GayinYourArea

a label is a bridge that spans the chasm between the inexpressible and the knowable. we use labels to connect our private inner worlds to the shared outer world of language. to question the existence of this bridge is an extreme, paradoxical position that undermines the existence of language and communication, the tools through which that position is being expressed and articulated

"romance" is an umbrella label for a range of feelings and interactions. it's too generalized and broad to be a meaningful descriptor. a distinction should be made between the "straight" content that dominates mainstream media and the gay content that's marginalized and mistreated for a customized, tailored media experience. the specific labels of bl/gl/yaoi/yuri guide us to our desired gay content without the need to trek across the overabundance of "straight" content

you ask, "do we specify with heterosexual series that it IS heterosexual?" and i specify that. my distaste for heteronormative content is vehement. i propose that the specificity applied to gay content be extended to "straight" content. implementing specific labeling of "heteronormative," "straight," "het" or "m/f" would allow me to filter out said content and avert exposure to it

you do make a good point that neatly dividing gay content into two categories of bl/gl and "queer" based on the presence or absence of positivity and hyperrealism is a false dichotomy. both types of content are gay. the bl/gl narratives set in more accepting and welcoming worlds aren't less "gay" than the bleak, hopeless "queer" depictions of gay experiences

it's a matter of preference whether one engages with content that reflects the struggles of gay individuals in real life, or content that offers an escape from the struggles, if only for a brief moment. the escapism isn't a sign of immaturity, it's a healthy response to the harsh realities of existence

labeling a "queer" story as bl or not bl isn't an issue. the issue is that bl fans face ridicule for their media preferences. "this isn't bl" has come to unintentionally imply that bl stories are inferior or unworthy of being compared to "queer" stories

bl fans understand that light-hearted, feel-good stories should be given equal, if not greater, consideration and recognition than tragic, dramatic stories, so they felt it necessary to advocate for their position

the premise of bl content, that of two men engaged in a romantic/sexual relationship, is gay

gay content is content that features same-sex relationships. it can be tragic, painful and realistic, or happy, fluffy and less realistic. the criterion for categorizing a content as "gay" is the true sex of the parties involved. as long as the relationship is between two men, it meets this criterion and can be considered true gay content

the categorization of tragic, painful and realistic gay stories as "true gay content" implies that the less realistic gay stories are somehow less gay, when they are simply less representative of the more difficult realities of gay life. bls offer a vision of a world in which same-sex love is accepted and celebrated. they are a powerful, hopeful alternative to the one-dimensional, tragic representations prevalent in mainstream media that remind us in a more accepting world, the experiences of gay people and couples would've been drastically different

the story walks the line between bl/gay romance and "queer" storytelling, combining their elements and creating a blend that captures the sweetness of bl and the bitterness of "queer" storytelling

you picked this fight, don't blame me. your inability to detect sarcasm set you off, and you threw a hissy fit over the word "intellectual" under @sweetcat's comment

that's a lot of unnecessary fireworks. your comments have more sass than substance. try having a civilized conversation and people won't assume you're a pseudo-intellectual

your comments suggested an air of arrogance and led me to include you among the people who make claims of intellectual superiority

i was speaking in a general sense about the people who make claims of intellectual superiority

i interpreted @sweetcat's use of sarcasm as a response to the perceived tone of your and other people's comments. it wasn't a direct response to a claim of intellectual superiority, and i wanted to share my interpretation

the preference for one type of story doesn't invalidate the existence of the other. both sad and happy stories are valuable in their own right when executed well, that's true

it's possible the reason this particular story/ending has been subject to criticism is due to its perceived shortcomings in execution or overall quality. of course, it's not a universal opinion and you don't have to agree with it

the term "intellectual" used by @sweetcat is meant to be sarcastic. true intellectuals rarely, if ever, self-identify as intellectuals. those of you who feel certain of your intellectual superiority are often pseudo-intellectuals with an inflated sense of your own abilities

there's no shame in preferring narratives that depict happy endings for gay couples, such as those in bls. constant reminders of sadness or hopelessness in fiction wouldn't always be appealing to those of us personally acquainted with the hardships of gay life

the narrative value of happy stories can't be denied. they might not fully reflect reality, they are still sources of comfort and inspiration for many

hating on bl is a byproduct of homophobic and misogynistic attitudes. bl antis are troubled by the concept of women enjoying stories that feature the intimacy and normalcy of relationships between two men. they want to delegitimize the happiness of gay couples and the women who support them

kbls are kdramas that explore gay romance with a more positive outlook. unlike the dark, open-ended narratives commonly featured in "queer" dramas, bl dramas afford gay couples the happiness and closure they deserve. they're not inferior to "queer" dramas

i hate all anti-(k)bl comments, they are trash and suck ass

the allegation that my comments lack nuance and context is itself lacking in nuance and context, the "critique" that my "superficial critiques" of the drama are driving other people away is a superficial critique, and the claim that you have engaged in our exchange in good faith is at odds with your disinclination towards diplomacy or "mincing words." unnecessary bluntness and tactlessness are characteristic of your communication style. one would be justified in interpreting your good faith as little more than a smokescreen for condescension and intellectual laziness

i stand firmly by the comments i have made regarding the adaptation and the implications of the creator's self-censorship. you were free to disagree, and you did. your opinions hold no relevance for me anymore and i consider the matter closed

"Doesn’t escape notice how you’ve yet to say I’m wrong about you being a teenager"

i have previously shared that i'm in my 20s, it's in the screenshots

i would humbly offer the counterpoint that your comments were equally, if not more, annoying and disruptive to the overall exchange of ideas

i forgot to add that @frings assumed i'm an "immature teenager" multiple times: https://imgur.com/77WFGla

@frings is lying. from the outset of our "discourse," they belittled my position and claimed i had a limited, naive worldview. they didn't consider the context and nuance of my comments: https://imgur.com/a/817vWz9

your verbal jabs at my character and condescending attitude reveal a desire to mock rather than converse. you conflate disagreement with teenage immaturity. it's an illogical stance, and i can't commit energy or time to it more than i've done. enjoy the drama

you told others to ignore and move on from content they find objectionable and problematic. apply the principle to your responses to dissenting opinions. ignore and move on, you didn't need to comment further