GayinYourArea

your "translation" grossly misrepresents my position

queer narratives don't need to meet an arbitrary standard of perfection. it's their alteration for commercial interests that carries with it harmful repercussions for the representation and visibility of queer identities. my position isn't grounded in the pursuit of personal satisfaction on the internet, those of you who participate in the malicious mockery of the commenters disagreeing with you or the creator's decision to self-censor themselves are placating your false sense of superiority and pursuing that personal satisfaction

"If the webtoon writer herself isnt making any objections"

the creator's silence isn't a sufficient justification for the alteration of the original story in a manner that diminishes representation and visibility of queer identities. self-censorship in response to homophobic financial incentives is reflective of a societal hierarchy that privileges "straight" experiences over those of other sexual orientations, and that's a problem

not everyone is going to agree with you or the creator's decision to self-censor themselves, you can ignore our comments and move on

introducing a character later in a story doesn't diminish their importance

the removal of any queer character or romance is a loss for our community. the relationship between the first main female character and another main female character was removed, and although there's a possibility of introducing another romantic partner of the same sex, it's understandable that some are expressing disappointment in the potential for this removal to marginalize queer experiences

"Kim Tae Ri ate pussy off the bone licked the gravy clean right up there on Korean screen"

that was a movie, movies are more adventurous than dramas. tae ri diving face-first into the feminine form in the past doesn't immunize this adaptation from the sin of censorship and cowering before the homophobic tv masses

we're not underestimating the financial risks associated with producing something that challenges conservatism, we're arguing that always catering to conservatives perpetuates a culture of intolerance and discrimination. it's not the right thing to do

dilution of queerness, no matter how minor, is a transgression against the queer-centered source material and the community it meant to represent, it strips away some of the elements that made the original story unique and powerful and deprives audiences of the opportunity to engage with the story in its full, unapologetic form

producers who fear taking risks and seek to appeal to conservative groups should invest in the creation of their own original stories, they shouldn't opt for this lazy route of taking an existing gay story and sacrificing authenticity for mass appeal and profit

thank you, appealing to the amount of effort put into a production is a form of emotional manipulation. we can commend the dedication of the cast and crew, but we're under no obligation to give their product a pass because of the effort expended. the most dedicated team can't salvage a story that has been gutted by homophobic censorship

as long as viewers continue to consume these censored adaptations, producers won't leave the community or our narratives alone. there's profit to be made by catering to the intolerance of a homophobic society

it's impolite, not to mention preposterous, to dictate the emotional responses of others to an adaptation of a work. the enjoyment of art is a subjective experience. those who express disappointment over the removal of (gay) romance from an adaptation are exercising their right to an opinion, one that should be respected as much as your own

if "romance" weren't everything, why would thousands of "straight" dramas/shows flood people's screens each year? "romance" is a popular genre, and for good reason, it resonates with audiences. producers, attuned to the pulse of their audiences, aren't shy about embellishing or expanding on the genre's elements in their adaptations of "straight" source materials. by contrast, adaptations of gay source materials are treated with a callous disregard for the romance at their core. explicit elements of love, confession and intimacy are downplayed or removed, something that would be unthinkable in the context of "straight" narratives

in the land of "straight" narratives, "romance" is king, a cash cow milked to its fullest potential. venture into the land of gay narratives, and suddenly romance "isn't everything." it's pariah, a social outcast unworthy of a place in the narrative

you're masking the disturbing truth that gay romance is being mistreated due to societal homophobia. the removal of the romance here isn't an artistic choice, it's a shameful act of cowering before the homophobic masses who don't tolerate the sight of same-sex love and intimacy on their tv screens

i believe the queerness will be hinted at, it won't be fully realized and celebrated as the source material intended

i'll wait and see

society's homophobia or unease with gay relationships fuels the popularity of bromances and censored gay narratives. people reduce two men or two women to "just friends" to avoid confronting the possibility of romantic feelings between them

translation: "the removal of kwon bu yeong from the cast list has stirred apprehension among fans familiar with the original story. as yoon jeong nyeon's "number one fan" and a gifted writer in hiding, bu yeong is a vital character. she also happens to be the eldest daughter of an affluent family facing the oppressive expectations of the patriarchal society regarding marriage and childrearing. bu yeong's sexuality and strong sense of self continuously conflict with these expectations. her mother, an artist whose work was stolen by a male patriarch, endured similar hardships

the relationship between bu yeong and jeong nyeon is a fusion of queer romance and creative collaboration. due to bu yeong's undeniable presence, the latter half of the original story feels akin to a spin-off centered on her character. it's understandable that fans feel disappointed by her removal"

i disagree with the rest of the article that "the drama is groundbreaking in itself." it could've been more groundbreaking had it retained the main queer romance. removing or sidelining queerness reflects the fear of backlash against direct challenges to patriarchy. the drama paradoxically adheres to the patriarchal norms it seeks to confront, taking two steps backward for each step it takes forward

