Dr3amyBubbl3gum

The drama isn't "absolutely brilliant in execution"

Please consider calming down, or you will risk appearing to be the thing you accuse others of being: salty

Tae Young (Ki Tak): watch out, you're going to fall! *holding Lee Joon (Do Hyuk) in his arms, supporting his weight*
Lee Joon (Do Hyuk): *clinging to Tae Young (Ki Tak), his legs wrapped tightly around Tae Young (Ki Tak)'s waist" (episode 16, 50:10)

For a brief moment, my shipping fantasies came to life!

Lee Joon (Do Hyuk) and Tae Young (Ki Tak) have an unspoken connection. The ship is real, and I've been a passenger since season 1

In a society where power is unevenly distributed, balancing "freedoms" can be difficult. Those with more power "force" their version of "freedom" on others, limiting the "freedoms" of less powerful groups

People have differing opinions on what constitutes infringement on their "freedom." There are times protecting the rights of one person requires limiting the "freedoms" of another

Art is always open to interpretation. Why dismiss the role of subjective morality in guiding art, when art itself is subjective?

Morality might not be entirely subjective. A school of thought posits that individual conceptions of morality differ, but certain moral principles are recognized across all cultures: respect, accountability, fairness, honesty. Artists should draw on these principles to guide their artistic expression. The key to upholding these principles is in their consistent application, to avoid double standards and unreasonable selective adherence

The question of who "determines" morality and how offenses are punished need not be an obstacle. We determine morality. This is evident in the legal systems that codify and enforce them

I developed an allergy to anything that rejects content moderation or censorship completely

"Freedom" isn't a neutral or objective concept. It presupposes a set of beliefs about people, society, and the relationship between the two, or a degree of autonomy and self-determination that isn't attainable in a world influenced by social, political, economic forces

To claim that art "must be free" in order to transcend the constraints of ideology is to engage in an ideological sleight of hand, wherein a liberal ideology is privileged over other less liberal ideologies and one constraint is replaced with another

"... because morality is something that is too readily abused"

"Freedom" is equally vulnerable to abuse. It's taken on the role of a religious dogma, allowing people to evade responsibility. History is replete with examples of "freedom" being invoked as an excuse for all manner of injustices and atrocities that undermine the dignity of marginalized communities

I'd argue the creation and dissemination of art must be guided and restricted by a robust moral framework. You mentioned that law can be immoral. Legal concerns occupy a subordinate role in the hierarchy of considerations

My stance on censorship is nuanced and context-dependent. I wouldn't advocate for censoring art that seeks to raise awareness about social issues. I would support the censorship of art that promotes immoral thoughts and behaviors

"Ultimately, though, you can't police art"

We can. "Freedom" comes with responsibility. Creators and distributors of art have the responsibility to consider the potential consequences of their work, and be mindful of the messages they send to the public

Art that's displayed in public spaces is (and should be) subject to criticism and community standards and regulations

There exists a misconception here that actors and actresses are prone to developing "feelings" during the course of filming

I don't believe the occurrence is commonplace. Given the rigors of the filmmaking process, multiple takes, and omnipresent gazes of crew members, it'd be difficult to develop genuine feelings

"Wooseok has a real life crush on Hye Yoon" is a product of fanciful thinking. Actors are highly skilled practitioners of deception trained to fabricate believable on-screen "relationships." Their interactions in behind-the-scenes footage or interviews are a marketing strategy or promotional maneuver that's carefully curated and choreographed to sell an illusion and capitalize on the obsession of fans

Even if 90% of the population identified as straight, 10% (1 out of 10 people) would identify as non-straight. In South Korea, with a population of approximately 51 million, it would translate to 5 million people who are part of the "queer" community

The drama could have included at least one or two gay or lesbian couples in the background to reflect the diversity of society

The accusation of "queerphobia" leveled against me is unfounded

I'm not delegitimizing a specific bisexual experience. I'm questioning the belief that bisexuality should conform to a specific, rigid 1/99 or 5/95 model of attraction

"Are we wanting any kind of realism in this drama or are we wanting to pretend that all of South Korea is suddenly queer and queer-accepting?"

The selective application of realism is problematic. Realism is to be consistently applied to the representation of the societal context in which the characters exist. A world where "queerness" is "normal, given, and okay" wouldn't maintain a predominantly straight background population

Remove indoctrination, societal pressures, stigma, or erasure, and people would be more likely to identify as part of the community. There would be a shift in the demographics

The drama is cherry-picking its version of reality

Male leads easily accepting their "queerness" doesn't necessarily equate to normalization. It could be a form of tokenism. "Queer" characters are included in a superficial manner that doesn't fully explore the nuances and complexities of "queerness"

True normalization would delve deeper into the lived realities of "queer" people

Every piece of media carries with it an underlying agenda influenced by the societal norms, beliefs, and power dynamics in which it's created

Declarations are necessary for challenging the default assumption of sexuality

The comparison to straight characters is flawed. Being straight is so normalized in media that explicit declarations are unnecessary

"Who the hell is "we" and "our?" Is that the "royal" we? Are you an monarch of some kind somewhere?"

Apologies for the confusion. I used "we" and "our" to refer to myself and other commenters who expressed similar viewpoints

The heteronormative leanings of the male characters and lack of explicit declarations reasonably led us to speculate about the "only gay for you" direction of the story. The characters' same-sex attraction seemed to be an isolated incident. It didn't seem to be a genuine expression of "queerness"

It's possible for a work to make strides towards normalizing "queerness" and perpetuate problematic tropes. "Boys Be Brave" might be commendable in some respects, but it's not immune to criticism

"... the drama frames the sexualities of all characters as something so "usual" and "normal" that it doesn't require declarations"

In what manner was "queerness" normalized?

The opening episode presented a landscape dominated by straight couples. Even against the backdrop of a chilly winter, where the two male leads drew closer, a man confessing to a woman captured the attention of eager onlookers (bystanders)

I anticipated a greater presence of minor gay or lesbian couples. How can the absence of "queerness" be reconciled with your alleged normalization of "queerness" in this fictional Korean society?

"There are lots of queer people who choose not to identify with a specific label"

Declaring or acknowledging a character's sexuality is essential for visibility and representation. For viewers who are exploring their own sexuality, having explicit examples of "queer" characters helps them understand and embrace their experiences

"... how is it problematic if the only person he crushed on is another guy?"

"Only gay for one person" oversimplifies and distorts the gay experience. Depicting same-sex crushes and relationships as situational or temporary suggests that gay relationships are somehow less genuine or committed than straight ones

Our gay identities aren't something to be turned on or off depending on the person

Our concern regarding the "only gay for you" trope was raised based on the information available at that point in time (episodes 1-4). The second half introducing new elements (ex-boyfriends) to the story doesn't invalidate the initial criticism. The criticism sparked important conversations. It might encourage creators to approach the topic with greater sensitivity and nuance

With each new piece of information, our understanding of a story grows, and we refine or adjust our critiques accordingly

Numerous bisexual people don't adhere to the trope of "having criteria only on the opposite sex until" a bond with someone of the same sex is established. Does media capture this dimension of bisexuality? Typically, characters experience a sudden, unforeseen attraction to someone of the same sex

Young love can be explorative, but the typical depiction feeds into the misconception that bisexuality is a phase of "figuring it out" before one settles for the opposite sex or an intermediate stage before "choosing" a side

Bisexuality is a spectrum of experiences and preferences. It's not a 1/99 or "one-off" attraction to a single person of the same sex

The damaging trope of the "mostly straight" or "only gay for you" bisexual seen in "Boys Be Brave" and media in general is biphobic and reductive