Ngl I'm your opposite lmao (even though I haven't watched many BLs but I have read BL synopses) coz I always think…
I see a lot of BLs and yeah, about half of them have the "everyone's gay" universe, but the other half are the more "realistic" ones that somehow have a bunch of guys that have previously dated girls, but are now suddenly into guys.
Random thoughts: Has anyone else noticed that in BLs, there always tend to be one or more bisexual men in the couples? I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I'm just curious as to why? As BLs always center relationships between men, I wonder why so many of the characters are written to have been involved with women when it doesn't add anything to the story? Sorry if I came off as a offensive to anyone, I didn't mean to. It was just something that popped into my head last episode.
to be fair, for as cute and healthy as bad Buddy was, it wasn’t in any way realistic to lgbtq people’s real lives…it was basically fulfillment of the fantasy of having a crush on your straight best friend/neighbor/classmate come to fruition. Most, if not all gay guys experience this type of crush, EXTREMELY few will see it come to anything… anyway you slice it BL is escapism regardless of how toxic it may or may not be at value and that’s important to remember especially when the majority of the industry is operated and driven by straight people…
Ok, girl lmao...hope your English syntax gets better along the way then...it's a pity to make a fool of yourself by what you say *and* how you say it lol
lolololol do you even know what normalisation means.... yes this shit happens irl that's why rape culture exists…
No one's run any circles around any topic. You've attached an agenda to movies and tv shows you don't like. I'm making the point that they're multifaceted while you're equating their 'less than savoury' qualities (shit you don't like) to the fact that they're wholly toxic/abusive/manipulative not only in the concept of the stories themselves but in the purposeful intentions of the writers and creators.
You're wrong about these series normalising anything. They're telling stories that aren't often told in a way that you don't like and that doesn't mean the writers have brushed off horrible real issues that affect people every day. It's *not* that simple and you're clearly *not* willing to open your eyes and ears to viewing these stories from other perspectives, clearly..
You've been presumptuous, off-base and flat out wrong in many of your extreme criticisms of these works.
The complicated crux and source of conflict in ALL of these series is the attention they rise toward of the controversy involved in the issues you speak so vehemently against. That is to say: NO ONE'S TRYING TO GLORIFY THE UGLY ASPECTS OF THESE STORIES.
YOUR problem, seemingly, is that you're as one-demensional about the situation as are many others toward queer issues and circumstances...and filmmaking while we're at it...the only difference is that you claim to be queer yourself.
" yeah that's the whole point of the list: to shed light on these harmful shows. "---> at this I gleefully refer to my point about horror movies...displaying the qualities of the human condition in film as they are is not inherently problematic. These works don't encourage the viewer to side with extremely problematic protagonists...like at all. Be happy for them in the end? Maybe. Apply this to your life? No. Halloween isn't a "harmful" movie because a mentally kid goes out and kills his neighbour. Halloween is a movie because a kid *went* out and *killed* his neighbour. When it comes to media being idyllic fantasies of what could be, "BL's" aren't innocent of that, but they aren't, by and large, pushing an agenda the way most media does. In this genre, we still have legit stories being told and they get the accolades afforded to them because of that. You don't get to shit on them because of red herring arguments based on the -premise- of shows, especially when you haven't even watched them....Well, you get to, I guess, but not without me saying something about it.
Make It Right has two relationships that start as the result of interpersonal conflict, rape, and depression. The series makes that clear and it's a theme THE WHOLE TIME. It goes away for the last two episodes, but it's not normalised. The couples don't express to their larger friend group how they started dating, but the fact that the two main couples ended up "happily ever after" is to be taken as lightly as the fact that virtually all the other non-gay characters in the show were okay with their sexuality along with the fact that their in high school and we know life drastically changes thereafter.
What endures Sotus to people isn't Kongpob's submission to Arthit's verbal abuse, but the complete ineffectiveness of that so-called "abuse" because Kongpob always saw through it. Is ok to verbally abuse someone (especially one you like)? No, but that wasn't a concept that was lost on the audience.
