bottom-of-the-riverbed:

On the topic of queer media, I think one of the unfortunate consequence history of the lack of it is that there is an obvious preference for very explicit queer characters and representation (ie they snog) and I completely understand why and the need for this but it has also lead to a preference for a certain type of story. One is the requirement for romance where even if a character explicitly states their queerness they are looked down upon as representation if they don’t have a relationship. (Yay amatonormativity)

The other is a disregard for less explicit relationships like good omens where you have two characters for whom every aspect of the story is saying that they’re queer and in love but is left deliberately implicit and vague. Aziraphale and Crowley aren’t characters for whom it would make sense to neatly label. They don’t need to say I love you because they say it to each other again and again in their own words and I personally think it would be more than a little contrived to have them kiss. And there are going to be more stories like that where explicit labels and romance don’t make sense and those are good queer stories and good queer rep because we should be able to have those types of stories.

I get it, we are so used to a buffer of plausible deniability that is liberally employed but the answer is to make more queer stories of all kinds not try to narrowly define what is and isn’t good queer rep. Also get better media analysis skills, a romantic soundtrack as your two characters stare into each others eyes is pretty fucking obvious.