I think your general point about monosexuals finding bisexuality hot being a potentially slippery slope to fetishization and objectification is valid, but I've seen all three shows in question and in RW&RB the bisexual man is actually the protagonist. I could also make the case that Nick in Heartstopper is treated as a co-protagonist with Charlie rather than just his love interest.
The Slate piece is very clearly not interested in addressing the state of bisexual male representation on television in recent years, though, so of course it's cherrypicking to support its "male heartthrobs can be bi now" thesis, and only mentioning bisexual male characters from comedies who aren't presented as traditionally handsome leading man types as examples of the previous dearth of hot bisexual men on TV--and completely ignoring the likes of Lee Pace in Halt and Catch Fire, Tom Ellis in Lucifer, Matt Ryan in Constantine and Legends of Tomorrow, etc., whose characters may not be as wholesome as those in the teen romance shows the essay is concerned with, but are all very definitely bisexual male protagonists. (And that's leaving out supporting/ensemble characters like Harry Shum, Jr. as Marcus Bane, Pedro Pascal as Oberyn Martell, or Thomas Doherty and Evan Mock in the Gossip Girl reboot, among others.)
Honestly, I think that's part of the point; the essay is focused on a subset of otherwise "good" and "safe" younger bisexual men that a young woman could consider boyfriend material, which is not the case with any of these other examples. Almost all *those* men are older, dangerous, even villainous at times (redemption arcs notwithstanding), and with a couple of exceptions we don't see them in on-screen relationships with men... although of course the same can be said for Jeremiah in The Summer I Turned Pretty, who is in some ways the best example of what I think the article is really about even if it doesn't admit to it on the surface: rehabilitating the image of bisexual guys to depict them as conventionally hot boyfriends who are still sweet and unobjectionable enough that you could take them home to meet your parents. Like, Henry is literally a prince and not the Prince of Hell! And unfortunately I think the subtext of this in our wider cultural context is that these men may be hot partly because of their bisexuality, but only good despite it. So we still have a long way to go.
this is actually quite concerning for me cause the way this “acceptance” of bi men is being framed feels a lot like a trend that people will turn against just like they did with bi women. of course this has everything to do with what you mention in this article: the fetishisation & objectification bi men.
In the series "With Love" on Prime, the character of Henry is said to be bisexual, though in the show he is only shown in a same-sex relationship with the main character's brother. But in one second-season episode, the main character includes him in a three-man sexual fantasy, which I found interesting.
What I usually say about characters being treated as fetish objects is that it's not wrong for some objectification to be going on, it's wrong for our ONLY option to be objectification. I think it's okay for women who are mostly into men to be into the idea of two men into each other, just the same way I think it's okay for men who are mostly into women to be into the idea of two women.
The problem is that we're really good at reducing people into stereotypes so they reinforce fast. The only counter to it is more stories and more bisexuals on screen to observe. If a show only has one character from a certain community they have to carry all the representation, when in real life we have plenty of examples to compare and contrast with.
I think your general point about monosexuals finding bisexuality hot being a potentially slippery slope to fetishization and objectification is valid, but I've seen all three shows in question and in RW&RB the bisexual man is actually the protagonist. I could also make the case that Nick in Heartstopper is treated as a co-protagonist with Charlie rather than just his love interest.
The Slate piece is very clearly not interested in addressing the state of bisexual male representation on television in recent years, though, so of course it's cherrypicking to support its "male heartthrobs can be bi now" thesis, and only mentioning bisexual male characters from comedies who aren't presented as traditionally handsome leading man types as examples of the previous dearth of hot bisexual men on TV--and completely ignoring the likes of Lee Pace in Halt and Catch Fire, Tom Ellis in Lucifer, Matt Ryan in Constantine and Legends of Tomorrow, etc., whose characters may not be as wholesome as those in the teen romance shows the essay is concerned with, but are all very definitely bisexual male protagonists. (And that's leaving out supporting/ensemble characters like Harry Shum, Jr. as Marcus Bane, Pedro Pascal as Oberyn Martell, or Thomas Doherty and Evan Mock in the Gossip Girl reboot, among others.)
Honestly, I think that's part of the point; the essay is focused on a subset of otherwise "good" and "safe" younger bisexual men that a young woman could consider boyfriend material, which is not the case with any of these other examples. Almost all *those* men are older, dangerous, even villainous at times (redemption arcs notwithstanding), and with a couple of exceptions we don't see them in on-screen relationships with men... although of course the same can be said for Jeremiah in The Summer I Turned Pretty, who is in some ways the best example of what I think the article is really about even if it doesn't admit to it on the surface: rehabilitating the image of bisexual guys to depict them as conventionally hot boyfriends who are still sweet and unobjectionable enough that you could take them home to meet your parents. Like, Henry is literally a prince and not the Prince of Hell! And unfortunately I think the subtext of this in our wider cultural context is that these men may be hot partly because of their bisexuality, but only good despite it. So we still have a long way to go.
I love this very thorough comment
I’m still hung up on the headline of that Slate piece. “Long Awaited” by whom??
this is actually quite concerning for me cause the way this “acceptance” of bi men is being framed feels a lot like a trend that people will turn against just like they did with bi women. of course this has everything to do with what you mention in this article: the fetishisation & objectification bi men.
In the series "With Love" on Prime, the character of Henry is said to be bisexual, though in the show he is only shown in a same-sex relationship with the main character's brother. But in one second-season episode, the main character includes him in a three-man sexual fantasy, which I found interesting.
What I usually say about characters being treated as fetish objects is that it's not wrong for some objectification to be going on, it's wrong for our ONLY option to be objectification. I think it's okay for women who are mostly into men to be into the idea of two men into each other, just the same way I think it's okay for men who are mostly into women to be into the idea of two women.
The problem is that we're really good at reducing people into stereotypes so they reinforce fast. The only counter to it is more stories and more bisexuals on screen to observe. If a show only has one character from a certain community they have to carry all the representation, when in real life we have plenty of examples to compare and contrast with.
I haven't seen the Heartstopper show, but in the graphic novels Nick's bisexual is very earnest and sweet and well-portrayed