We already discussed Right or Wrong. My Hero wasn't as problematic as it was boring, pointless and nowhere near as 'hyped up' as the others on this list. Stay Away From Me was about step-brothers, like in Crossing the Line. That's 'incest', as it were, but it's not...especially given: 1) they aren't blood-related and 2) they didn't grow up as siblings...they were introduced as siblings...in their adulthood. It's a sticky situation, but definitely not as 'icky'/problematic as blood-related incest...particularly if they're gay. That said, if you think these works are 'normalising'/'glorifying' and further that people are buying into the notion that INCEST, particularly, is something to giggle and squee over, you really are on the extreme side of the "dense" and "absurd" scales. Do you like my use of different, more 'acceptable' adjectives to emphasise of the same ridiculous points you're trying to make?
lolololol do you even know what normalisation means.... yes this shit happens irl that's why rape culture exists…
- I'm gonna stop you right there cos tbh its hard to take your response seriously after you used the dictionary definition of 'normalisation' and took it out of context with this issue. I can't say much else about this bc how am I supposed to argue with someone that doesn't even know what normalisation of unhealthy topics depicted in media is. take a sociology class maybe.
Take a sociology class? I'm a Psych major and essentially saying, "Oh, you don't know what you're talking about." or "You're taking it out of context." without failing to put the word (that has a clear definition btw that you've evidently deviated from) fully into the context you're trying to imply followed by forfeiting the argument isn't progressive, but okay.
"anyway its pretty naive to think all gay dramas are produced by gay men"
I didn't say they all were, I said many of the ones you mentioned (read: lambasted).
"bc the reality is that most of the writers are straight women trying to appeal to other straight women's gross, fetishistic fantasies. you can v much tell this w/ the fact that "BL" (a fetishistic term made by straight women btw) novels that are adapted to television are written by a female writer."
Again, not an argument against what I've said.
"see this part I don't understand at all. first of all what the hell do you mean by the 2 examples you gave they're completely irrelevant and random. second, how does this dispute anything I said. I never argued against objective endings?"
Because it seems from the tone of your evaluations that, unless the movie/show doesn't make the viewer "uncomfortable" in the way societal majorities (i.e.-real life shit people) would make them uncomfortable, the production itself is problematic and horrible. I cited horror films because horror films do just that. Exactly what most no one wants to ever see happen.
"and also the whole "not everything has to be a political/moral statement" yeah and I'm saying that when it is a certain negative/careless representation of gay men depicted by the (straight) writers you can tell through the lazy writing."
Yeah, okay, your opinion about what lazy writing is or isn't isn't a principle and you factually don't know the sexuality of any of the writers.
"the fact that you think a thoughtful, well-planned depiction of gay men (not necessarily meaning the gay character has to be the good guy) is a "political statement" is sooo fucking dense."
By "political statement", I was referring to your response as trying to hold these films up as bastions of ridicule based your own clear socio-political affiliation.
"- when did I define someone's experience? like who are you even talking about thats such a vague cop-out to an actual argument and a half-assed "drag" lmaooo"
You defined someone's experience when you said a teacher-student romantic relationship is wrong (in an unequivocal way). You defined someone's experience when you said step-siblings couldn't fall in love. You defined someone's experience by making them out to be shit human because they fell in love under the circumstances of cheating. Everyone's shit stinks, but people aren't 100% defined by the shit things that happen in their life, so it's kind of ridiculous to act like everyone can and should play on a moral high ground when each circumstance is different.
." also reducing solidarity as simply policing straight people? so fucking what?? I have no sympathy for straight ppl who fetishise lgbt+ people or have a narrow-minded view of us. I literally could not give less of a shit of what straight ppl think and I don't know why you do seeing as you had to include that lil sentence there, making a point of including my sexuality as well for no absolute relevant reason to your "argument" whatsoever""
That you don't find policing a population or having empathy for others is a little disheartening, but not unexpected.
