RainbowMarshmallows

Downplaying or removing the BL elements amounts to a heteronormative censorship that reinforces societal bias against non-straight relationships. True representation involves more than the barest hints of non-heterosexuality

Profit is the primary motivation for these mainstream producers. They would've been better off adapting a non-BL work, leaving the BL novel's potential for true representation in the hands of the producers willing to fully embrace and honor its themes

"... but more like your have fetish about it"

Fighting against homophobic censorship is motivated by ... a fetish? Would you assume that anyone who opposes a ban on e.g. chocolate is motivated by a desire or fetish to stuff their face with chocolate, and not by a belief in freedom of choice or the rights of cocoa farmers? Your wild leaps of logic could rival the most absurd conspiracy theories

The fight against this censorship is motivated by a belief in the freedom of choice to access and consume uncensored BLs. Censoring BLs takes away the ability of the audience to make informed decisions about what they watch

Censorship is no knight in shining armor that magically fixes "bad" representation. It's a lazy housekeeper who, upon encountering a mess, instead of rolling up their sleeves and tidying it up, takes the easy route and hides it. The mess is there, brewing beneath the surface, waiting to be discovered. That's the thing with censorship. It doesn't "fix," it creates the illusion that it has

"It better be good representation than nothing at all"

Uncensored BLs are better than nothing at all. They disrupt societal taboos by depicting same-sex intimacy as a natural, healthy part of a romantic relationship. They aren't "bad" representation. Censored BLs/bromances tiptoe carefully around heteronormative expectations. They are comfortably stagnant, unable to surpass or match the transformative potential of their uncensored counterparts. I don't believe they are "better" than uncensored BLs

"The author of it novel have no problem with it so why does you?"

The author is okay with censorship, why should everyone else be okay with it? What if the same author eats moldy bread and doesn't mind? Will you, too? Or will you pass on the food poisoning?

Do you not have the autonomy of thought that you rely on the author as a crutch? Blind adherence to the author's opinions undermines the value of independent reasoning and critical thinking. Question, think for yourselves

We should hold creators and producers accountable for the stories they're telling. We can't accept whatever they put out there without questioning whether it's accurate, respectful, and meaningful

"You can be yourself, in a way that doesn't make me or the majority uncomfortable" isn't equality or meaningful representation, it's tokenism. Tokenism doesn't do anyone favors, and doesn't count as "better than nothing"

"There is no end to this dark well"

Indeed, the censorship of gay characters on TV is the first crack in the façade of a once-prosperous society. What follows is the merciless smothering of all the diverse voices that graced one's culture

I thank you for your willingness to share your experiences with me

You speak with the wisdom of a soothsayer, forewarning of the slippery slope of homophobic censorship that, embarked upon, is an uphill battle to undo. Your words carry the power to move mountains of injustice. They add a depth of knowledge to my existing knowledge of Islamic governments that can't be gleaned from textbooks or news reports alone

Did you have a stroke in the middle of typing your comments?

"You're not doing enough at the shelters then if you still have time for this"

My time management skills are on point and I have time to do both

You insist that I exhaust myself to the point of delirium. Are you sure you're not secretly working for the shelters? You seem to be keen on recruiting volunteers

"Dumppeople agenda"

This has me in stitches. Seriously, if my "uselessness" is the source of your amusement, then I'm glad to be of service. My comedy career is taking off

"Willynilly"

Censoring gay content isn't a random act. It's pretty damning evidence of the homophobia that exists in society. People have the audacity to pretend gay people don't exist. Producers are catering to this audacity, running a "Homophobia-R-Us" store and treating homophobia like it's a product to be sold

I'm not "wasting time inspecting shows," I'm curating a socially-conscious drama buffet. And I do it while volunteering at shelters, thank you very much

"Keyboard warriors"

I might be typing away, but I'm not "sacrificing absolutely nothing at all." I'm sacrificing my sanity reading your nonsensical rants and word salads!

5 minutes of complaining online is 5 minutes more than you're doing to promote gay rights and equality

In conclusion, I'm doing my part to promote positive change IRL and online

Pointing out homophobia isn't a commentary on someone's ethnicity or heritage to be racist, it's a commentary on their actions

"You expect someone to refuse a deal from a bigger company"

Yes, it's called integrity. I know it's too noble for ya

"... literal words on paper"

Words carry the power to shape society’s beliefs and attitudes. If they didn't matter, there would be no need for censorship. As such, creators have a responsibility to consider the messages they put out into society

Censoring gay content sends the homophobic message that gay people and their stories aren't worthy of being represented or seen. The author made a decision to censor their work based on the potential financial gain (or loss) that comes from including (or excluding) this content. It's the essence of capitalism at work, and I’m not being offensive by stating the obvious that it’s a capitalist, homophobic decision

We live in a capitalist society. Capitalism encourages people to engage in immoral or harmful behavior in the pursuit of wealth and survival. For example, someone might be willing to run over someone else with their car for money that could be used to provide for their family and "buy more clothes and blankets." This author is no exception. Their decision to censor a gay work runs over said work and the struggles of the gay community in the pursuit of wealth and survival

I understand the reason, but I don't believe that the need for money excuses the moral wrongdoing of censoring gay content

Thank you for being open to the conversation and willing to hear my side of things

I'm not watching the drama to stand in solidarity with the community. I understand that you might want to watch it, and in that case, don't worry. There are ways to engage with the content without financially supporting it, you might be able to consider exploring those options

"The writer doesn't owe anyone anything "

And we don't owe them or this drama our support. It's "within our rights legally" to criticize them

Marginalized groups shouldn't have to carry the burden of creating their own representations. It's not fair or reasonable to expect them to do all the work when mainstream society has the power and resources to be inclusive

"Go make your own movie, TV show, book, whatever." That's not how society works

Producers censor gay characters and stories for money, what's next? Are they going to start editing out (strong) female characters for Muslim audiences, or rewrite history for the Russian market? Where does it end?

We're not asking for special treatment or "more considerations," we're asking for basic human decency and respect for gay people's stories

We're asking you to not be a money-hungry, cold-hearted capitalist drone. The producers wanted to cater to homophobes and make money, they could have adapted one of the countless non-queer stories out there. But no, they decided to take a story that was specifically about gay characters and their struggles. It's plain disrespectful to the community, and nothing that comes out of your mouths (or fingers) will change it. You can't paint a pig and call it a puppy

Why are you making a big deal out of us making a big deal?

"It's not like it's happening for the first time"

It's happened before, society has repeated the same mistakes over and over again. We should be the generation that learns from history and calls out homophobic censorship when we see it, not the generation that keeps repeating it and does nothing to stop it

As the old saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me thrice, shame on society!"

"It's their freedom to decide how they want their work to be"

Sure, and it's our freedom to call them out for it. I didn't promise I'll support their decision

"Are you stupid don't you have even a little amount of consciousness in your head"

That's my line. You need to check your heads for consciousness

The author took the tragic story of Yi Heon, a gay person bullied and silenced for his sexuality, and silenced him for a second time by erasing his identity and experiences from the story

I feel terrible for the Yi Heon in the novel

What, you can't have opinions about a work unless you're a creator yourself?

Throw out your opinions on movies, music, books ... No more liking or disliking anything ... unless you have some kind of art cred ... Ridiculous!

"Entitlement"

Are you entitled to tell me I'm not entitled to something? Why? Why aren't I entitled to tell creators they aren't entitled to censorship?

Censoring a queer work because it doesn't fit with your or society's narrow-minded, homophobic views, that's entitled. We're not "entitled" for wanting the non-censored version of the work. We want to experience the creator's vision

If someone served you ice cream, and decided to scoop out the caramel and sprinkles before giving it to you, it’s not entitled to say, "I like caramel and sprinkles, can I please have the whole thing?" That's wanting the whole experience!

