Discussion Main / HoyAy

It actually has to be accidental, or else it's, well, Homoerotic Subtext.

but homosexual actions are any between the same sex. 2 bisexuals of the same gender would still be engaging in a homosexual relationship.

The point is, though, why are we assuming anything about characters' sexuality? If Alice likes Bob, that doesn't mean the writer is saying she could never be interested in women and that shipping her with Charlotte is pure fantasy. I feel like there's just generally a lot of needless gender separation here - both on the site in general and with same vs opposite sex relationships/shipping, in particular. The Ho-yay pages for individual works usually seem like a bunch of 6th-graders going "ooooh!" about something someone told them was naughty. It could just be me, but it seems homophobic to put implied/inferred same-sex pairings on one page, and implied/inferred opposite-sex pairings on another, and treat the latter as automatically closer to canon, and the former as all just crazy. Even if you think you're just "acknowledging" a level of homophobia the writers/producers "must" have, you're backing that attitude by separating it that way. I feel like this page is sort of telling people that no matter what, if you think the writers meant it, you just have your slash goggles on too tight. We could start by clarifying the real meaning of the trope: Is it, "Same-sex pairings with substantial fan interest, regardless of canon viability" or "Same-sex pairings intentionally teased to titillate a certain segment of fans, without any intention of canon validity", or somewhere in between? How do canon and practically-canon pairings fit into this? Is there a distinction made between "They could actually love each other and have a relationship" and "It would be hot to put them together in a fanfic" (to use examples from anime, the pairings in Free, or Shizuo/Izaya from Durarara!!?). This whole thing seems like something that means so many different things to different people that it ends up not meaning much of anything, as the previous cleanup discussions show.

Because Ho Yay also covers lesbian subtext.

It's really just people trying to excuse making blatant fetish fuel out of everything. "I'm not a perv, I'm OPEN MINDED!"

When did it become a redirect? I thought Les Yay had its own page. I could be wrong, though.

It's a redirect. And I definitely agree: there are Distaff Counterpart pages for lots of tropes where the gender doesn't matter, so why not do the same here?

I support a split between Les Yay and Ho Yay as well. Particularly would help when I am researching for Les Yay examples without tons of Ho Yay interfering.

Kinda jarring when you think about it... All needed would be difrent example pages/folders... And yet we get this... Mixed... maze-like... THING. If i had respectable (or exiscting) skill and patience over wiki editing, i'd do the separation solo if needed!

I support a split! Both Ho Yay and Les Yay need to be on different pages.

What confusion?

You know, that other use of the word "Ho". The one that actually exists.

I second. Balkanization seems good overall, if only because it would make checking and editing these things less of a headache and probably glom far less data than it does now.

Any functional reasons why this'd be a bad idea?

I third. But it should be Gay Yay and Les Yay. Ho Yay is short for H Omosexual Yay. Gay and Les Yay make way more sense. Edit: Gay Yay is already one of alt titles even!

Not sure why this never took off or if there is a reason for it, but I'm personally behind a split as well.

Go to TRS if you want the pages to be split; it won't happen here.

This trope is now listed in the No Real Life Examples Please article. I can't find any written reason why it was cut, but I can guess that it has something to do with all the controversy the trope itself is attracting.

Um, because not everyone is into that sort of thing. It's already an iffy trope as is, but through Real Life into the mix and you'll get something that could be prime Fetish Fuel for some, but others finding it as No Yay straight-up.

Just to be clear, the YMMV tag is addressing the "Yay" in Ho Yay.

Never-fucking-mind, I'm dumb, there's a page called Homoerotic Subtext for real subtext and not wishful thinking of fangirls/boys. TV Tropes is really big, I'm starting to notice, ha.

What difference is there in the treatment of the subject?

Homoeroticism is not a male-only concept.

Have all the les yay examples been transferred over properly already?

If not, then there may be a problem.

There was NO REASON TO PUT THEM TOGETHER.

Namely, Les Yay targets a TOTALLY difference audience; it's treatment is different, etc.

Eh, but the concept is the same. I mean, Yuri Fangirl tends to cover the audience pretty well. And Ho Yay was never limited to males only. Instead of making a new page, just add on to the paragraph where Les Yay is explained on the Ho Yay page. That seems simplest.

I think it's really stupid that people wanting to read about some in-universe examples os Les Yay should end up at this page and be stuck reading about a bunch of guys coring each other instead. How annoying.

Is someone slightly annoyed?

I disagree, although I definitely think the page needs some pruning. Maybe we should just strip it to really notable examples, i.e. Kirk/Spock, House/Wilson, Xena/Gabrielle - pairings with substantial subtextual evidence as opposed to "Two men are friends and make physical contact with each other," which is what it seems to be turning into.

Heck, they just have to be in the same story for fans to create a strong storyline connecting them sexually - even if they spend the whole story chasing women and visiting strip clubs. I may be just ranting, but it seems like these entries really pollute the main pages...maybe they can just be removed from the main pages.

No, because there are certain relationships that really do walk the line. Kirk/Spock - it's verging on a provable theory. Ditto for Xena/Gabrielle, and there's even homoerotic subtext for House/Wilson. It's not what the fans create that matters for this page, it's what's already there in the story. Take Kirk/Spock for instance, Gene Roddenberry created a word to define their relationship that translates as "friend/brother/lover". That's provable subtext right there. Other pairings from Star Trek (just going with what I'm familiar with, here) are Picard/Q (where at least one writer, not to mention the guy who played Q, has said that Q was in love with Picard) and Garak/Bashir (similar deal). I think we should stick to pairings like that, where there's measurable, canonical evidence that they're not "just friends".

I don't think it pollutes it, per se. It's a measurable trope, after all, and there's more than one valid example. The problem is, some examples on here aren't valid - those are the ones that need to go.