"its very hard to trust someone that uses the "the age of consent is actually in the teens so predatory relationships are lawful therefore not actually predatory" argument, considering 1) not all laws protect people lmao"
And MOST people don't date outside five years of their own age.
"its v superficial to think that 2) age of consent is about what age someone is *legally allowed to have sex, not that it's moral for ADULTS to have sex with "consenting" TEENS,"
It's also superficial to think a young adult is incapable of having a relationship with a more middle-aged adult...which is what this story was. This was a college student (18+) and his professor (mid-30s), not a 40-year old and 15-year old.
"3) predators and pedophiles use this argument all the time, v disturbing if you don't think teens should experience things with people their own age and adults going after teens are predators despite the "age of consent" laws. also I literally said "if I remember correctly" about the barely legal character."
Clearly you didn't remember correctly.
"- lastly, you admitting you used ableist language and being unapologetic about it? nice. saying it doesn't deviate from your point (which I never claimed) and yet you felt compelled to throw these ableist terms at someone anyway (why even use it at all)? nice."
Why use "looney" and "crazy" to refer to someone who holds says ridiculous things????????? Honestly?? I'm under no pretence you suffer from any actual mental illness and if you do, I apologise, but you need to be aware that even if I had use the words, "stupid", "idiotic", or "moronic", "dull"...these terms were derived from and still could be used to refer to the mentally ill, but it's very obtuse of you given the context of literally EVERYthing else I said to REALLY think I'm trying to come after your person (outside of the realm of the argument) for being mentally disabled. Could I have said, "ridiculous" or "absurd" in place of those words, in retrospect, I see that I could, but given the context, those would be almost synonymous with the words I did use.
lolololol do you even know what normalisation means.... yes this shit happens irl that's why rape culture exists…
"lolololol do you even know what normalisation means.... yes this shit happens irl that's why rape culture exists and what I'm saying is thats the fucking problem!!! you act like these characters' personalities and behaviours aren't the creation of real living people. why I use the word "normalisation" even though I know there are gross predators and situations like this irl is because writers use this as merely a plot point as if it isn't a societal flaw; that's the whole point of "normalisation". i.e. rape/assault within a relationship: the writers Want us to root for this relationship because they've established them as protagonists and treated the assault as a small quirk or flaw in their relationship.
Normalisation as a noun implies that the verb normalise is at play. To normalise something is to bring it to a normal or standard state. If something is already normal, displaying it as such, wouldn't be normalising it. That said, what is normal for you and your society is skewed...it's always skewed because no one gets to have a capital on normalisation...especially as it applies to entertainment...unless you're the Chinese Communist Party, in which case, fuck you. Also, you don't fucking know the writers "want". You just don't.
"small flaws in relationships could be arguments that don't lead to abuse, if it leads to abuse then that makes the relationship toxic and not something we're supposed to normalise, and yet this is what these writers do: they don't give a shit about domestic abuse victims irl, they just want to "spice up" the dead plot. you can't act as if these characters are real, living, conscious people. if the writers really did want to give a "realistic" plot that highlights domestic abuse victims that are manipulated into staying in a relationship, then these would not be labeled as "romance shows". they are *normalising* rape culture and that's that."
Submissive victims of physical abuse who die in horror films are then? Murders with mental illnesses in horror films are? Yeah, we get it. Fucked up shit happens because life is fucked up, but everyone's work and art doesn't have to be a political/moral statement. Sometimes just displaying shit as it is sends an objective message too.
also, about your example with Cruel Intentions just shows that you don't know what normalisation means. normalisation =/= popularity. the whole point of the film was to showcase the unlucky protagonist who was manipulated into the relationship, and the writer lets the audience know that this was in no way a romance but instead a look into how the protagonist's world falls apart after trusting the wrong person. that is not a normalisation; it's a tragedy plot.
