Representation / Exploitation
As a teenager growing up in a small town coming to terms with (and at times grappling with) my identity as a queer woman, I sought out any form of representation I could find, just so that I could feel less alone, and less odd. I would read books about a love story between two women, I would secretly watch programmes like the L Word, and Lipstick, which gave me my first real education in queer desire. I was obsessed with seeing two women who loved each other. It was something I desperately wanted, and at that time, couldn’t imagine how I could ever have it.
Now as a woman in my mid thirties, I have never shaken the habit of wanting to digest the myriad queer love stories out there - in film, tv, documentaries, web series, books - any type of art really. But my relationship to these stories has changed from longing to deep appreciation of the community I belong to. Now you might wonder why I am sharing this somewhat personal information. Well, I have been concerned about some of the queer representation I have seen recently.
In Thailand, a cultural shift has been happening over the past few years, with an absolute explosion of queer representation in media and the arts, coinciding with the very recent legalisation of gay marriage in the country. On the face of it, this is wonderful, and I have no doubt that the rise in so-called ‘Girls Love’, and ‘Boys Love’ series (popular tv shows that focus exclusively on love stories between same-sex individuals) in Thailand have contributed to positive attitudes towards the queer community. In fact a recent article by Li & Park (2024) exploring the impact of the GL industry in South East Asia suggests that GL shows have the potential to empower queer women and increase queer activism.
The Loyal Pin (2024) GL Series
Photo Credit: IdolFactory
However, from what I have seen, the representation and storylines in these shows are outdated, based on problematic tropes, and in some instances border on exploitation. There are Thai production companies who, seeing the meteoric popularity of the Girls Love and Boys Love series, are (in a pretty mercenary fashion) capitalising on this cultural moment. In the past 4 years alone, there have been more than 230 GL & BL shows! These shows amass huge fan bases - people who no doubt finally feel seen.
But something is very wrong here. The young lead actors and actresses who star in these series are wheeled out to participate in a gruelling schedule of press junkets, fan shows, and brand partnerships. Often with little time off, several popular Thai GL actresses have been hospitalised with exhaustion more than once. On top of this, the production companies encourage queer baiting by having the actors and actresses whose characters are love interests in a show play inappropriate games during interviews, and answer questions about the nature of their relationship over and over again.
It worries me that no one else seems to see the glaring issues at play here. You would never see this kind of behaviour being encouraged for actors playing straight characters. It is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to whip up greater audience support for the show, by teasing that the stars could be love interests in real life. The actors and actresses themselves may not be aware of the issue of queer baiting, or more worryingly have no say in the work they are contracted to do. It is all deeply uncomfortable to observe.
So where does that leave us? Am I being overly critical? After all, representation is vitally important! But that doesn’t mean representation shouldn’t be thoughtful, nuanced, or handled with care. Whilst some attempts are being made to involve the queer community in the writing, production, and directing of GL series (Li & Park, 2024), fair representation has not yet been achieved.
When it comes to art and media in general, similar patterns of exploitation are observable, and can happen through a number of channels:
Positive Representation vs. Exploitative Tokensim
Marginalised characters in films, TV, and ads are used to attract an audience but remain stereotyped or underdeveloped.
Companies include diverse voices or identities only for marketing benefits ("diversity-washing" or tokenism) rather than genuine inclusion.
💡 Example: The fashion industry showcases diverse models but fails to support actual Black, Indigenous, or LGBTQ+ designers behind the scenes.
Cultural Appreciation vs. Cultural Appropriation
Artists, designers, or companies profit from cultural elements without credit or compensation.
A dominant group repackages indigenous, Black, or Asian art forms as their own.
💡 Example: Fashion brands (e.g., Urban Outfitters, Gucci, Marc Jacobs) using sacred Indigenous designs or Black hairstyles without acknowledging their origins.
Underpaid & Exploited Artists
Marginalised artists are hired for diversity but paid less than their white counterparts.
Exploitation in music and film industries, where artists of colour are underpaid while executives profit from their culture.
💡 Example: Hip-hop and blues artists in the early 20th century were often denied ownership of their work, while white producers and performers got rich.
So there appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding still as to what constitutes real representation, and when it becomes problematic. Representation must go beyond visibility—it must be authentic, fair, and empowering. When diversity is used only as a marketing strategy or when artists and cultures aren’t properly compensated, this is when representation becomes just another form of exploitation.
Take for example the recent Oscars furore. The film Emilia Perez received critical backlash for its sloppy stereotyping of the Trans experience, and its outdated depiction of Mexico. More worryingly, no one from the film who received an Oscar for their work even mentioned the Trans community. This is a prime example of a film profiting & receiving accolades, while exacerbating harmful ideas around a marginalised community (and simultaneously failing to credit that community).
Even Anora - which performed a surprise smash and grab at the Oscars this year, has given some individuals pause for thought. Credit where credit is due, Mikey Madison has been extremely vocal in her support of the sex worker community, and consulted individuals of the community during her preparation for the role. However, there has been some discussion around the lack of depth of Anora’s character, and the portrayal of sex work as a safe, fun whirlwind. Whilst some quibbles remain, the approach to Anora is world’s apart from the approach to Emilia Perez.
I do wonder, even with the best of intentions, can art ever be created in a responsible way? Can it include and respect the communities it represents? As is true of all industries, in art the line between exploitation and representation is a fine one. Perhaps it’s true that - as Native American author and poet Sherman Alexie argues:
All art is exploitation
- Sherman Alexie