'Queer Eye' Stars Antoni Porowski and Jonathan Van Ness Draw More Twitter Ire with Fake Dating Announcement

by Emell Adolphus

EDGE Media Network Contributor

Monday September 19, 2022

Jonathan Van Ness, left, with Antoni Porowski, right.
Jonathan Van Ness, left, with Antoni Porowski, right.  (Source:Instagram / @jvn)

"Queer Eye" fans are not feeling what Antoni Porowski and Jonathan Van Ness are selling after the two stars played up the rumors surrounding their relationship to launch a new business.


As reported by Know Your Meme, Porowski and Van Ness drew ire from Twitter after pretending to be "finally together."

"❤️ Details tomorrow, but know that we're very happy and feeling supported by the people around us," wrote Van Ness.

Their relationship turned out to be a business partnership launching the pet brand "Yummers."

"Whoops, important clarification - we're together in *business* BAYBIEZ! Introducing Yummers meal mix-ins for pets!!," Van Ness clarified the next day under the original photo. "I'm SO excited for you all to meet the incredible, sustainable, and deLISH (ask Larry) pet company that @antoni and I co-founded!"

But that hasn't stopped fans from calling the "couple" to the carpet for a blatant bait and switch.

"Hello, 1-800-IVEBEENQUEERBAITED? I believe I'm entitled to compensation and I'd like to file a report," wrote one user.


Another user said the way they are marketing is just plain "gross."

"Can you please stop marketing this way, it's really gross."


Seeing the backlash, Van Ness replied on Instagram with: "Hope you're not too heartbroken we were being clever lil bebe's to announce this baby we've been working on for years now!" They added, "Love y'all!"

However, an opinion piece in Slate had another take, writing: "'Being clever lil bebe's' is one way to describe what the two were doing, but I think 'being shameless, manipulative, and deeply moronic lil bebe's' would be more accurate."

Van Ness also took to Twitter to sound off against the backlash and specifically called out the Slate article.




But, admittedly, people aren't loving the way this was handled. What do you think?