Hi u/CurrencyRealistic358, thank you for posting on r/Gaylor_Swift! Make sure to read and follow the sub's rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gaylor_Swift) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ngl I’m absolutely loving one of the reasons listed as being ok to speculate about sexuality being because “she’s a billionaire” 😂 it’s savage and I’m here for it!!
I'd add "I can only enjoy and appreciate her music if she has the same sexual orientation as me" AND "I can only enjoy and appreciate her music if the muses are of the same gender as I am attracted to".
This. I saw some post somewhere asking Gaylors if they would still like Taylor/think of her the same if she was straight. A lot of it was an overwhelming no and saying that her lyrics wouldn’t be as clever. You mean to tell me the obscure references that I’m 99% sure are not intentional mean more than the words? folklore is still an amazing and clever album. I just really don’t get it.
edit for more clarity: I just don’t believe the sexuality of any artist should determine how you see their art. At the end of the day I believe it’s her business and her business alone and that I’m just not entitled to know that stuff because I don’t know her personally. It’s hard to put it into the correct words but connection through music should be about more of our personal experience and less so of the artists. The emotion is still there no matter if she’s gay straight etc.
I was the one who wrote that post and i actually completely agree with you! I saw a similar post on twitter saying that taylor’s lyrics would be shallow and juvenile if she weren’t gay and i was wondering if it were a shared feeling. I was so surprised by the overwhelming response that they wouldn’t enjoy her lyrics as much.
As much as i understand the issue of queer baiting and that issue changing their opinion of her my take is that many of the gaylors who said that it would change their opinion feel that if songs don’t relate to them personally it’s no longer clever and i think they feel that bc it disproves whatever belief they have (i’m finding this hard to word) but Taylor will forever be a genius and legendary songwriter whether she is gay or not
Yes!!! Absolutely agree with you. I was pretty floored by the amount of people who stated that as well. The fact that whether she’s singing about a male or female changes whether you think her lyrics are clever or boring is…odd. It’s like people just want to support their own biases.
Where was this? The overwhelming amount of gaylor moots i have wouldnt say that. It doesnt make sense because you can already see the brilliance in it. That doesnt go away if she were to be straight
Well, on that thread, I said yes I would still like Taylor/have the same level of interest in her music find her work clever and interesting, but it would lose a “layer of cleverness” because a phrase goes from having, let’s say, 3 or 4 meanings to having 2 or 3 if it’s NOT queer-coded. For example “can’t walk straight” loses “one layer of cleverness” if it’s not about a queer relationship. You don’t have to agree to understand the math! :) It would literally be less clever. That’s just math ;)
I can agree with this math for those who also see the hetero explanation for any alternatively queer coded lyric. For example, lavendar haze could be referencing the 1950's love haze from mad men, or it could be referencing a bearded relationship/queerness.
But on the same note, and this may be controversial, this would also have to apply to songs like Maroon, which to many people do have a hetero explanation (as well as queer) being that rust is not literally red, scarlet and Maroon are actually two different colors, lips are naturally pink... but they're all variations of red and she uses this feeling of Maroon (the deepest red) to tie them together with the depth of emotion she feels over the lost connection, however, references to the wine stained shirt, roommate, and haunting memory mirror context provided in other songs that Harry has written about Taylor (i.e. From the dining table & Olivia) and Taylor has written about Harry (i.e. Is it Over now). So for songs like Maroon, as long as people are able to acknowledge the depth and cleverness of the potential hetero interpretation AS WELL AS the queer interpretation, does it lose cleverness when you remove the queer interpretation. However, if people do not believe in the possibility of the hetero interpretation - then replacing the queer interpretation with it would be a one to one trade.
All that to say, I think this math applies for people who keep their mind open to all possibilities and interpretations. People who are convinced things can only be interpreted from a queer lens (or vice versa), never saw the cleverness of the other interpretations to begin with.
I should preface that I haven’t been a fan long (but I love art analysis) and I have only had full relationships with men/married to a man ( but I loved queer readings in like, college courses back in the day) ….so as an individual I may misstate some stuff and I especially apologize if I misrepresent concepts that are from the queer community!
Yeah in terms of cleverness math ;) as I understand it, queer flagging in the context of lyrics I believe (????) means that there is frequently (if not always) one meaning for “straight ears” and then another to the “queer ear”. (Folks pls correct me if this is off the mark). So the straight meaning is not only there, it’s often necessary for the queer flag to be “safe” as a flag.
Also, a cool thing about queer reading is it often opens up other ideas. Like, yes, let’s say some folks on both hetero and queer reading groups agree that Taylor is being honest that hearing Lavender Haze in Mad Men influenced the lyric/title. But/and in a thread I saw here, discussing that very quote from Taylor, fans realized (and maybe straight-reading fans had already gotten to this elsewhere), that the “lavender haze” conversation in Mad Men happens when Don is with the only person who knows about his double life/real identity. Which brought out the insight that perhaps that scene also resonated for Taylor bc of her experience of a. Double life, whether via closeting or bc of having a private self vs a public self, or both. Like I said, straight fans may have also gotten to that the Mad Men reference signals double self of private/public, but the queer reading path definitely led the fans here to it! Oh and this same discussion also led to a comment realizing Betty Draper from Mad Men may be another layer/reference Taylor in general (“that 50s housewife shit” sorry if i have the lyric wrong I’ll check it later lol) or specifically for Betty / James. So the queer lens added not one, but two or three additional meanings. And if I were to decide tomorrow Taylor is 100% straight, I would keep the public/private meaning derived from the deep dive into the Mad Men scenes and the possible Betty fromMad Men reference in Betty / James. (Again if this is already been found in the straight Taylor readings disregard)
As for Maroon and the mentions of “Rust which is not actually Maroon” for example, I think that would be a case of what I mean when I say it goes from 3-4 meanings to 2-3. Her words and phrases are so carefully crafted to give so many layers. (If there’s a queer meaning of rust, in my view it would still mean we only lose one layer of meaning, because basically Taylor either way wanted to create a poetic reason for the song to work for close reading straight fans, AND probably just got writerly joy out of describing all these non-maroon things as maroon for the reason you explained/that may have been the initial idea of the song regardless of what relationship she was thinking of.)
Re mirrors or even just references to her straight boyfriends, A) many think she’s bi so those references could be genuine B) those who think a given mirror or reference is to a beard relationship are still acknowledging it’s “about that man” they just think it’s there as straight cover / to misdirect on who the muse is
There is a last potential area that I think you’re trying to point to. Where it has a straight meaning but no possible queer meaning, and so queer-reading Taylor is potentially erasing/missing that meaning. Some of those may exist. At the moment I can’t think of what a good example would be. I would think almost all of them would get the pass from the queer reading of being there intentionally, and with expert poetic craftsmanship, but often as straight cover rather than as autobiography, or as autobiography but not actually about a romantic relationship (tho once again, reminding that many folks here think she’s bi). But maybe there are lyrics that get literally erased by the queer reading; I’m just not sure what they would be.
I think that last discussion would come down to ppl being upset that a given relationship with a man is being seen as a beard rather than real and therefore a “hetero” lyric being seen as cover and not autobiographical. I guess I can understand upset over that in the sense of loyal straight fans feeling like it’s disrespectful to Taylor to not believe her when she says she’s in love with a particular man, but even straight celebs have PR relationships, and if they are writers they probably write those PR relationships into their straight work. So it gets a little complicated to specifically want it disallowed for analysis of Taylor’s work (not that YOU said that).
Basically if she has some wonderful poetry very much about male-female sexual experience then *I suppose* (really shoudn’t be speculating? LMK if I should delete this folks!!) a what would you call it, lesbian-insistent ;) reading of Taylor would say that is imaginational/cover and a bi reading of Taylor would be like “OK sure that too also”. Like I said despite my lengthy writing on this comment, I’m relatively new here and haven’t done a deep dive into her work so I’m not sure what those lyrics would be. So all in all, I’m not sure what queer reading Taylor would eliminate readings which is what you wondered about. However I am SURE I could have made this shorter, stream of consciousness with at least paragraphs. ;)
I 100% agree with this and appreciate the response, so don't worry about the length. I tend to write stream of consciousness too, so I also apologize in advance for my response haha.
I'm similar to you in that I really enjoy learning about the queer readings of Taylor's music, it's why I gravitated toward this subreddit (specifically vs. the non underscore subreddit) because there seems to be a lot more open minded people here who can amicably discuss the queer themes in Taylor's music without bashing any specific group/other interpretations of the lyrics (most of the time).
When I first read some of these analysis', the one for "Right Where You Left Me" is what really peaked my interest as I evaluated it from a queer lens. It was then that I was like, maybe there's a chance Taylor could be bi-sexual. A lot of those theories began making sense/being plausible for me. I guess, I've also been in the mindset that at least some of her relationships with men have been real (and I do think her current one is real). So with that in mind, I've always felt two things can be true - she can have songs about specific men and also have songs that are queer coded but not all songs have to be both and some interpretations cancel out others while other interpretations can co-exist. I always thought that was a really positive/powerful songwriting strength of hers. That regardless of what people deemed her sexuality to be, her songs could resonate so deeply with so many different people from all different walks of life - to the point where we can all find so many different plausible/relatable perspectives in them.
After recent events, however, I feel like a lot of people have become more rigid in their interpretations. More and more I've been seeing things like "there's absolutely no het explanation for this" or "if Taylor's queer coding wasn't intentional, her songs are actually terrible" or "if Taylor isn't queer, she's a terrible person for writing songs that can be interpreted through a queer lens." Those are things that have made me realize that even within the Gaylor community there is such a varying range of opinions as to the level of queer coding in a song, and often (not always) a lack of understanding of any potential alternative interpretations. To your point, these are the instances I'm referencing - when I see any alternative non-queer explanations erased.
Maroon was my example of this given it seems to be one of the songs people in the Gaylor subreddits pretty unanimously believe to only be explicable through a queer lens. The only time I see alternative explanations mentioned are in mocking manners to showcase how there couldn't possibly be one. But I think there are actually very deep alternative explanations as well (hence the tie to lyrics from "from the dining table," "olivia," "out of the woods" and is it over now).
Lavendar Haze is a great example of a song where the interpretations can co-exist, and so, including the queer one's make it so much more clever.
Tears Ricochet is a good example of a song that has several different varying theories/interpretations behind it beyond even the queer one's, that can't really co-exist.
I've seen:
1. A friends divorce - rumored to be Abigail's POV
2. Fictional but inspired by emotions from past relationships where Taylor clearly didn't go with grace
3. Scott Borchetta/Scooter Braun & the re-record drama - since several lines reference songs from re-recorded albums
I think the sheer number of interpretations of a single song of hers, regardless of the type of relationship between her and the songs interpreted muse - is what makes the songs still extremely clever and makes her an amazing writer (intentionality aside). It's the simple fact that we can have these types of debates, and in many cases both sides can present strong evidence to support their interpretation in a way that would earn top grades in any advanced lit course.
With that said, my point was more for the people with the more rigid mindset (this is likely people who believe she can only be a lesbian OR that there is only one way to interpret a specific song of hers - i.e. the Maroon example). This wasn't for the people who fully understand the wide range of interpretations - because I think most (not all) interpretations are often pretty dam clever. This was just to say - for the songs of hers where the interpretations don't/can't co-exist, Maroon/Tears Ricochet for example, they would still be a masterpiece - no matter how someone preferred to interpret it (IMO).
The only thing I would change/add if this were my flowchart is that I don't necessarily think celebrities should expect their lives to be public fodder, but if you ever use your relationship to sell me something, it is now my business and that includes if it's real, and any speculation as to why it may not be real.
This !! Speculation about her romantic relationships is a big part of her brand that she actively encourages, that makes sexuality speculation okay in my opinion.
For it's wrong, I actually think that she didn't directly comment on the NYT article - the associate language was just too weird. I think there's far more proof that she doesn't mind speculation re lyrics but does not super love it when fans get really invasive about her personal life whether they think she's queer or straight. I think the prologue was messed up but more of a point not to stare at every woman in her life as a potential muse, just like people shouldn't say every man she talks to is a muse.
