Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / HoYay

Go To

Sep 19th 2017 at 5:17:02 PM •••

Is it legitimate for YMMV sub-pages to have Les Yay as a YMMV item when it redirects to this trope?

Edited by Kindle4Light
Jan 12th 2017 at 4:21:37 PM •••

What does the name actually mean? I think it's supposed to be someone expressing excitement over the prospect of homosexuality, but is that right? If so, where does it come from?

Oct 15th 2016 at 10:36:21 AM •••

This is just a simple question: Does Ho Yay have to be intentionally invoked? In other words, do I have to try to add homoerotic subtext or will people still find the subtext even if I did not try to invoke it.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 17th 2016 at 7:36:09 AM •••

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

May 9th 2014 at 10:33:20 PM •••

Why was Les yay a redirect to Ho Yay? With the original page seemingly deleted. If you ask me Ho yay should have just been renamed Gay yay.

Hide/Show Replies
May 10th 2014 at 12:51:31 AM •••

Because Ho Yay also covers lesbian subtext.

Dec 16th 2013 at 5:09:33 PM •••

A lot of the male characters who shown attraction/interest to females(and visa versa) are in this page so shouldn't this be more like "Bi Yay"? Homosexuality means liking their own sex and their own sex ONLY. So calling the characters who shown attraction to the opposite sex "gay" might as well be a big "Out of Character" page. Why not just interpret the characters as bisexual(liking both guys AND girls)? It would make more sense and a much more fairer argument.

Another thing, some people misuse this trope. "Ho yay" means you ENJOY this pairing/subtext. If you assume something's going on between the two characters but you DON'T support it and/or are against it, it belongs in the No Yay and/or Relationship Writing Fumble pages not Ho Yay.

Hide/Show Replies
Oct 9th 2014 at 8:13:51 AM •••

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

Feb 11th 2016 at 9:35:20 AM •••

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.

Edited by lavendermintrose
Apr 27th 2013 at 6:33:08 AM •••

I like how the third paragraph suggests that willfully interpreting any interaction as gay is a result of "open-mindedness".

I'm not sure thats accurate, fair or neutral language.

I think describing it as a result of liberal-mindedness would be more accurate, assuming it actually exists at all.

But whatever, I got a chuckle out of it.

Edited by Hide/Show Replies
Dec 16th 2013 at 7:57:05 PM •••

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

Sep 16th 2012 at 6:56:17 PM •••

There are some examples of trans* characters around this page. Not only the idea of calling a cis man who likes a trans* woman gay is ridiculous, it is also insulting. Could someone really keep an eye on those edits?

Jun 13th 2012 at 5:43:26 AM •••

I'd like to point out that the main page of this topic specifically points that it's about cases where it APPEARS like the characters might be homosexual. Yet, I have seen many pages in the examples (most notably western animation and Teen Titans) where it lists Anything as a proof and is described like it was considered a proof the characters are indeed homosexual. Wouldn't it be wise to correct those pages to make it clearer ?

Feb 24th 2012 at 11:27:55 PM •••

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.

Edited by nemui10pm
Mar 4th 2012 at 12:06:07 PM •••

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.

Mar 6th 2012 at 8:39:24 AM •••

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

Jan 12th 2012 at 6:41:24 AM •••

Remind me again why this became subjective? Oh, I know; it had something to do with the fact that instances of two Heterosexual Life-Partners so much as being friendly toward one another ended up being obvious Yaoi Guys in secret. Was I close?

Hide/Show Replies
Feb 7th 2012 at 8:30:38 PM •••

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.

Edited by NeeChee
Apr 13th 2011 at 12:57:55 PM •••

Yet another vote for a split between Ho Yay and Les Yay. The mere fact that the pages have gotten so unwieldy that we need separate entries for each category is an argument that it should be broken up as much as possible for accessibility's sake.

Hide/Show Replies
Aug 19th 2011 at 10:27:56 AM •••

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?

Nov 6th 2011 at 9:27:25 AM •••

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!

Edited by PassTheWord
May 1st 2012 at 7:29:29 PM •••

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

Telcontar MOD
May 1st 2012 at 11:24:14 PM •••

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

Mar 12th 2011 at 9:54:42 AM •••

I think you should change the title to Homo Yay to prevent confusion.

Hide/Show Replies
Jun 13th 2012 at 8:48:30 AM •••

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

Edited by NimmerStill
Jul 27th 2010 at 3:17:42 PM •••

I propose we do away with this page and replace it with a banner that says, "Every pair of males might be straight or gay when no one is looking."

