer slept with.
A guy. Luci is very free and easy in the admission and says something along the lines of "It's X year detective, get with the times."
10/
A guy. Luci is very free and easy in the admission and says something along the lines of "It's X year detective, get with the times."
10/
This SUPER feels like Lucifer's character was conceived as straight and then partway through the second season someone tried to introduce queerness to add "interest" in the face of the known phenomenon where shows lose audiences after season 2 if they don't add twists.
11/
11/
Hi, hello, a person's sexuality is not a "fun twist" to throw on like a cherry on a sundae.
The way this was done signals "someone in a decision-making position objectified queerness and tried to throw it onto a character long after it would have come up."
12/
The way this was done signals "someone in a decision-making position objectified queerness and tried to throw it onto a character long after it would have come up."
12/
Do I think all characters that are queer need to have that queerness centered in the storyline? No. Far from.
BUT, Lucifer's story IN PARTICULAR, and his personality IN PARTICULAR, are completely inconsistent with that never coming up and then suddenly, bam, male lover.
13/
BUT, Lucifer's story IN PARTICULAR, and his personality IN PARTICULAR, are completely inconsistent with that never coming up and then suddenly, bam, male lover.
13/
Also, I wanna address something RELATIVELY minor here, because it does relate a little bit to this story and I know there's confusion surrounding it.
The general way I've heard most people describe Lucifer's sexuality after having seen at least the first two seasons is "pan."
The general way I've heard most people describe Lucifer's sexuality after having seen at least the first two seasons is "pan."
I wanna be cautious w that. First of all, I think when hets say they "have gaydar," often what's happening is they THINK they're good with flags, and ACTUALLY they just know some stereotypes.
Gaydar exists, but it's not for what you think it's for. Discussion for another day.
Gaydar exists, but it's not for what you think it's for. Discussion for another day.
And to be frank, I see a massive correlation with "I think that character is pan" and "that otherwise male-presenting character wears eyeliner" and I just wanna caution against that.
Let's talk about pan vs bi. This is nuanced and different people offer different answers.
Let's talk about pan vs bi. This is nuanced and different people offer different answers.
So, what's the difference? Sexuality is weird and fuzzy, so don't use what I'm about to say to try to tell somebody else what their sexuality is, please.
IN GENERAL, bi means "attracted to my gender and also a different gender." Doesn't have to be men + women, btw.
IN GENERAL, bi means "attracted to my gender and also a different gender." Doesn't have to be men + women, btw.
"Pan," meanwhile, that's all genders.
But GENDER, like sexuality, is also weird and fuzzy. So how do we distinguish "two" vs "all" and "same as me" gender vs "different" gender?
And is it ethical or necessary to try?
But GENDER, like sexuality, is also weird and fuzzy. So how do we distinguish "two" vs "all" and "same as me" gender vs "different" gender?
And is it ethical or necessary to try?
So, based on the stories of the lived experiences of bi and pan people—and this is in my non-academic view as a queer community member...
Bi folks tend to experience a relationship differently depending on the gender, and for pan folks it tends not to be a factor the same way.
Bi folks tend to experience a relationship differently depending on the gender, and for pan folks it tends not to be a factor the same way.
lemme use myself as an example in front of 2500 people here for a second, lol
I experience deep platonic and romantic feelings for men, but I don't wanna...you know.
Women, yes to all of it.
Those are different, not RANKED, but different experiences of love.
I experience deep platonic and romantic feelings for men, but I don't wanna...you know.
Women, yes to all of it.
Those are different, not RANKED, but different experiences of love.
TECHNICALLY, that's bi.
(I usually say gay because I want a committed relationship with all of it, so that limits the field.)
Even for bi folks who want all of it with people of their gender and another gender, "all of it" might FEEL different to them depending on gender.
(I usually say gay because I want a committed relationship with all of it, so that limits the field.)
Even for bi folks who want all of it with people of their gender and another gender, "all of it" might FEEL different to them depending on gender.
Worth noting: "feel different" also depends on the specific individual partner, so we're again not talking about a set thing here with bright boundaries. We're talking about amorphous trends, clusters, et cetera.
Fuzz everywhere.
Fuzz everywhere.
But anyway, back to Lucifer, the TMI truth-teller who never mentioned he wasn't het for a season and three quarters and then suddenly broaches it like it's no big deal and he's shocked Chloe didn't know
Based on how the actual character acts, pan isn't what I'd jump to.
Based on how the actual character acts, pan isn't what I'd jump to.
Precisely because his pattern of behavior doesn't match "unapologetic pan character who does whatever he wants and is the ruler of hell"
Repressed pan character with no special powers in a heteronormative world, maybe. But pansexual The Literal Devil seems unlikely to me.