UM Dark Blue and Moonlight was also a fucking tragedy plot. How the fuck did you miss that? Was it the smiles and cheesy music at the end? Check the comment section of that drama...Nobody was happy with how it ended because we all know how fucked up it was. Next, Normal (the base of normalisation) means standard or common...which indeed denotes popularity. My point of mentioning Cruel Intentions was that by the end of the movie, most were left with qualms about the story as a whole, not specifically about incest.
meanwhile shows like Dark Blue and Moonlight (yes cheating exists irl but you can tell the writers don't think cheating is an immoral start to a relationship with the way they painted the main character's apathy towards his actions and yet they still made him the protagonist; the good guy)
A protagonist is a main character, not a good guy. The protagonist didn't want to be with his current bf, but his current bf who he lived with also made it clear he would make life difficult for him if they broke up. Ugly situation? Yeah. Is life ugly? Yeah, it is. What's the problem in showing that?
History with the incest and teacher/student relationship (yes, all of these happen irl I didn't dispute that, and I'm sure the writers know they happen irl thats why they wrote it, and teacher/student relationships ARE predatory, no matter how they made the teacher look like he had a lot to lose: irl the teacher always has full control, being the authority + the student being "barely legal"),
Noted, but this series went out of its way to show how NOT predatory their relationship was in spite of everyone around them attempting to paint it that way. Did you watch it...or??? Also, "barely legal"? The age of consent in Taiwan is 16. This was a university professor and his student...well beyond that.
etc show us, the audience, a relationship they want us to root for. pls try wrap ur head around that. they want us to root for their toxic relationships to work out, no matter how "real" they can be, they aren't "realistic" considering their intent on making this a weird fantasy where "fucked up shit" ends on a happy note. I'm not saying it's easy for people irl to get out of a toxic relationship, but it isn't a "happy ending" irl if the toxic relationship sustains at the end. if anyone is living in a fantasy it's you considering you can't seem to grasp the fact that these characters' actions aren't their own creations: they are the creation of other people that don't give 2 shits about gay men except the money they can make off of them from a narrow perspective of what 'representation' is.
Mostly to the end of your paragraph here: most of the creators and directors of the shows that you've lambasted unlike many other BLs are actually gay men, so the fact that you'd go so far out of your way to seek to deny their experience or seek to say how representative their representation is, is a bit ridiculous.
you really can't compare romance tv shows that show a skewed normalisation of abuse to horror/slasher films that show exactly what the genre has to offer; that's a logical fallacy lmfao. (WHICH ONE?) unless ofc the slasher film mainly show body horror of specifically women to satisfy the perverted male gaze, then yes I have "gripes" with it because that's an example of misogyny and sexual objectification in the film industry, which is a whole other conversation that is also relevant to have. if that's what you mean, then I don't know why you're comparing the two as if you can't care about more than one social issue at once.
I'm sure you can care about both at once, but I was just seeing what your stance was as a juxtapositon.
I don't concern myself with gay representation of men in the media because they make me uncomfortable as a lesbian, that makes no sense (also, I'm bi), but because that's what empathy is lolll. ofc I would care about representation of other identities within the lgbt+ community thats literally lgbt solidarity.
Solidarity isn't defining someone's experience. You're policing straight people's perception of gay men's sexuality as a bisexual female...but I get it, you have a lot to say.
also, calling me nuts and l*oney because of my display name? not even mentioning the ableist slurs, but what's wrong with wanting sapphic representation that's lacking in asian tv shows? me being sapphic and wanting more representation is "cr*zy"??? if you're gonna end on a "I was jus curious" note how about not resorting to calling me slurs and acting like you know me.
I'll call you and your words based on how I've perceived them and that's that. I'm not saying you hate your mom (acting like I know you know) or that you're physically unattractive (acting like I know you). You can say looney and crazy are abelist term and they are, but neither of them deviates from my point and reasoning of using them which is: you're far off-base in your evaluation of these queer media creations. That's all.