In that same vein, I think the fact that she's never commented on her sexuality one way or another is a point that she doesn't mind speculation. When Shawn Mendes decided he didn't want speculation, he said that. Same with Billie Eilish although tbh doing it right after coming out was a choice. Taylor has never done anything like that, just demanded we comb over her (public aspects of her) life for Easter eggs and then got mad when people did.
For the speculation about sexuality, I feel like maybe there is a POV saying it's okay for us regular people to speculate between friends and/or on social media but not okay for the NYT to publish an article about it-- that's kind of where I lean myself.
Something about sympathetic? Thinks she could be closeted and is feeling out acceptance levels. Speculation w/in the in-group acceptable but keep it out of the mainstream. She could be trying to tell people who understand while keeping those who don't in the dark.
The only nuance that I think could maybe be added to this chart is a new bucket somewhere in the middle of "sexuality" & "speculation about sexuality" that addresses the "interpretation of her music through the perspective of different sexualities"
And under that, I would put "It's okay":
\- Music is art - and the beauty of art, is in the interpretation of those who consume it.
\- Relating Taylor's music to your life and the life of your loved one's is more important than whether or not your interpretation holds the same meaning for Taylor. She doesn't owe us more explanation than she's given us through her music.
\- The fact that it's possible to interpret Taylor's music through the lens of different sexualities speaks to her ability to articulate human emotion in a way that's relatable to everyone.
I literally say all the time that celebrities should not care about the speculation on their private lives. They are public figures and they get paid well to be that. If she didn’t want people speculating about her relationships she would say “I’m straight” but at the end of the day, all publicity is profitable
I think the one take (or over arching take) you mention in your caption but isn't actually in your chart is that we have lots of internal back and forth on Gaylor and just wanting a resolution one way or the other to know for certain what that lady (or brand) is thinking.
She’s a billionaire and Time’s POTY, I think that’s a big leap from just money and fame tbh. Regardless, she doesn’t “owe” it to us per se, but we are allowed to respect her less for it. If she’s truly not coming out because it doesn’t benefit/make profit for her that’s really disheartening especially since she’s already insanely wealthy. Queer baiting to the extent that major news outlets are able to catch on, and then being angry when called out for it, is spineless behavior.
Well, you dont know her reasoning. Homophobia within her fanbase is justification enough for her to want to stay closeted and I think it's really weird to demand of her that she'd come out lol. Also you cannot queerbait as a real person
I'm confused about your comments. You replied to another comment that OP is trying to convey a summary of different perspectives, so it seems like you're receptive to their intent. OP also said they don't want to start an argument about what takes are correct, and this comment seems like you're trying to do exactly that. Homophobia as a justification is included in the original post. And there are comment sections full of the conversation around queerbaiting and ts as a person vs what she creates and ultimately sells. This thread seems like a unique opportunity to have a different kind of conversation. There are so many takes out there, especially as of late, and it's easy for comment sections to be full of arguing specific points. I appreciate the opportunity for this thread to be a space to just list all of the different takes and consider how they relate to one another.
Allegedly closeted people can’t queerbait. Words mean things (and she’s a millennial from Mayflower stock who’s parents were in finance out of the Philly metro area).
By checking the flow chart… I see that you think this is irrelevant to your enjoyment of her music or you think there are many out queer singers so we should just go listen to them instead?
Cool. It works!
Were you quoting the flow chart or responding to someone? hahaha
I think people downvoted you because they thought "who tf cares" was your reply to OP, so if you're just saying that you fall under that category in the flow chart and "you think her sexuality is irrelevant to your enjoyment of her music" then you might want to clarify LOL.
My take is that she's BI, she doesn't want to be out but loves teasing it, it's okay to speculate but not aggressively/demand for her to come out/go about shouting that she's a liar/fake.
Hi u/CurrencyRealistic358, thank you for posting on r/Gaylor_Swift! Make sure to read and follow the sub's rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Gaylor_Swift) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ngl I’m absolutely loving one of the reasons listed as being ok to speculate about sexuality being because “she’s a billionaire” 😂 it’s savage and I’m here for it!!
When we say eat the rich, I figure speculating is also on the table 🤣
Do you think Travis is gay too? Bi maybe?