Repressed pan character with no special powers in a heteronormative world, maybe. But pansexual The Literal Devil seems unlikely to me.
That said, maybe the character IS supposed to be pan, in fanfic or in the comics (I've only seen the show), so let me amend my statement to:
This show does not present Lucifer as pan in my view, which might be director error, but it seems like it wasn't the intention.
This show does not present Lucifer as pan in my view, which might be director error, but it seems like it wasn't the intention.
So later, early in Season 3, we get an ep where Lucifer is squicked out by a penis.
You're telling me that the supposedly queer ruler of hell who spent millenia torturing people acts like a repressed high school football player when presented with dick?
Who directed this?
You're telling me that the supposedly queer ruler of hell who spent millenia torturing people acts like a repressed high school football player when presented with dick?
Who directed this?
Believe me, we will come back to Lucifer, but there's a character I desperately want to get to so I'm temporarily abandoning Lucifer because the only unimportant thing in the world I really wanna talk about right now is Mazikeen.
Like, MUHGAWD
ANYWAY, Mazikeen's queerness is presented much like Lucifer's—suddenly, after many many episodes of her and Luci NEVER talking about it, as if her interlocutor has no right to be surprised.
(She tells Amenadiel that she has had sex with men and women, is how we officially learn)
(She tells Amenadiel that she has had sex with men and women, is how we officially learn)
BY THE WAY, SUPER obvious in this show that all the hell dwellers are the ones that get queered and all the human and heaven dwelling characters are kept het
Don't think I didn't notice that.
Don't think I didn't notice that.
Also don't think I didn't notice that while queerness is MENTIONED, ONLY het displays of affection are shown onscreen.
We get gay humans in some Starford parents, but we don't see a queer display of affection until Maze...
We get gay humans in some Starford parents, but we don't see a queer display of affection until Maze...
PRETENDS to be Chloe's wife, also at Starford.
And it's supposed to be a joke for the audience. A joke! (And she flirts with Chloe in a het fashion in this display—we're gonna get to flirting modalities later).
And it's supposed to be a joke for the audience. A joke! (And she flirts with Chloe in a het fashion in this display—we're gonna get to flirting modalities later).
Yeah, I know, "It's on TV so they can't."
It's not acceptable that TV allows het DA and not queer DA, full stop.
So I get it, but I'm'a say all queer representation and misrepresentation in this show is in bounds for this thread regardless of the reason for it.
It's not acceptable that TV allows het DA and not queer DA, full stop.
So I get it, but I'm'a say all queer representation and misrepresentation in this show is in bounds for this thread regardless of the reason for it.
So to me, right now, it looks like the directors started with two het characters and then tried to add queerness to one as a "twist" and to the other as comedic relief.
These are both objectifying characteristics of queerness rather than presenting queer people on the show.
These are both objectifying characteristics of queerness rather than presenting queer people on the show.
Alright, we'll come back to the show, but I wanna go ahead and answer some questions I'm sure are coming up based on some of the stuff I said up there.
1. "Gaydar is real but it's not for what you think it's for"
1. "Gaydar is real but it's not for what you think it's for"
Queer adults often grow up to discover that everyone they hung out with as youths, turns out, was also queer.
...Even if NONE of them were out at the time. Why is this?
...Even if NONE of them were out at the time. Why is this?
It's because we are protecting ourselves, and part of that is subconsciously finding people who feel "safe."
And who is safe, in a homophobic world? Other queer people.* Even if they're not out.
*With exceptions.
And who is safe, in a homophobic world? Other queer people.* Even if they're not out.
*With exceptions.
If gaydar didn't "work," this wouldn't happen. But it's not a tool for finding partners. It's a survival tool.
This is why queer people still agonize over whether their crush is queer or not. We can sorta tell if they're SAFE. Not if they're INTO us. That's not what gaydar is.
This is why queer people still agonize over whether their crush is queer or not. We can sorta tell if they're SAFE. Not if they're INTO us. That's not what gaydar is.
BTW related, het people mostly don't really have gaydar because you don't develop intuition for who is gonna be safe to SOMEONE ELSE, only who is gonna be safe to YOU. And as a het, everyone is safe to you. At least, sexuality-wise.
What hets DO have is a set of clothing items, hairstyles, voice cues, and mannerisms that they associate with queerness.
Those are called flags. We absolutely have them and use them. We have to keep changing them because het folks keep stealing them as trends.
Those are called flags. We absolutely have them and use them. We have to keep changing them because het folks keep stealing them as trends.