I was pretty sure you were nuts after reading some of your comments on a series I just watched, but you clearly live a fantasy world where fucked up shit doesn't happen, but just because fucked up shit that happens is shown in a show or movie, doesn't mean it ought not to be. Like do you have as many gripes with horror genres that disproportionately show women being slaughtered to death or do you just concern yourself with real stories of gay men that make you as a lesbian(?) uncomfortable?
I mean I see it for you on some points, like the kidnapping in Heroin (if that did happen, I haven't seen it yet, I'm new-ish to BL and brand new to MDL), but I saw HIStory2: Right or Wrong. The relationship wasn't predatory...like at all and the teacher had much more to lose and indeed lost it all for the student's sake without deceiving anyone. Dark Blue and the Moonlight was 21st Century Gay Men 101. It exposed an ugly truth..but that's life though, isn't it? No one lives on a complete moral high ground. I don't think anyone is turning to movies for advice on how to run their lives, so to say it's "normalising" any of that shit is a fucking reach at best...especially considering how normal it already is.
Lastly, "incest" between step-siblings? Weird? Yeah. My business? No. Brainwashing? Is that happening? Are people seriously out there trying to see it for their stepbrother and being convinced it's okay because of a handful of movies/shows about it? I doubt it...are there step-siblings, half-siblings, and cousins out here experimenting in their teenage years? Yeah, but that was a thing long before shit like this and even Cruel Intentions (a movie which kinda did "normalise" it considering how popular it was).
I dunno...it's my first time using this site and your comments just immediately stuck out as looney to me and your username certainly did, so I curious about what you were on about.
anyway you slice it BL is escapism regardless of how toxic it may or may not be at value and that’s important to remember especially when the majority of the industry is operated and driven by straight people…
You're wrong about these series normalising anything. They're telling stories that aren't often told in a way that you don't like and that doesn't mean the writers have brushed off horrible real issues that affect people every day. It's *not* that simple and you're clearly *not* willing to open your eyes and ears to viewing these stories from other perspectives, clearly..
You've been presumptuous, off-base and flat out wrong in many of your extreme criticisms of these works.
The complicated crux and source of conflict in ALL of these series is the attention they rise toward of the controversy involved in the issues you speak so vehemently against. That is to say: NO ONE'S TRYING TO GLORIFY THE UGLY ASPECTS OF THESE STORIES.
YOUR problem, seemingly, is that you're as one-demensional about the situation as are many others toward queer issues and circumstances...and filmmaking while we're at it...the only difference is that you claim to be queer yourself.
" yeah that's the whole point of the list: to shed light on these harmful shows. "---> at this I gleefully refer to my point about horror movies...displaying the qualities of the human condition in film as they are is not inherently problematic. These works don't encourage the viewer to side with extremely problematic protagonists...like at all. Be happy for them in the end? Maybe. Apply this to your life? No. Halloween isn't a "harmful" movie because a mentally kid goes out and kills his neighbour. Halloween is a movie because a kid *went* out and *killed* his neighbour. When it comes to media being idyllic fantasies of what could be, "BL's" aren't innocent of that, but they aren't, by and large, pushing an agenda the way most media does. In this genre, we still have legit stories being told and they get the accolades afforded to them because of that. You don't get to shit on them because of red herring arguments based on the -premise- of shows, especially when you haven't even watched them....Well, you get to, I guess, but not without me saying something about it.
Make It Right has two relationships that start as the result of interpersonal conflict, rape, and depression. The series makes that clear and it's a theme THE WHOLE TIME. It goes away for the last two episodes, but it's not normalised. The couples don't express to their larger friend group how they started dating, but the fact that the two main couples ended up "happily ever after" is to be taken as lightly as the fact that virtually all the other non-gay characters in the show were okay with their sexuality along with the fact that their in high school and we know life drastically changes thereafter.
What endures Sotus to people isn't Kongpob's submission to Arthit's verbal abuse, but the complete ineffectiveness of that so-called "abuse" because Kongpob always saw through it. Is ok to verbally abuse someone (especially one you like)? No, but that wasn't a concept that was lost on the audience.
We already discussed Right or Wrong. My Hero wasn't as problematic as it was boring, pointless and nowhere near as 'hyped up' as the others on this list. Stay Away From Me was about step-brothers, like in Crossing the Line. That's 'incest', as it were, but it's not...especially given: 1) they aren't blood-related and 2) they didn't grow up as siblings...they were introduced as siblings...in their adulthood. It's a sticky situation, but definitely not as 'icky'/problematic as blood-related incest...particularly if they're gay. That said, if you think these works are 'normalising'/'glorifying' and further that people are buying into the notion that INCEST, particularly, is something to giggle and squee over, you really are on the extreme side of the "dense" and "absurd" scales. Do you like my use of different, more 'acceptable' adjectives to emphasise of the same ridiculous points you're trying to make?
Take a sociology class? I'm a Psych major and essentially saying, "Oh, you don't know what you're talking about." or "You're taking it out of context." without failing to put the word (that has a clear definition btw that you've evidently deviated from) fully into the context you're trying to imply followed by forfeiting the argument isn't progressive, but okay.
"anyway its pretty naive to think all gay dramas are produced by gay men"
I didn't say they all were, I said many of the ones you mentioned (read: lambasted).
"bc the reality is that most of the writers are straight women trying to appeal to other straight women's gross, fetishistic fantasies. you can v much tell this w/ the fact that "BL" (a fetishistic term made by straight women btw) novels that are adapted to television are written by a female writer."
Again, not an argument against what I've said.
"see this part I don't understand at all. first of all what the hell do you mean by the 2 examples you gave they're completely irrelevant and random. second, how does this dispute anything I said. I never argued against objective endings?"
Because it seems from the tone of your evaluations that, unless the movie/show doesn't make the viewer "uncomfortable" in the way societal majorities (i.e.-real life shit people) would make them uncomfortable, the production itself is problematic and horrible. I cited horror films because horror films do just that. Exactly what most no one wants to ever see happen.
"and also the whole "not everything has to be a political/moral statement" yeah and I'm saying that when it is a certain negative/careless representation of gay men depicted by the (straight) writers you can tell through the lazy writing."
Yeah, okay, your opinion about what lazy writing is or isn't isn't a principle and you factually don't know the sexuality of any of the writers.
"the fact that you think a thoughtful, well-planned depiction of gay men (not necessarily meaning the gay character has to be the good guy) is a "political statement" is sooo fucking dense."
By "political statement", I was referring to your response as trying to hold these films up as bastions of ridicule based your own clear socio-political affiliation.
"- when did I define someone's experience? like who are you even talking about thats such a vague cop-out to an actual argument and a half-assed "drag" lmaooo"
You defined someone's experience when you said a teacher-student romantic relationship is wrong (in an unequivocal way). You defined someone's experience when you said step-siblings couldn't fall in love. You defined someone's experience by making them out to be shit human because they fell in love under the circumstances of cheating. Everyone's shit stinks, but people aren't 100% defined by the shit things that happen in their life, so it's kind of ridiculous to act like everyone can and should play on a moral high ground when each circumstance is different.
." also reducing solidarity as simply policing straight people? so fucking what?? I have no sympathy for straight ppl who fetishise lgbt+ people or have a narrow-minded view of us. I literally could not give less of a shit of what straight ppl think and I don't know why you do seeing as you had to include that lil sentence there, making a point of including my sexuality as well for no absolute relevant reason to your "argument" whatsoever""
That you don't find policing a population or having empathy for others is a little disheartening, but not unexpected.
"its very hard to trust someone that uses the "the age of consent is actually in the teens so predatory relationships are lawful therefore not actually predatory" argument, considering 1) not all laws protect people lmao"
And MOST people don't date outside five years of their own age.
"its v superficial to think that 2) age of consent is about what age someone is *legally allowed to have sex, not that it's moral for ADULTS to have sex with "consenting" TEENS,"
It's also superficial to think a young adult is incapable of having a relationship with a more middle-aged adult...which is what this story was. This was a college student (18+) and his professor (mid-30s), not a 40-year old and 15-year old.