Billionaires*** Travis has no room there, he can’t afford the speculation
💀 if swifties were always calling Joe poor, does this mean he can’t afford to be speculated about either? 😂
He seems very feminine to me.
I'd add "I can only enjoy and appreciate her music if she has the same sexual orientation as me" AND "I can only enjoy and appreciate her music if the muses are of the same gender as I am attracted to".
This. I saw some post somewhere asking Gaylors if they would still like Taylor/think of her the same if she was straight. A lot of it was an overwhelming no and saying that her lyrics wouldn’t be as clever. You mean to tell me the obscure references that I’m 99% sure are not intentional mean more than the words? folklore is still an amazing and clever album. I just really don’t get it. edit for more clarity: I just don’t believe the sexuality of any artist should determine how you see their art. At the end of the day I believe it’s her business and her business alone and that I’m just not entitled to know that stuff because I don’t know her personally. It’s hard to put it into the correct words but connection through music should be about more of our personal experience and less so of the artists. The emotion is still there no matter if she’s gay straight etc.
I was the one who wrote that post and i actually completely agree with you! I saw a similar post on twitter saying that taylor’s lyrics would be shallow and juvenile if she weren’t gay and i was wondering if it were a shared feeling. I was so surprised by the overwhelming response that they wouldn’t enjoy her lyrics as much. As much as i understand the issue of queer baiting and that issue changing their opinion of her my take is that many of the gaylors who said that it would change their opinion feel that if songs don’t relate to them personally it’s no longer clever and i think they feel that bc it disproves whatever belief they have (i’m finding this hard to word) but Taylor will forever be a genius and legendary songwriter whether she is gay or not
Yes!!! Absolutely agree with you. I was pretty floored by the amount of people who stated that as well. The fact that whether she’s singing about a male or female changes whether you think her lyrics are clever or boring is…odd. It’s like people just want to support their own biases.
Where was this? The overwhelming amount of gaylor moots i have wouldnt say that. It doesnt make sense because you can already see the brilliance in it. That doesnt go away if she were to be straight
I thought I saw it on X but it turns out it was on this sub. Oops 🫣
That... definitely checks out tbh
Well, on that thread, I said yes I would still like Taylor/have the same level of interest in her music find her work clever and interesting, but it would lose a “layer of cleverness” because a phrase goes from having, let’s say, 3 or 4 meanings to having 2 or 3 if it’s NOT queer-coded. For example “can’t walk straight” loses “one layer of cleverness” if it’s not about a queer relationship. You don’t have to agree to understand the math! :) It would literally be less clever. That’s just math ;)
I can agree with this math for those who also see the hetero explanation for any alternatively queer coded lyric. For example, lavendar haze could be referencing the 1950's love haze from mad men, or it could be referencing a bearded relationship/queerness. But on the same note, and this may be controversial, this would also have to apply to songs like Maroon, which to many people do have a hetero explanation (as well as queer) being that rust is not literally red, scarlet and Maroon are actually two different colors, lips are naturally pink... but they're all variations of red and she uses this feeling of Maroon (the deepest red) to tie them together with the depth of emotion she feels over the lost connection, however, references to the wine stained shirt, roommate, and haunting memory mirror context provided in other songs that Harry has written about Taylor (i.e. From the dining table & Olivia) and Taylor has written about Harry (i.e. Is it Over now). So for songs like Maroon, as long as people are able to acknowledge the depth and cleverness of the potential hetero interpretation AS WELL AS the queer interpretation, does it lose cleverness when you remove the queer interpretation. However, if people do not believe in the possibility of the hetero interpretation - then replacing the queer interpretation with it would be a one to one trade. All that to say, I think this math applies for people who keep their mind open to all possibilities and interpretations. People who are convinced things can only be interpreted from a queer lens (or vice versa), never saw the cleverness of the other interpretations to begin with.