(Which, btw, is the phenomenon that the joke comes from back in tweet 3 or 4 of this thread).
BTW a lot of what hets call "gaydar" comes down to "presents as one gender w some % of sartorial choices redolent of a different gender," and that's not even a flag—it's a stereotype.
BTW a lot of what hets call "gaydar" comes down to "presents as one gender w some % of sartorial choices redolent of a different gender," and that's not even a flag—it's a stereotype.
OK enough of this soapbox, onto #2:
2. What's this about flirting modalities?
Yes, so
2. What's this about flirting modalities?
Yes, so
Once again, flirting modalities totally differs by person.
ALSO, when you grow up in a world where flirting with people you like is safe/acceptable, you're likely to flirt differently than people who grow up in a world where flirting with people they like can get them killed.
ALSO, when you grow up in a world where flirting with people you like is safe/acceptable, you're likely to flirt differently than people who grow up in a world where flirting with people they like can get them killed.
ALSO, the kind of flirting pushed in modern pop culture is not only heteronormative, but also both paternalistic and patronizing.
How many movies start with "boy wants girl, girl says no" and end with "boy gets girl?"
I didn't do research. Let's just say a fuckton.
How many movies start with "boy wants girl, girl says no" and end with "boy gets girl?"
I didn't do research. Let's just say a fuckton.
Whereas in, like, a HEALTHY situation where everybody understands consent, no means no.
Choosing not to understand consent results in success in these movies, which is gross AF and Hollywood deserves all kinds of blowback for that that they don't get.
*huff.* Moving on.
Choosing not to understand consent results in success in these movies, which is gross AF and Hollywood deserves all kinds of blowback for that that they don't get.
*huff.* Moving on.
EVEN outside of this consent issue, modalities.
Het flirting in a heteronormative world is allowed to be kinda direct. That's acceptable.
Sure, some hets are shy. For sure, you might get rejected if you openly ask someone out.
You won't get killed. We are not the same.
Het flirting in a heteronormative world is allowed to be kinda direct. That's acceptable.
Sure, some hets are shy. For sure, you might get rejected if you openly ask someone out.
You won't get killed. We are not the same.
So, queer people have to be really careful. That carefulness becomes a habit sometimes even when flirting with KNOWN other queer folks, and it can no joke be life or death to flirt with an Entity of Unknown Sexuality.
So there's a dance.
So there's a dance.
Yeah, I know, het people think there's a dance, but it's different.
This is why I've never gone into this with the other shows, I'm not sure how to explain it exactly and I don't want to be on the hook for articulating it exactly, but let's try an example.
This is why I've never gone into this with the other shows, I'm not sure how to explain it exactly and I don't want to be on the hook for articulating it exactly, but let's try an example.
Me. Right? I don't ask people out. Should I? Different question. But mind, I grew up in a world where it can get me killed.
If I like someone, I'll find a way to include something A LITTLE BIT personal in the conversation. Example, I dunno, something about my family. NEXT...
If I like someone, I'll find a way to include something A LITTLE BIT personal in the conversation. Example, I dunno, something about my family. NEXT...
See if they reciprocate at some point with something of similar personal-ness level.
If they do, I'll share something a little more personal. An embarrassing moment or something.
I don't shoehorn it in, obviously. I find a good entree.
If they do, I'll share something a little more personal. An embarrassing moment or something.
I don't shoehorn it in, obviously. I find a good entree.
Again, see if they reciprocate.
A few times through this, maybe now we're at the level where I'll share an endearing quality of an ex.
(yes, endearing. I have been lucky that I have only seriously dated good people. I wouldn't shit talk an ex anyway).
A few times through this, maybe now we're at the level where I'll share an endearing quality of an ex.
(yes, endearing. I have been lucky that I have only seriously dated good people. I wouldn't shit talk an ex anyway).
This one does two things a) continue the trend I've been on and b) the pronouns of the ex about 80% of the time make it clear who I date.
But?? This is so subtle?? It's just exactly like when people are becoming friends, Chelsea??
Yes. Because I do not KNOW this person is safe.
But?? This is so subtle?? It's just exactly like when people are becoming friends, Chelsea??
Yes. Because I do not KNOW this person is safe.
And by the way, people who are outwardly "safe" in the "I drink at the pride parade and wear rainbows in support" is not the same as "safe" in the "I would be flattered and not freaked out if someone of my gender actually expressed interest in me."
IN FACT, get this, STRAIGHT UP QUEER people can ALSO have internalized homophobia and they can be DATING queer PARTNERS who they STILL HURT with it!
