Television’s landscape, once characterized by the absence of LGBTQ+ characters, has gradually opened its doors to diverse representations. However, a concerning pattern has emerged in the realm of sapphic representation. While the industry demonstrates strides towards inclusivity, an underlying disparity comes to light when examining the commitment given to sapphic characters and their narratives.
The issue of “side gays” becomes apparent as sapphic characters are introduced but often sidelined. This treatment manifests in insufficient promotion and premature cancellations of sapphic-centric shows compared to their heterosexual or gay counterparts. For instance, the divergent trajectories of shows like “Heartstopper” and “First Kill” on Netflix exemplify this phenomenon. While “Heartstopper” received robust promotion and swift renewal, “First Kill” faced cancellation despite promising viewership. Similar instances unfold on Prime Video, where upcoming gay romances are hailed while sapphic narratives receive lesser attention.
Furthermore, the underrepresentation of sapphic relationships within hetero-centric shows is striking. Renowned shows of the last decade like “Game of Thrones,” “Modern Family,” and “The Office” lean more towards featuring gay men than lesbian characters. Even in instances where both are present, gay male stories often take precedence. Contemporary series are beginning to introduce sapphic characters, yet their storylines frequently remain on the fringes.
In this context, recent series like “Never Have I Ever,” “Ted Lasso,” and “Shadow and Bone” showcase the unequal treatment. Hetero relationships are granted multi-season development, while sapphic storylines are abruptly curtailed, often reduced to subtext. While strides have been made, a profound gap persists in the portrayal of sapphic relationships.
A potential explanation for this lies in skewed executive perceptions, where gay men are presumed more acceptable to straight women viewers. This assumption, stemming from societal biases, underscores the intricate nature of representation. As society continues to evolve in its understanding of queerness in women, the journey towards equitable LGBTQ+ representation remains an ongoing process.
As television endeavors to be a mirror of society, it must reflect the diversity within the LGBTQ+ spectrum. The present may be characterized by uneven commitment, but the call for authentic representation, especially for sapphic identities, resounds stronger than ever. Television’s role in shaping perceptions is undeniable, and it’s time for a genuine, unwavering commitment to sapphic narratives, reaffirming that they are not mere “side gays,” but integral stories deserving of recognition and respect.