"3) predators and pedophiles use this argument all the time, v
disturbing if you don't think teens should experience things with people their own age and adults going after teens are predators
despite the "age of consent" laws. also I literally said "if I remember correctly" about the barely legal character."
Clearly you didn't remember correctly.
"- lastly, you admitting you used ableist language and being unapologetic about it? nice. saying it doesn't deviate from your point (which I never claimed) and yet you felt compelled to throw these ableist terms at someone anyway (why even use it at all)? nice."
Why use "looney" and "crazy" to refer to someone who holds says ridiculous things????????? Honestly?? I'm under no pretence you suffer from any actual mental illness and if you do, I apologise, but you need to be aware that even if I had use the words, "stupid", "idiotic", or "moronic", "dull"...these terms were derived from and still could be used to refer to the mentally ill, but it's very obtuse of you given the context of literally EVERYthing else I said to REALLY think I'm trying to come after your person (outside of the realm of the argument) for being mentally disabled. Could I have said, "ridiculous" or "absurd" in place of those words, in retrospect, I see that I could, but given the context, those would be almost synonymous with the words I did use.
Normalisation as a noun implies that the verb normalise is at play. To normalise something is to bring it to a normal or standard state. If something is already normal, displaying it as such, wouldn't be normalising it. That said, what is normal for you and your society is skewed...it's always skewed because no one gets to have a capital on normalisation...especially as it applies to entertainment...unless you're the Chinese Communist Party, in which case, fuck you. Also, you don't fucking know the writers "want". You just don't.
"small flaws in relationships could be arguments that don't lead to abuse, if it leads to abuse then that makes the relationship toxic and not something we're supposed to normalise, and yet this is what these writers do: they don't give a shit about domestic abuse victims irl, they just want to "spice up" the dead plot. you can't act as if these characters are real, living, conscious people. if the writers really did want to give a "realistic" plot that highlights domestic abuse victims that are manipulated into staying in a relationship, then these would not be labeled as "romance shows". they are *normalising* rape culture and that's that."
Submissive victims of physical abuse who die in horror films are then? Murders with mental illnesses in horror films are? Yeah, we get it. Fucked up shit happens because life is fucked up, but everyone's work and art doesn't have to be a political/moral statement. Sometimes just displaying shit as it is sends an objective message too.
also, about your example with Cruel Intentions just shows that you don't know what normalisation means. normalisation =/= popularity. the whole point of the film was to showcase the unlucky protagonist who was manipulated into the relationship, and the writer lets the audience know that this was in no way a romance but instead a look into how the protagonist's world falls apart after trusting the wrong person. that is not a normalisation; it's a tragedy plot.
UM Dark Blue and Moonlight was also a fucking tragedy plot. How the fuck did you miss that? Was it the smiles and cheesy music at the end? Check the comment section of that drama...Nobody was happy with how it ended because we all know how fucked up it was. Next, Normal (the base of normalisation) means standard or common...which indeed denotes popularity. My point of mentioning Cruel Intentions was that by the end of the movie, most were left with qualms about the story as a whole, not specifically about incest.
meanwhile shows like
Dark Blue and Moonlight (yes cheating exists irl but you can tell the writers don't think cheating is an immoral start to a relationship with the way they painted the main character's apathy towards his actions and yet they still made him the protagonist; the good guy)
A protagonist is a main character, not a good guy. The protagonist didn't want to be with his current bf, but his current bf who he lived with also made it clear he would make life difficult for him if they broke up. Ugly situation? Yeah. Is life ugly? Yeah, it is. What's the problem in showing that?