Well, that's the first measurable use of this trope I've heard of. Normally it's just the gay fantasies of someone who wants to broadcast their inner erotic thoughts. It would be just as empty if I decided Iron Man should date the Hulk's girlfriend and gave it a stupid name.

Just because some Democrats and Republicans make idiots of themselves doesn't mean the party ideology isn't valid.

My point being, just because some teenage fangirls happen to be overextending the trope doesn't make the trope invalid in and of itself. It just means examples need to be policed a bit more tightly, that's all. I think any claim on this page should include evidence of why it's on here - for example, on the Star Trek page it's mentioned that Kirk/Spock have Ho Yay because Kirk is constantly shooting flirty smiles at Spock, he picks Spock over the Enterprise when he'd previously declared Enterprise to be the love of his life, Kirk called Spock "the noblest half of myself", etc. If someone's going to throw an example up, they should have to explain why. Live Journal's Ship Manifesto community, for instance, archives essays on most of the truly Ho Yay-tastic pairings in fandom (although certainly not all of them), those could be linked to for evidence purposes as well.

I will admit that as a slash fangirl (guess which pairing!) I do have a vested interest in this trope, because it is a valid one, but by that same logic I don't want it applied to pairings that don't have Ho Yay, because that just weakens my claim that some friends really are more than just friends.

That's true. Most entries on individual pages are just wishful thinking. I'd love to see some better policing of this.

You could always look into our Page Guardian initiative.

Listing myself as a Page Guardian for this, but could use some help, as clueless doesn't even begin to cover my ignorance about Anime and Manga.

The trope is widely used and discussed on many pages. Is there a way to get people to stop posting things like, "Obi-Wans' lightsaber is clearly a sign that he's into Pando Baba if you are into that kind of thing"? I don't know how it can be policed unless we make it an non-subjective trope.

Well, taking out all the examples that begin with "This Troper..." would at least be a start.

As for making it slightly less subjective, how about restricting it to "at least one actor or creator has said that the relationship could be sexual/romantic, and/or the Ho Yay between those two characters is remarked on outside of their own fandom". That'd get rid of most of the clutter while still keeping the really notable examples; Batman and Robin, Holmes and Watson, Kirk and Spock, Xena and Gabrielle...

Great! You're officially dragooned to help me. Thanks for volunteering! :)

Huh. For the record, I don't know anything about Anime and Manga either. :) But I'll make a start on the "This Troper" examples.

Thinking about it, pairings where the Ho Yay is commented on in Canon would count as well - like the constant jokes about House and Wilson being a couple. Basically stuff that proves the subtext isn't limited to people wearing Slash Goggles.

Part of the point of Ho Yay is that it ISN'T strictly canon. It's fanon or Word of God or subtext at best.

Sometimes Wo G openly repudiates it. The two main characters' relationship in A Separate Peace is an example from literature.

Ho Yay does NOT mean "there are some gays in this bit."

Except that's not what I was saying. Kirk/Spock isn't canon, but there is no denying that the subtext is there, that it is substantial, and that it is real. But there are some people who will go "Ho Yay!" if two characters of the same gender so much as speak to each other onscreen. Those examples don't count - we want it to be limited to things where you could show someone who has never seen the show a particularly subtext-y bit and have them go, "Well, that looks like more-than-just-friends to me!" Basically, if your average Martian with a grounding in human romantic relationships were to be shown this, would they go "no way" or "maybe"?

There are two groups of people who seem to participate in — or cause — most of the drama concerning this trope. On one hand, you have the people who see Ho Yay absolutely everywhere, and on the other, you have the people who are uncomfortable with the trope and/or tired enough of the first group to put on a pair of extra-strength Anti Goggles and never see it, even where it's obvious (and the latter seems to be harped on and derided considerably less often than the former, for whatever reason, but that's neither here nor there). I could give a list of valid examples that've been taken down along with the chaff over the months, but that would just be inviting calamity. Both of these groups tend to be the most vocal as well as the most edit-happy. So I'm not sure what the solution is, exactly.

That does look like a good example.

Strong contender. Really strong. Ima do it, so I can take the heat. Got that? I'll take the heat, but Across The Stars should get the credit.

Thanks. Fast Eddie, Across The Stars, I love you both! But especially you, Across The Stars. <3

I would respectfully disagree with that picture, as well as that pairing, https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=uvtxad1s1aoq6gl9n3uwi103&page=1#2 I hope to open up a discussion, and hopefully come to a compromise that won't result in me being banned.

You can disagree all you want with that picture. But there's a general consensus that the picture is suitable for the page, both because of its homoerotic nature and because the image is of the pairing that launched slash fandom in the first place. That last part, by the way, is fact. It did launch slash fandom. But just because one person doesn't like it doesn't mean it should be removed. If the general consensus is that it's inappropriate, by all means, let the mods take it down. But right now, that's not true, and you have no right to delete the picture in direct violation of admin orders. Do I sound pissed? Because I. Am. Pissed.

And I would like to add that stating you - what was it again? oh, yes "will delete all mentions [you] see of it" does not add to your credibility, nor does it add any weight to your case that you are "respectfully disagree[ing]", which you are not. You are acting like a raging homophobe. Sorry, honey, but this is not your own personal playground, and not all of us are... what was it, "weird, homoerotic-fanfic-writing-girls-who-smell-like-fish." I do not smell like a fish.

Bring back Bert and Ernie! They were textbook examples of this trope!

But Bert and Ernie's one armed hug wasn't very homoerotic. Actually, they themselves weren't very homoerotic.

And if you're going to put it like that, you might as well bring up the Odd couple, since they were what Bert and Ernie were based on anyway.

I like the picture. It's fitting.

I agree. But to be fair, batman and robin are VERY close partners in crime