So, yeah, this style of "flirting" is hardly "flirting" and more "get to know the person and try to see if it's safe"
So, yeah, this style of "flirting" is hardly "flirting" and more "get to know the person and try to see if it's safe"
This is why the joke about how "lesbian dating is being friends for 20 years first" is kinda not that funny.
Btw, jokes about a marginalized groups are often rooted in that group's oppression even if the thing the joke's about is true.
More on this:
Btw, jokes about a marginalized groups are often rooted in that group's oppression even if the thing the joke's about is true.
Also btw, BECAUSE I present pretty femme and BECAUSE I flirt like this, hets (including the ones who think they "have gaydar") usually either assume I'm straight or they decide I'm asexual.
Because I don't flirt like a het so they think I don't flirt at all.
Because I don't flirt like a het so they think I don't flirt at all.
Man I guess today is just the day Chelsea Troy mined her whole private life for examples of nuanced concepts in queerness in relation to a tv show about a crime solving devil
it makes sense
don't overthink it
it makes sense
don't overthink it
SPEAKING OF WHICH, THE SHOW
When Maze displays affection for Chloe at Starford:
1. It is fake.
2. It is overt (butt slapping in a crowd, general Maze-like speech/behavior).
3. The audience is supposed to laugh at it.
Not a good look for the first queer DA in the show.
When Maze displays affection for Chloe at Starford:
1. It is fake.
2. It is overt (butt slapping in a crowd, general Maze-like speech/behavior).
3. The audience is supposed to laugh at it.
Not a good look for the first queer DA in the show.
Allll right allll right, ONE more thing before we get back to the show.
3. "STRAIGHT UP QUEER people can ALSO have internalized homophobia and they can be DATING queer PARTNERS who they STILL HURT with it!"
Chelsea, what??
yes
3. "STRAIGHT UP QUEER people can ALSO have internalized homophobia and they can be DATING queer PARTNERS who they STILL HURT with it!"
Chelsea, what??
yes
Like, a random and super general example would be:
Expecting a same sex partner to only spend time IN PRIVATE, whereas they'd be fine being seen in public with a different-sex partner, because the second is "respectable" and the first is not, or maybe
Expecting a same sex partner to only spend time IN PRIVATE, whereas they'd be fine being seen in public with a different-sex partner, because the second is "respectable" and the first is not, or maybe
Expecting a same-sex partner to "be grateful" that they made the grave sacrifice of settling for them rather than someone for whom they wouldn't have to face homophobia
and so the same-sex partner should be extra nice and super flexy with their boundaries
and so the same-sex partner should be extra nice and super flexy with their boundaries
It's not cool to make a partner feel shame to show them "how much they need you" or make them feel like they need to "make it up to you" that they are who they are and not, y'know, someone society would make it easier for you to date
That's low in any partnership, het ones too.
That's low in any partnership, het ones too.
So yes, safety is complicated and deep, and just because someone went to a drag brunch one time doesn't prove anything important.
OK NOW BACK TO THE SHOW
OK NOW BACK TO THE SHOW
Also, dudes of all sexualities are sexy in eyeliner and it would be great if we quit making assumptions about them so more of them will wear it
There I said it
There I said it
Arright I got busy, I'm back now.
Look, here's the thing that makes Lucifer and Maze unique as characters to present as queer.
All the HUMAN excuses for why their sexualities would receive this wildly inconsistent representation don't apply to them. Here's why:
Look, here's the thing that makes Lucifer and Maze unique as characters to present as queer.
All the HUMAN excuses for why their sexualities would receive this wildly inconsistent representation don't apply to them. Here's why:
Humans present inconsistently queer for a few reasons, two big ones being:
1. They haven't 100% figured it out yet
2. They risk consequences, such as being cast out or, as we have discussed, being killed.
But...
1. They haven't 100% figured it out yet
2. They risk consequences, such as being cast out or, as we have discussed, being killed.
But...
1. L+M had time to figure it out. Lucifer is one generation removed from the BEGINNING OF TIME. Maze, two.
2. Lucifer is immortal. Mazikeen could die, but no HUMAN is gonna best her in a fight. Also, fear of being cast out? Remember: The Fallen Angel here, and a hell-demon.
2. Lucifer is immortal. Mazikeen could die, but no HUMAN is gonna best her in a fight. Also, fear of being cast out? Remember: The Fallen Angel here, and a hell-demon.
So these characters aren't subject to the reasons that a human character might pass as het for 16 hours of TV before dropping a hint that that's not the case.
I mean, I guess, unless God is homophobic. Which I really hope (and really think) the directors aren't trying to imply.
I mean, I guess, unless God is homophobic. Which I really hope (and really think) the directors aren't trying to imply.