"homophobic consumption" refers to societal biases against homosexuality shaping the manner in which media is consumed. "appropriation" refers to the exploitation of originally gay narratives for commercial gain, without commitment to representing and affirming non-straight identities and relationships. a well-defined relationship between the female lead and her female love interest was erased in favor of a tokenistic representation that hints at queerness. hinting and sidelining please the homophobic majority

you're assuming the hints of queerness won't be undeveloped teases throughout the entire series. your assumptions about that, my age and my level of comprehension are unfounded. i'm an adult in my 20s, not that my age has any bearing on the validity of my position

homophobia is a profitable commodity and capitalism is a beast feeding on the masses' anti-gay beliefs if that's what sells. a nuanced analysis of the situation reveals that no company or management is "progressive." companies are motivated by profit. to effect change, we should use capitalism against itself and prove to companies there's profit to be made from faithful adaptations of gay narratives. we can't do that by settling for their censored adaptations

i am making a moral argument. the producers appropriated a story with gay themes for homophobic consumption. they should've created an original narrative that "moves the line" to the extent they want it to on tv. this act of exploitation, to my mind, is morally reprehensible, regardless of whether or not you agree with my position

the drama adaptation hints at queerness. it's a half-hearted gesture, and my role as a viewer affords me the opportunity to demand better representation in the media i consume. i will not be complicit in queer erasure in the name of practicality

market forces don't operate in a vacuum. cultural shifts influence what audiences demand and what networks are willing to invest in. demanding diversity in media will exert pressure on industry gatekeepers to accommodate shifting cultural norms and create spaces for diverse voices to be heard. this isn't a utopian, idealistic vision or a matter of overnight revolution. this is a gradual, achievable process of changing hearts and minds, both in the industry and among the wider population

i know of the injustices of capitalism. for now, we should leverage its mechanisms and strike the delicate balance between playing the game and changing the rules

to be clear, i'm not trying to fight with you. i'm expressing that people have different opinions on these issues

intent and legality are what separates capital punishment from "murder." capital punishment is a lawful response to a crime deserving of the ultimate penalty. "murder" is an unlawful taking of life. carried out in the bounds of law, taking a life ceases to be "murder" and becomes a sanctioned punishment

not everyone can be rehabilitated, it'd be a waste of resources. punishment functions as a better deterrent by instilling a fear of the ramifications of criminal/immoral behavior. permanently removing an offender from society eliminates the risk of recidivism and prevents them from committing future crimes. knowing they will face the ultimate punishment for their actions, potential criminals would be less likely to go through with them

the abolition of capital punishment in some countries is a subjective assessment of the worth of human life. a person who doesn't believe that all life has equal worth or value would see no contradiction or hypocrisy in assigning different degrees of value to different lives based on their characteristics and circumstances. to defeat a monster, for example, they'd adopt monstrous means

"Maybe the literal defination has been changed"

it hasn't, the definitions of "adaptation" and "remake" have been consistent over time. an adaptation refers to a work based on a source material, such as a book or comic, that's adapted for a different medium, such as film or television. a remake refers to a new version of an existing film or television show, it's the retelling of the same story

both adaptations and remakes should respect the essence of the source material, making only changes that enhance or complement the existing narrative

changing the narrative to suit specific demographics or maximize financial gain would be a violation of the source material and its legacy

compromising one's creation for external validation or monetary gain has been a disturbing trend

creators should understand that the fruits of their labor are more than objects. they are the tangible embodiment of their passion and hard work, deserving of love, care, and protection. it's their duty to guard their creations against the arrows of unfavorable opinions. any change is a direct assault on their value and the communities they represent. it tells them they aren't good enough or worthy in their original form

you're right, korea has been worse than china. at least some chinese producers have collaborated with thailand to bypass homophobic censorship and preserve the authenticity of their gay stories. that's a noble approach to the creative process

we have the right to challenge authority and to question those who claim to be "doing their jobs" if their actions violate our sense of morality and justice. law enforcement officials might not agree with us, and we don't have to agree with them