Every single male couple (even people standing in the background) has an entry for this and it serves no purpose other than to catalog random fan fic writers who get no credit anywhere else.

Hide/Show Replies
Jul 27th 2010 at 7:38:22 PM •••

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.

Jul 28th 2010 at 8:04:52 AM •••

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.

Jul 28th 2010 at 11:38:15 AM •••

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.

Jul 29th 2010 at 7:09:14 AM •••

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.

Jul 29th 2010 at 11:11:01 AM •••

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.

Jul 29th 2010 at 2:02:28 PM •••

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

Jul 29th 2010 at 2:34:17 PM •••

You could always look into our Page Guardian initiative.

Jul 29th 2010 at 8:02:29 PM •••

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.

Aug 2nd 2010 at 11:48:19 AM •••

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.

Aug 9th 2010 at 5:34:08 PM •••

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...

Aug 9th 2010 at 6:24:51 PM •••

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

Aug 10th 2010 at 5:19:43 AM •••

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.

Nov 5th 2010 at 9:56:58 PM •••

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."

Nov 5th 2010 at 10:13:49 PM •••

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"?

Apr 20th 2011 at 6:22:30 AM •••

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.

Jun 28th 2010 at 9:19:39 AM •••

Should there be a section or blurb in the opening describing Straight Yay (i.e. the apparent heterosexual attraction between people with firmly established homosexuality)?

This was brought up on the discussion page for The Question, where me and another troper were discussing how to describe the relationship between the first and second Questions. Renee (The second) is canonically gay (And, by the way, currently fighting for the spot as my #1 favorite comic character) but some people read a lot of UST in her interactions with Vic (The first Question) in Fifty Two. I, personally, don't see it (For me it's just the close bond of any nakama, without any romantic or sexual overtones) , but I admit that that does not mean it's not there, and being a Yuri Fan is probably skewing my judgement a bit.

As such, we agreed to add a Straight Yay trope to the page, referencing the apparently sexual subtext between the two in the same way that there is Ho Yay between straight characters, but there's no Straight Yay spot on this page. Should it be added for another layer to the trope?

Edited by JBK405
Jul 2nd 2010 at 12:11:24 AM •••

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

Jul 29th 2010 at 5:22:03 PM •••

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?

Apr 6th 2011 at 10:47:16 PM •••

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.

Dec 2nd 2011 at 8:59:31 PM •••

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!

Feb 22nd 2013 at 4:02:58 PM •••

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

Jun 13th 2010 at 8:56:59 PM •••

Why on earth is there no longer a proper Les Yay page anymore? Since the treatment of the subject matter is different, it's appropriate to have separate blurbs. The status quo makes the Les Yay invisible-r

Hide/Show Replies
FastEddie MOD
Jun 14th 2010 at 2:56:05 AM •••

What difference is there in the treatment of the subject?

Jun 14th 2010 at 6:59:21 AM •••

Homoeroticism is not a male-only concept.

Jun 17th 2010 at 7:12:07 PM •••

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

If not, then there may be a problem.

Oct 27th 2010 at 12:45:02 PM •••


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

Nov 1st 2010 at 7:28:13 PM •••

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.

Jun 23rd 2011 at 12:48:30 PM •••

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.

Edited by Vif119
May 2nd 2010 at 10:05:09 PM •••

Anyone else think the example section's a bit useless or just not specific enough? It lists stories that supposedly have Ho Yay, Foe Yay or Les Yay but it doesn't actually provide any canon of fanfiction examples.

I mean, "Harley and Ivy's alluded moments in bed" is a better way of giving an example than simply giving to fellow tropers a "Batman comics." The former is a lot less vauge.

Hide/Show Replies
Apr 16th 2010 at 4:27:20 PM •••

Voting to change the picture to this one, which is not only the pair that sparked the phenomenon in the first place but is much more homoerotic than a simple one-arm hug.

Hide/Show Replies
FastEddie MOD
Apr 16th 2010 at 5:15:12 PM •••

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.

Apr 20th 2010 at 6:24:45 PM •••

I would respectfully disagree with that picture, as well as that pairing, I hope to open up a discussion, and hopefully come to a compromise that won't result in me being banned.

Apr 21st 2010 at 2:41:19 PM •••

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.

Edited by AcrossTheStars
May 19th 2010 at 7:00:38 PM •••

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

Jun 17th 2010 at 7:10:54 PM •••

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.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: