Maggi64

Oh, I totally get how a guy who claims to hate gays can actually have a hidden, sublimated desire for gay sex. But what I don't get is why straight women enjoy the trope of "I'm really straight, just gay for you." As you said, it's women who read/write/view this trope, so they must like it. But why?

As for me writing a thesis, nope, I am just curious about the question. I am actually 55 and went to graduate school 30 years ago. And my degrees are in English Lit, not Gender Studies. It's Gender Studies Departments that have all the dissertations on BL's. It's a super hot topic now. I subscribe to them and read them all the time.

Exactly, BLs are written/read/viewed by women. So why do women like the "just gay for you" trope. You said it's about a hidden desire to "date the enemy." But who would be the enemy? The straight guy or the gay guy? Forgive me for not getting this -- I feel badly asking you so many questions, lol.

LOL, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the "I'm just gay for you" trope. I simply wonder why it's so appealing. It's an interesting question. Indeed, it's so interesting that I am surprised nobody in Gender Studies writes about it. I am an English Professor and, as such, I have access to different universities' dissertations, so I began to subscribe, specifically, to Gender Studies papers on BL's. I must have read 100 in the past 2 years, and yet I've never seen this topic discussed. Most of the papers only discuss the fact that women are the fans.

That's how it is for gay or bi men in real life. But I am wondering why the women who read/write/view BL's like the trope of straight men being gay for only one man. I don't think there's anything wrong with the trope, I am just curious as to why it's appealing to women.

So far people have left 2 pretty good theories. One said that the "I'm only gay for you" means that the partner is so special he could even make a straight man gay. So it would be about someone as special, someone who's an exception. Since people enjoy love stories where the beloved is portrayed as truly special they would, likewise, enjoy BL's where a man is only gay for his one special partner.

Another woman posited that it's about fantasy. I elaborated on that to theorize that women can more easily fantasize about being participants in the love story if the boys are portrayed as essentially straight. In other words, a straight woman can project herself into the love story if the fantasy partner is a straight male.

That's 2 pretty good theories. If we come up with more we can write our own PhD dissertations, lol.

Do you mean it's the hidden fantasy of hetero men? Because it's largely hetero women who read/write/watch BL's. But your theory about fantasy in general is a good one. I think that hetero women can look at the hetero male in a BL and fantasize that he'd be a good partner for her. A woman would be less likely to fantasize about a gay male being her partner. I wonder if this is what it's about?

That's a good theory! It would mean that the guy he fell for is so special that he could even make a straight man desire him. And since we all want our love stories to feel special, yes, that theory works. Thanks.

It also occurred to me that with cell phone recording technology, it's not that uncommon anymore to get recording devices onto small gadgets.

Loved the first ep, but dang, do people other than James Bond 007 really carry around secret pen recorders? lol. Well, I'm happy to let it go cuz the show's not wasting any time establishing the attraction between these 2 guys -- and we can feel the sizzle!

It's now been a full year since this came out and I am very surprised there has not been a sequel. There's at least talk of a sequel within a year if it's going to happen (eg, we heard about the sequels for Blueming and My Beautiful Man a couple of months after they aired). I thought this was equally popular. I know that Togawa's confession scene had trended on Twitter. So what happened? Does anyone know if there's a sequel?

You MUST watch Maurice. It's set in the Edwardian era when gays were still arrested in England (it's only about 20 years after Oscar Wilde's imprisonment for being gay). E.M. Forester could not even publish the novel back then and only showed it to his friends (it was published posthumously about 50 years later). It was an era where gays truly took a risk, and this makes the story all the more compelling.

It also has a happy ending, so there's none of that crap we used to see with "gays must be punished for being gay at the end." This movie was ahead of its time in so many ways. It's free online so go watch it and let me know what you think. I am sure you'll love it!

Yea, we let a lot of Japanese war criminals go. But that's also cuz the Japanese emperor was cooperating with the US, while Nazis were not, so we went hard on the Nazis at the Neuremburg trials, while we went easy on the Japanese. So yes, the Japanese got off easily and I can see your point about how bad people, like the uncle were also let off easily.

But I think the screenwriter thought the uncle was punished enough by losing his niece's fortune, and losing that library that Sookie trashed (I loved that scene!). Moreover, both the uncle and the Count died at the end, so in this regard, both were punished again. But I would've preferred it if the Count had not been tortured.

Otherwise, this was a perfect movie. The plotting was simply flawless. It was so well paced I could barely tell 3 hours had passed. It truly deserved all the praise it got.

They did get together. At the end she has a toddler and a baby on the way, when her husband was sterile. So I assume Ji Ha was the father. She's also shown wearing that sapphire ring that Ji Ha had bought her earlier in the movie. So the clues are there. Of course, it's annoying that the director did not simply show us Sophie and Ji Ha together and, instead, was coy about clues, but it's still there.

The uncle is the true villain in this movie and I wanted to see him suffer right from the start when he's shown beating a child and abusing his wife. Now, the Count was conniving, but the 2 women were also conniving, so I don't see this as a quality to be punished by torture. Nevertheless, we see the Count tortured at the end. Hell, the uncle was even given the role of torturer. In short, I don't get why the screenplay reserved the worst punishment for the Count rather than the uncle.

A sumptuous, perfectly plotted love story. I loved it, but did have one problem with the very end. See spoiler below.

Wait, you taught yourself an Asian language via the internet? That's impressive. Did you already know an Asian language?

Yes, filmmakers are supposed to cooperate on panels. So it was a big deal when Ivory went off on his own and said he was "not a fan of the film," cuz that's considered super taboo to do in Hollywood. It effects a film's bottom line, which is why the director would only say he was "disappointed" but nothing more. Ivory, however, really expounded on it in The Guardian. I think it's also cuz Ivory is older and his career is cemented no matter what he does. A younger filmmaker would not risk going against the powers-that-be to trash their own film.

Speaking of Ivory, I had re-watched the Merchant/Ivory production of "Maurice" right after "Call Me By Your Name" and if you compare the 2 films you can really see that the actors in CMBYN are not physical with each other. "Maurice" has 2-3 kissing scenes, and even a scene with the 2 leads naked giving a full frontal view! I mean, those guys committed to that role. There's a full frontal shot in "God's Own Country" as well, but that's contemporary. "Maurice" was made in 1987 -- 35 years ago! -- so imagine how daring it was to do a full frontal gay sex scene back then.

Yes, both those kids know how to act. In fact, I often forget the show was even Thai because we never get great acting from Thai BL's. It also had great cinematography and gorgeous scenes on the beach. I still recall that lovely kiss under water. Nice. We never got things like that from Thailand again. But it's as you once observed, a different, better studio did them. GMMTV has now swallowed Thailand's BL industry and that's a freaking cash register.

Oh, speaking of Thai BL's, I had never seen Grey Rainbow so I tried it today cuz it's on your list. I read the comments and, thus, knew the end was going have a death. I had seen a death handled pretty well in MODC, where it was a car accident and we saw the bereaved partner carrying on. But nothing prepared me for how funny the death in Grey Rainbow would be.

The groom literally "dropped" to the ground as in "dropped dead," on his freaking wedding day! It was inadvertent black comedy at its finest! How could they write and direct such a scene without knowing it would make people laugh? It was a lovely show at the start, but man that ending. And it wasn't enough to have a groom drop dead at his own wedding. Nope, they also had Porsche's female BFF turn out to be a figment of his imagination. What, is he schizophrenic? Because nobody his age talks to an imaginary person for years on end unless it's clinical schizophrenia. The show just went bonkers, boffo nuts in the final 15 minutes.

Wow, I need to give it another try based on your passion for this show. I also don't need a character to be perfect to embrace them. In the first season of MBM Kiyoi is a total douche to Hira, but I rode with the show anyway. In "The Pornographer" the writer is a horrid liar and wounds the students feelings multiple times, but I like him. It was something about Teh I just found off putting while there was nothing to counterbalance it. There is a certain psychology to either liking or disliking someone, and wanting or not wanting to see more of them, and much of it is irrational instinct. Once cannot talk oneself into liking a person whom they don't, but I can give the show another try based on all the other attributes you've mentioned. As I'd said before, I have seen ITSAY twice, so the show itself is good. And I've seen IPYTM once. But I may watch both together again.

The director and Ivory were both upset, but Ivory was more upset because he'd written the scene that got cut. You can find an article about this in The Guardian. Ivory said he had done a reading of the script with the 2 actors where they both saw the scene of intimacy and said they were fine with it. But after getting hired, they each said, no, our contracts stipulate that we don't do same sex scenes. Ivory said he thought they were "uptight" and "so American." But I don't think it was fair to make fun of them being American, cuz plenty of Americans have done great same sex love scenes.

That's right, "His" had that terrific scene of the village elders all accepting the gay couple. Alas, "The Third Country" depicted rural villagers destroying a gay couple. Of course, that was made in China, so it was more about homophobia all over China, not just in rural villages.