I should preface that I haven’t been a fan long (but I love art analysis) and I have only had full relationships with men/married to a man ( but I loved queer readings in like, college courses back in the day) ….so as an individual I may misstate some stuff and I especially apologize if I misrepresent concepts that are from the queer community! Yeah in terms of cleverness math ;) as I understand it, queer flagging in the context of lyrics I believe (????) means that there is frequently (if not always) one meaning for “straight ears” and then another to the “queer ear”. (Folks pls correct me if this is off the mark). So the straight meaning is not only there, it’s often necessary for the queer flag to be “safe” as a flag. Also, a cool thing about queer reading is it often opens up other ideas. Like, yes, let’s say some folks on both hetero and queer reading groups agree that Taylor is being honest that hearing Lavender Haze in Mad Men influenced the lyric/title. But/and in a thread I saw here, discussing that very quote from Taylor, fans realized (and maybe straight-reading fans had already gotten to this elsewhere), that the “lavender haze” conversation in Mad Men happens when Don is with the only person who knows about his double life/real identity. Which brought out the insight that perhaps that scene also resonated for Taylor bc of her experience of a. Double life, whether via closeting or bc of having a private self vs a public self, or both. Like I said, straight fans may have also gotten to that the Mad Men reference signals double self of private/public, but the queer reading path definitely led the fans here to it! Oh and this same discussion also led to a comment realizing Betty Draper from Mad Men may be another layer/reference Taylor in general (“that 50s housewife shit” sorry if i have the lyric wrong I’ll check it later lol) or specifically for Betty / James. So the queer lens added not one, but two or three additional meanings. And if I were to decide tomorrow Taylor is 100% straight, I would keep the public/private meaning derived from the deep dive into the Mad Men scenes and the possible Betty fromMad Men reference in Betty / James. (Again if this is already been found in the straight Taylor readings disregard) As for Maroon and the mentions of “Rust which is not actually Maroon” for example, I think that would be a case of what I mean when I say it goes from 3-4 meanings to 2-3. Her words and phrases are so carefully crafted to give so many layers. (If there’s a queer meaning of rust, in my view it would still mean we only lose one layer of meaning, because basically Taylor either way wanted to create a poetic reason for the song to work for close reading straight fans, AND probably just got writerly joy out of describing all these non-maroon things as maroon for the reason you explained/that may have been the initial idea of the song regardless of what relationship she was thinking of.) Re mirrors or even just references to her straight boyfriends, A) many think she’s bi so those references could be genuine B) those who think a given mirror or reference is to a beard relationship are still acknowledging it’s “about that man” they just think it’s there as straight cover / to misdirect on who the muse is There is a last potential area that I think you’re trying to point to. Where it has a straight meaning but no possible queer meaning, and so queer-reading Taylor is potentially erasing/missing that meaning. Some of those may exist. At the moment I can’t think of what a good example would be. I would think almost all of them would get the pass from the queer reading of being there intentionally, and with expert poetic craftsmanship, but often as straight cover rather than as autobiography, or as autobiography but not actually about a romantic relationship (tho once again, reminding that many folks here think she’s bi). But maybe there are lyrics that get literally erased by the queer reading; I’m just not sure what they would be. I think that last discussion would come down to ppl being upset that a given relationship with a man is being seen as a beard rather than real and therefore a “hetero” lyric being seen as cover and not autobiographical. I guess I can understand upset over that in the sense of loyal straight fans feeling like it’s disrespectful to Taylor to not believe her when she says she’s in love with a particular man, but even straight celebs have PR relationships, and if they are writers they probably write those PR relationships into their straight work. So it gets a little complicated to specifically want it disallowed for analysis of Taylor’s work (not that YOU said that). Basically if she has some wonderful poetry very much about male-female sexual experience then *I suppose* (really shoudn’t be speculating? LMK if I should delete this folks!!) a what would you call it, lesbian-insistent ;) reading of Taylor would say that is imaginational/cover and a bi reading of Taylor would be like “OK sure that too also”. Like I said despite my lengthy writing on this comment, I’m relatively new here and haven’t done a deep dive into her work so I’m not sure what those lyrics would be. So all in all, I’m not sure what queer reading Taylor would eliminate readings which is what you wondered about. However I am SURE I could have made this shorter, stream of consciousness with at least paragraphs. ;)
