atreeisatree:

People who think that the biphobia in the last episode of HTGAWM can be reduced to Michaela asking Aiden “are you gay?” instead of “are you bi?” have a somewhat superficial understanding of bi erasure IMO. It doesn’t make sense to pin everything on Michaela… except that this functions to give people a pass on misogynoir since now there’s a “reason” to dislike Michaela and call her a bitch. Black fans have already been commenting on this. If you’ve come away from this episode completely accepting of Connor but hating on Michaela, you really need to examine your reaction there and look at what’s causing that double standard.

This whole subplot is an interpretation of bi sexuality. It’s an interpretation that invalidates and casts suspicion on bi sexuality and same-gender desire in general. Men who have had relations with men but who are now with women are treated narratively like a ticking time bomb. The specter of “homosexuality” is something that threatens and destabilizes man/woman relationships. This is how Connor treats Aiden’s sexuality: he capitalizes on the fact that same-gender behavior is threatening in order to hurt Michaela and sabotage Aiden’s relationship - for no real reason except that he’s a spiteful person! And Michaela responds to his hints by feeling threatened and first attempting to ignore/silence this information and then eventually confronting Aiden.

That two-sided dynamic between Connor and Michaela (which Connor initiates and brings to a head) is what drives the whole subplot, with the end result being that Aiden’s sexual history destabilizes his relationship. The narrative use of past same-gender behavior/desire as a threat to a man/woman relationship is homophobic and specifically biphobic. Looking only at Michaela’s questioning at the end seems short-sighted.

Of course no room is given in the narrative for a stable bi sexuality to exist, because it interprets (bi men’s) same-gender desire as inherently destabilizing. It’s something that needs to be defused and rejected: same-gender desire is just a phase, the result of being a stupid, horny teenager [note how it is purely sex-driven], and must be - and is - completely denied in order for a man/woman relationship to be stable. Otherwise, how could the man ever stay fulfilled and invested in his relationship with a woman? Even with Aiden’s disavowal of any same-gender desire, doubts may still linger because he has been infected with teh gay may still be “deceiving” his fiancee even accidentally - who’s to say he’s not still repressing his true feelings? 

Again, these narrative assumptions/interpretations are both biphobic and homophobic. A lot of these stereotypes also relate to gay sexuality (it’s just a phase, purely sexual, needs to be disavowed in favor of a man/woman relationships but remains suspect), because the common factor here is same-gender desire. 

Acting like the only problem is Michaela not asking Aiden if he’s bi or assuming that he’s gay seems to miss the point. Why would the writers’ have made bi sexuality a valid consideration here? This whole narrative would have fallen apart. The “threat of same-gender desire” device doesn’t work if anyone here understands bi sexuality. Which isn’t to “excuse” the narrative but to say it never should have taken place. It is 2014 and there is no reason we can’t have a straight woman marrying a comfortably out bi man, where sexuality is something that is openly discussed in the relationship. They still could have revealed that Connor had previously slept with Aiden without it being something that caused strain on Michaela’s relationships.

It’s a huge disservice to Michaela’s character to write her as a mouthpiece for this. And it’s misogynoiristic to use this shitty subplot as an excuse to write off her character, especially if we’re still stanning for Connor despite his spiteful, manipulative, and biphobic actions.

(Source: scissortailedsaint)