"As a queer, you read into texts. You hope that something is gay. Like you hope someone is. Scrutinizing for signs and signals. You read too much into things. And so, you take something you love and you read gay romance and subtext into it. And it’s not there enough–you simply read some more in. Rewrite it."—  “The Monster Queer Is Camp” by Paul Magrs in Queers Dig Time Lords.

 The recent trend in television media and movies seems to be diversity, at least outwardly. The producers and casting agents are trying to cast more POC and Queers for one thing. However, there seems to be a quota in diversity. There's always this "one" black friend and no other, as there's always this "one" quirky gay friend. One is enough, the producers seem to have decided as that "one" special friend never goes through much character development.The black friend only appears once or twice to drop one-liner jokes as the gay friend does. Their purpose is to spice up the show as plot devices, rather than going through various stages of character development as the main characters do. 

 The lack of proper representation itself is problematic. What is worse, however, is the bargain the writers seem to have struck with the audience. These "plot device" characters serve to excuse their misrepresentation under the guise of diversity. What un-PC jokes the show makes, along with the lack of proper representation is excused as the writers introduced that one black guy or that gay friend. Portraying a gay character to be the stereotypical problematic and sassy figure, or portraying an Asian character to be obsessed with grades are acceptable to them, for they "at least" they didn't erase them from the show completely.  This phenomenon can be explained with moral licensing. Moral licensing is the act of justifying a series of bad behaviors by excusing those behaviors with past good behaviors. The formula is quite simple, “I [know/am/can] X, which means I [am or am not] Y”. It’s the ultimate dismissal of criticism when someone who is probably saying something bigoted is held accountable for their words. The savvy producers seem to have caught on with the trend and they are using moral licensing as their tool too. 

 Moral licensing can be seen all throughout popular media from TV shows to Hollywood blockbuster movies. Moral licensing often gives leeways to writers especially in Queer representation. This particular method can be subcategorized as Queer Baiting. To appease the LGBTQ+ community while holding on to the more "conservative" audience, the writers will add homoerotic tension between characters but never confirm it. It's a tactic where a queer relationship or character is hinted at to attract/appeal to the queer viewership, and then is denied. This often leads to a series of misrepresentation as the producers will throw in a female lead to convince the audience that the sexually ambiguous character is heterosexual.  

 Of course, the queer community has been calling out the producers on their queerphobic and often misogynic representation, asking the show's producers on the character's sexuality ad their sexual orientation. That's when moral licensing comes into the picture. To avoid the homophobic audiences from leaving the show, the writers are not only denying such characters' sexual orientation and the homoerotic subtext, but they are actively turning the fandom against the viewers who demand a clearer and more definite representation. When a fan pointed out how she identifies herself as bisexual and noticed such subtext in Supernatural's characters during Comic Con, the crowd booed at her. The actor who played the character, along with the writer, too dismissed her claim and told her not to "ruin it for others". By dismissing the queer communities' desperate act for representation as an overly obsessive fan-girling, they are encroaching the boundaries of homophobia and misogyny. The subtext and hints of representation should be enough, they seem to say, and the audience should not demand more than that.   

 The tv show SHERLOCK is especially focused on queer baiting, as their fandom has a long history of studying and indulging in the homoerotic tension between Watson and Sherlock. The subtext is heightened in the TV show, as they show dialogues between the two of them discussing their sexual orientation, especially on whether or not they have boyfriends. There are scenes that can be easily related to the queer coming of age identification of sexual orientation, as Irene Adler questions Watson's sexuality. For instance in the Scandal in Belgravia's dialogue, Irene Adler suggests that John Watson may not be entirely heterosexual. 

John: if anyone still cares, I’m not gay.

Irene: well I am, and look at us both.

 This scene is not treated lightly as a joke at all. It is deliberate as it hints to the homoerotic dynamic between Watson and Holmes that has sprouted the avid "Johnlock" fandom since the show's pilot episode. At this scene, the internet exploded and Johnlock shippers, including Queer audiences, hoped a homosexual relationship between the two of them may go "canon". However, the dynamic between John and Sherlock continues on with their no homo joke where most characters assume they are a couple and the two of them continues to deny it. the show was quick to introduce John's many love interests, and also Mary whom John eventually marries. Through this, the writers of the show continue to hold the liberal/queer audience on the hook and lets the show be quirky and "gay" enough. The producer of the show Mark Gatiss said how they are doing enough for the queer community by "ambiguously" hinting the homoerotic tension between the two, and that the fans shouldn't ruin it by demanding actual progress and representation. 

 This decision could be seen as moral licensing in a way, because this is one of Moffat and Gatiss's way of saying how because they "did enough", they are free from blame that points out misrepresentation & blatant queer baiting. Moreover, as Mark Gatiss identifies himself as homosexual, it allows him some leeway. He has the leeway to queer bait and continue on with the show business's homophobic representation and exploitation of queer characters because he is a gay man. Remember the formula I introduced in the beginning? 

“I [know/am/can] X, which means I [am or am not] Y”

 Mark Gatiss seems to be using this to his advance fully, for his sexual orientation is why the audience and the writers deny queer baiting. Some may argue how being gay is neither good or bad and that it is irrelevant to moral licensing. However, the gist of the idea of how a certain action or a position allows one to make and defend certain choices aligns with the formula moral licensing provides. Though such phenomenon must be analyzed in different dimensions, there is no denying that the writers are utilizing queer baiting to defend their queerphobic representation of queer communities, and moral licensing is providing them the psychological leeway. 

https://medium.com/@emilymaxima/the-moral-licensing-of-the-lgbt-community-631f546c1b2#.hqsw6bbfu