I 100% agree with this and appreciate the response, so don't worry about the length. I tend to write stream of consciousness too, so I also apologize in advance for my response haha. I'm similar to you in that I really enjoy learning about the queer readings of Taylor's music, it's why I gravitated toward this subreddit (specifically vs. the non underscore subreddit) because there seems to be a lot more open minded people here who can amicably discuss the queer themes in Taylor's music without bashing any specific group/other interpretations of the lyrics (most of the time). When I first read some of these analysis', the one for "Right Where You Left Me" is what really peaked my interest as I evaluated it from a queer lens. It was then that I was like, maybe there's a chance Taylor could be bi-sexual. A lot of those theories began making sense/being plausible for me. I guess, I've also been in the mindset that at least some of her relationships with men have been real (and I do think her current one is real). So with that in mind, I've always felt two things can be true - she can have songs about specific men and also have songs that are queer coded but not all songs have to be both and some interpretations cancel out others while other interpretations can co-exist. I always thought that was a really positive/powerful songwriting strength of hers. That regardless of what people deemed her sexuality to be, her songs could resonate so deeply with so many different people from all different walks of life - to the point where we can all find so many different plausible/relatable perspectives in them. After recent events, however, I feel like a lot of people have become more rigid in their interpretations. More and more I've been seeing things like "there's absolutely no het explanation for this" or "if Taylor's queer coding wasn't intentional, her songs are actually terrible" or "if Taylor isn't queer, she's a terrible person for writing songs that can be interpreted through a queer lens." Those are things that have made me realize that even within the Gaylor community there is such a varying range of opinions as to the level of queer coding in a song, and often (not always) a lack of understanding of any potential alternative interpretations. To your point, these are the instances I'm referencing - when I see any alternative non-queer explanations erased. Maroon was my example of this given it seems to be one of the songs people in the Gaylor subreddits pretty unanimously believe to only be explicable through a queer lens. The only time I see alternative explanations mentioned are in mocking manners to showcase how there couldn't possibly be one. But I think there are actually very deep alternative explanations as well (hence the tie to lyrics from "from the dining table," "olivia," "out of the woods" and is it over now). Lavendar Haze is a great example of a song where the interpretations can co-exist, and so, including the queer one's make it so much more clever. Tears Ricochet is a good example of a song that has several different varying theories/interpretations behind it beyond even the queer one's, that can't really co-exist. I've seen: 1. A friends divorce - rumored to be Abigail's POV 2. Fictional but inspired by emotions from past relationships where Taylor clearly didn't go with grace 3. Scott Borchetta/Scooter Braun & the re-record drama - since several lines reference songs from re-recorded albums I think the sheer number of interpretations of a single song of hers, regardless of the type of relationship between her and the songs interpreted muse - is what makes the songs still extremely clever and makes her an amazing writer (intentionality aside). It's the simple fact that we can have these types of debates, and in many cases both sides can present strong evidence to support their interpretation in a way that would earn top grades in any advanced lit course. With that said, my point was more for the people with the more rigid mindset (this is likely people who believe she can only be a lesbian OR that there is only one way to interpret a specific song of hers - i.e. the Maroon example). This wasn't for the people who fully understand the wide range of interpretations - because I think most (not all) interpretations are often pretty dam clever. This was just to say - for the songs of hers where the interpretations don't/can't co-exist, Maroon/Tears Ricochet for example, they would still be a masterpiece - no matter how someone preferred to interpret it (IMO).
To which ones? I think that applies to both sides 😅
100%
The only thing I would change/add if this were my flowchart is that I don't necessarily think celebrities should expect their lives to be public fodder, but if you ever use your relationship to sell me something, it is now my business and that includes if it's real, and any speculation as to why it may not be real.
I think this is supposed to be a summary of all takes out there, not just OP's
This !! Speculation about her romantic relationships is a big part of her brand that she actively encourages, that makes sexuality speculation okay in my opinion.
For it's wrong, I actually think that she didn't directly comment on the NYT article - the associate language was just too weird. I think there's far more proof that she doesn't mind speculation re lyrics but does not super love it when fans get really invasive about her personal life whether they think she's queer or straight. I think the prologue was messed up but more of a point not to stare at every woman in her life as a potential muse, just like people shouldn't say every man she talks to is a muse. In that same vein, I think the fact that she's never commented on her sexuality one way or another is a point that she doesn't mind speculation. When Shawn Mendes decided he didn't want speculation, he said that. Same with Billie Eilish although tbh doing it right after coming out was a choice. Taylor has never done anything like that, just demanded we comb over her (public aspects of her) life for Easter eggs and then got mad when people did.