"My work is mine and I can do whatever I want with it" is a narcissistic take and a weak excuse for a creator who doesn't take responsibility for the effect their censored work has on society. The creator is acting like a bratty kid, they don't play with the other kids and share their toys. Instead, they’re hoarding the fun for themselves

Creators don’t exist in a vacuum, they are a part of society, and with it comes a level of social responsibility. Censorship contributes to the erasure and silencing of gay stories and people. It's a responsibility to not censor a queer work to respect the audience’s experiences and diversity

Once you create something, it's no longer just yours. You have a responsibility to your creation and owe it to that creation to respect it

An author that censors their queer creation is saying to that creation, "you're not good enough." They are compromising the beauty and truth of their creation to fit in with society's narrow-minded, homophobic views on relationships. For some cash. Not cool, man. Not cool

This censorship is a form of artistic betrayal. It's disrespectful to the creation and to the people who would've appreciated the creation for what it was

The author had the freedom to make their decision, we have the freedom to criticize that decision. Freedom goes both ways

Doesn't the 40+-year-old Gangster's soul leave Yi Heon's body? What I remember (that Yi Heon's soul returned) is different from your recollection of the ending

I agree with your sentiments. The novel explored the devastating effects that homophobia has on the mental well-being of gay people. It sent the message that society is collectively contributing to the tragic rates of suicide in the community (it's true). Censoring this critical message is inexcusable

The re-writing of attraction as "stalking" in the adaptation distorts the message, implying that gay people’s sexuality is predatory and something to be feared. It casts gay people as a threat to others, rather than as individuals with a normal range of feelings and desires. I'd say the producers should hide their faces in shame

Thank you for sharing your insights and for helping to create a space for respectful dialogue. It’s refreshing to see the discussion approached with such a thoughtful and civil tone

A definition of homophobia that excludes subtle forms of discrimination is incomplete and limiting

Homophobia isn't just outright discrimination against gay people. It can manifest in subtle ways, like discomfort with gay people and relationships

Someone who's uncomfortable with gay people would be less likely to hire or promote them, and they would be more likely to support policies that discriminate against them. We see that here, OP and some other fans of this drama support censorship practices that discriminate against and limit the visibility of gay stories in media

Gay content is no more "forced" than straight content. There are numerous shows/dramas/movies that included explicit, gratuitous scenes between men and women. "Shame" (2012), "Nymphomaniac" (2013), "Gone Girl" (2014), "Fifty Shades of Grey" (2015, 2017), "Game of Thrones" (2011-2019), "Outlander" (2014-2024), "Money Heist" (2017–2021), "Squid Game" (2021), "My Name" (2021), "Connect" (2022), "The Glory" (2022), "Hit the Spot" (2022), etc. "Fair Play" (2023) opened with an oral during which the protagonist gets her period

Are you annoyed? Did you start hating straight identifying people?

"... but they at least hinted towards it"

Gay relationships shouldn't be relegated to subtext or hinted at. The goal is to present them in the same way that straight ones are presented, with the same level of openness

We're not asking for a gay porno, we're asking for a heartwarming story of two boys admitting their feelings for each other, maybe a date at the end. It's not too much to ask

"... and the hate against gay people starts again"

The "hate" didn't start, it's always been there. One gust of rainbow flags and people collapse into a puddle of homophobia and show their true, ugly colors

"... and we have more homophobes to hate"

Do you think you're not one of the homophobes we have to hate? With that talk about gay content being “shoved down your throat," you sound like one of them, no offense

The novel is a BL

People don't ask about tops and bottoms in straight stories, because the roles are already pre-packaged and presented to them on a silver platter. The man is the "top" and the woman is the "bottom"

Gay relationships are a different ball game. The men can top and bottom. They have the flexibility to switch it up, be versatile, keep things fresh

I believe that the people asking who's the top and who's the bottom aren't being "creepy fetishizers," they're trying to understand a new dynamic that's not explored in mainstream media

Gay people and couples skate on thin ice, it's sad, isn't it? They deserve to be able to relax and be themselves. To love who they love without being held to a different standard

"You can't be mad about the cake (small gay romance) being taken away (censored). It was just a small slice (a few minutes) anyway." Well, yeah, but it was a delicious slice of cake

We'll be outraged. We wanted to see that small slice of gay romance on our plates, and we won't settle for anything less