History with the incest and teacher/student relationship (yes, all of these happen irl I didn't dispute that, and I'm sure the writers know they happen irl thats why they wrote it, and teacher/student relationships ARE predatory, no matter how they made the teacher look like he had a lot to lose: irl the teacher always has full control, being the authority + the student being "barely legal"),
Noted, but this series went out of its way to show how NOT predatory their relationship was in spite of everyone around them attempting to paint it that way. Did you watch it...or??? Also, "barely legal"? The age of consent in Taiwan is 16. This was a university professor and his student...well beyond that.
etc show us, the audience, a relationship they want us to root for. pls try wrap ur head around that. they want us to root for their toxic relationships to work out, no matter how "real" they can be, they aren't "realistic" considering their intent on making this a weird fantasy where "fucked up shit" ends on a happy note. I'm not saying it's easy for people irl to get out of a toxic relationship, but it isn't a "happy ending" irl if the toxic relationship sustains at the end. if anyone is living in a fantasy it's you considering you can't seem to grasp the fact that these characters' actions aren't their own creations: they are the creation of other people that don't give 2 shits about gay men except the money they can make off of them from a narrow perspective of what 'representation' is.
Mostly to the end of your paragraph here: most of the creators and directors of the shows that you've lambasted unlike many other BLs are actually gay men, so the fact that you'd go so far out of your way to seek to deny their experience or seek to say how representative their representation is, is a bit ridiculous.
you really can't compare romance tv shows that show a skewed normalisation of abuse to horror/slasher films that show exactly what the genre has to offer; that's a logical fallacy lmfao. (WHICH ONE?) unless ofc the slasher film mainly show body horror of specifically women to satisfy the perverted male gaze, then yes I have "gripes" with it because that's an example of misogyny and sexual objectification in the film industry, which is a whole other conversation that is also relevant to have. if that's what you mean, then I don't know why you're comparing the two as if you can't care about more than one social issue at once.
I'm sure you can care about both at once, but I was just seeing what your stance was as a juxtapositon.
I don't concern myself with gay representation of men in the media because they make me uncomfortable as a lesbian, that makes no sense (also, I'm bi), but because that's what empathy is lolll. ofc I would care about representation of other identities within the lgbt+ community thats literally lgbt solidarity.
Solidarity isn't defining someone's experience. You're policing straight people's perception of gay men's sexuality as a bisexual female...but I get it, you have a lot to say.
also, calling me nuts and l*oney because of my display name? not even mentioning the ableist slurs, but what's wrong with wanting sapphic representation that's lacking in asian tv shows? me being sapphic and wanting more representation is "cr*zy"??? if you're gonna end on a "I was jus curious" note how about not resorting to calling me slurs and acting like you know me.
I'll call you and your words based on how I've perceived them and that's that. I'm not saying you hate your mom (acting like I know you know) or that you're physically unattractive (acting like I know you). You can say looney and crazy are abelist term and they are, but neither of them deviates from my point and reasoning of using them which is: you're far off-base in your evaluation of these queer media creations. That's all.
I mean I see it for you on some points, like the kidnapping in Heroin (if that did happen, I haven't seen it yet, I'm new-ish to BL and brand new to MDL), but I saw HIStory2: Right or Wrong. The relationship wasn't predatory...like at all and the teacher had much more to lose and indeed lost it all for the student's sake without deceiving anyone. Dark Blue and the Moonlight was 21st Century Gay Men 101. It exposed an ugly truth..but that's life though, isn't it? No one lives on a complete moral high ground. I don't think anyone is turning to movies for advice on how to run their lives, so to say it's "normalising" any of that shit is a fucking reach at best...especially considering how normal it already is.
Lastly, "incest" between step-siblings? Weird? Yeah. My business? No. Brainwashing? Is that happening? Are people seriously out there trying to see it for their stepbrother and being convinced it's okay because of a handful of movies/shows about it? I doubt it...are there step-siblings, half-siblings, and cousins out here experimenting in their teenage years? Yeah, but that was a thing long before shit like this and even Cruel Intentions (a movie which kinda did "normalise" it considering how popular it was).
I dunno...it's my first time using this site and your comments just immediately stuck out as looney to me and your username certainly did, so I curious about what you were on about.