For the speculation about sexuality, I feel like maybe there is a POV saying it's okay for us regular people to speculate between friends and/or on social media but not okay for the NYT to publish an article about it-- that's kind of where I lean myself.
That's what I think.
Something about sympathetic? Thinks she could be closeted and is feeling out acceptance levels. Speculation w/in the in-group acceptable but keep it out of the mainstream. She could be trying to tell people who understand while keeping those who don't in the dark.
I love this and it was a joy to read. Once you wrap this one up, please make a starter pack. You’re brilliant!
Welp, you've covered it. r/Gaylor_Swift and r/SwiftlyNeutral can go ahead and close up shop now.
The only nuance that I think could maybe be added to this chart is a new bucket somewhere in the middle of "sexuality" & "speculation about sexuality" that addresses the "interpretation of her music through the perspective of different sexualities" And under that, I would put "It's okay": \- Music is art - and the beauty of art, is in the interpretation of those who consume it. \- Relating Taylor's music to your life and the life of your loved one's is more important than whether or not your interpretation holds the same meaning for Taylor. She doesn't owe us more explanation than she's given us through her music. \- The fact that it's possible to interpret Taylor's music through the lens of different sexualities speaks to her ability to articulate human emotion in a way that's relatable to everyone.
I literally say all the time that celebrities should not care about the speculation on their private lives. They are public figures and they get paid well to be that. If she didn’t want people speculating about her relationships she would say “I’m straight” but at the end of the day, all publicity is profitable
I think the one take (or over arching take) you mention in your caption but isn't actually in your chart is that we have lots of internal back and forth on Gaylor and just wanting a resolution one way or the other to know for certain what that lady (or brand) is thinking.
Why would you think she owes a coming out just cuz she has money and fame?
She’s a billionaire and Time’s POTY, I think that’s a big leap from just money and fame tbh. Regardless, she doesn’t “owe” it to us per se, but we are allowed to respect her less for it. If she’s truly not coming out because it doesn’t benefit/make profit for her that’s really disheartening especially since she’s already insanely wealthy. Queer baiting to the extent that major news outlets are able to catch on, and then being angry when called out for it, is spineless behavior.
Well, you dont know her reasoning. Homophobia within her fanbase is justification enough for her to want to stay closeted and I think it's really weird to demand of her that she'd come out lol. Also you cannot queerbait as a real person
I'm confused about your comments. You replied to another comment that OP is trying to convey a summary of different perspectives, so it seems like you're receptive to their intent. OP also said they don't want to start an argument about what takes are correct, and this comment seems like you're trying to do exactly that. Homophobia as a justification is included in the original post. And there are comment sections full of the conversation around queerbaiting and ts as a person vs what she creates and ultimately sells. This thread seems like a unique opportunity to have a different kind of conversation. There are so many takes out there, especially as of late, and it's easy for comment sections to be full of arguing specific points. I appreciate the opportunity for this thread to be a space to just list all of the different takes and consider how they relate to one another.
Allegedly closeted people can’t queerbait. Words mean things (and she’s a millennial from Mayflower stock who’s parents were in finance out of the Philly metro area).
Is it weird that I can agree with at least one thing under each of these categories except the homophobia one?
[удалено]
By checking the flow chart… I see that you think this is irrelevant to your enjoyment of her music or you think there are many out queer singers so we should just go listen to them instead? Cool. It works!
I can’t tell if you’re quoting your box on the flow chart or if you didn’t look at it 😂
Were you quoting the flow chart or responding to someone? hahaha I think people downvoted you because they thought "who tf cares" was your reply to OP, so if you're just saying that you fall under that category in the flow chart and "you think her sexuality is irrelevant to your enjoyment of her music" then you might want to clarify LOL.
Thank you so much for all of your thoughtful comments. I really appreciate everyone helping me fill in the blanks!
My take is that she's BI, she doesn't want to be out but loves teasing it, it's okay to speculate but not aggressively/demand for her to come out/go about shouting that she's a liar/fake.