I’m not making a judgement, if you read the rest of my comment, I find veiled homoeroticism fine and dandy if it serves the story. Still fits the terminology of queer baiting. I very specifically said that I can’t speak to this specific example (and was inferring that I can’t make judgement on whether this case of “queerbaiting” ie unresolved ambiguous homoromantic relationships, fits that definition or not) no need to jump down my throat friend, just having a conversation. I mean no harm.

Queer baiting is a loaded term, (which is why I prefer schrodingers gays). It’s often exploitative and annoying but not always.

Agreed. I haven’t actually seen this show so can’t speak to this specific example. I have no problem with veiled homoeroticism between characters if it makes sense. In a show/movie without any queer relationships whatsoever it can get annoying and feel exploitative.

I’m totally with you. I like some veiled homoerotic tension, it’s when movies put it in to avoid controversy by having explicitly queer characters that it bugs me. The monk and his beefy boy in Rogue One being an example of the bad kind. Disney sucks for this.

The “at least not necessarily” is what makes it queer baiting, or as I like to call it schrodingers gays.