RainbowMarshmallows

This is a "bromance"

The problem with a censored, "bros"-ified adaptation is that it erases the nuances and complexities of gay relationships. You can't rely on chemistry alone to tell a gay story. You need to give the characters a chance to explore and express their feelings in a way that's authentic and true to their experiences

Progress can be made

The potential financial benefits of censoring a story should be weighed against the moral implications of silencing marginalized voices. Taking a stand against homophobic censorship and advocating for inclusive storytelling will increase support from audiences and investors who value diversity. It'd have been a step in raising awareness among the general population

This drama is doing a disservice to the community and missing out on the potential to be a groundbreaking, culturally significant piece of media

Less is more. Cheap BLs with less-than-stellar production values are the scrappy underdogs of the entertainment world. They might not have the glitz and glamor of mainstream media, but they make up for it with their refreshingly courageous, honest, raw depictions of gay relationships. They've got heart, and I'll take them over a "don't worry, guys, no homo" adaptation any day

I don't have a "responsibility" to forgive and forget. And I don't owe you or others anything

There's no magical transformation at midnight on one's birthday

The concept of legal adulthood is based on the idea that, on average, most people have reached a sufficient level of maturity and decision-making capacity by a certain age to take on adult responsibilities (voting, drinking, signing contracts, etc). It's designated as the legal age of majority, and it's generally around 18 to 21

A 17-year-old hasn't reached the level of maturity and decision-making capacity to "consent" to sleeping with a 40-year-old. The low age of consent (16) fails to protect teenagers from abusive relationships with older adults. It should be raised to 18 or 20

There are immature adults and mature teenagers, but laws need to be general and applicable to the entire population. The age of majority is the line in the sand that protects minors from exploitation, abuse, and manipulation. Without this protection, there would be fewer safeguards to prevent minors from being taken advantage of by adults

People mostly comment about the romance between Se Kyung and real Yi Heon, we know Deuk Pal's soul disappeared in the novel

I didn't see the relationship between Se Kyung and Deuk Pal as romantic

According to the novel, the real Yi Heon and Se Kyung end up together, suggesting that their love is genuine

You have a different interpretation, and that's okay. Goblin, with its creepy 900+ year age gap, is widely popular. Why would I invalidate your interpretation for the age gap?

Se Kyung had the feeling that the person inhabiting Yi Heon’s body wasn't the same person he had a crush on. The Gangster’s soul was a temporary presence in Yi Heon’s body

Yes, Se Kyung had a crush on Yi Heon (the gay bullied boy in school) before Gangster’s soul entered Yi Heon's body. After Yi Heon’s return to his body, he and Se Kyung were able to date and develop their romance

The Gangster didn't have feelings for Se Kyung, and Se Kyung didn't have feelings for the Gangster

It's not fair or okay to censor gay works and deprive others of what they might've enjoyed because it doesn't align with your personal preferences

I certainly am not glad for the censorship, it ruined my enjoyment of the drama, and I can't bring myself to watch the rest of it

Se Kyung and Yi Heon were endgame, there was nothing "romantic" between Se Kyung and Deuk Pal. Se Kyung knew the person in Yi Heon's body wasn't Yi Heon and waited for Yi Heon to return to his body

It was Se Kyung and Yi Heon

It wasn't a "creepy age gap romance." The romance was between the two high school boys

Yi Heon returned to his body and lived happily ever after with Se Kyung

Legal adulthood matters. An adult of 40 years of age is held to a higher standard of maturity and responsibility than a minor of 17 years of age. The 40-year-old took advantage of the power imbalance between himself and the minor, and that is sexual assault

"Sex" is a personal act. It involves a level of emotional, mental maturity that 17-18-year-olds don't possess. They'd be prone to making impulsive decisions, succumbing to peer pressure, and engaging in risky behavior

Although enlisting in the military involves handling weapons and engaging in risky behavior, it's highly structured and supervised. This is because an 18-year-old isn't mature enough to handle the responsibilities that come with enlistment. Young people who enlist struggle with PTSD and other mental health issues as a result of the trauma they experience in the military (and I'm against it)

Prostitution isn't supervised. The act of exchanging money for sexual services is a form of exploitation and assault, as girls and women feel pressured to engage in the activity to meet their basic needs or avoid negative consequences. Minors are vulnerable to the exploitation

Kyung Young used a 17-year-old prostitute that might or might not have been controlled by a pimp or other exploitative figure. Sexual assault took place, and Korea didn't acknowledge it. It tells me that the law can't be trusted

@Xiao Qilin, my perspective is that gay elements don't ruin a story

Censoring gay stories to advance your agendas dulls the vibrancy of the content. It's as if you and people like you (the producers) made me turn down the volume on what would've been a great song. I can hear the melody, but the full richness is missing

People can't wrap their small heads around the idea of two men in love

He was charged, tried, and convicted of exploitation of a minor

The 17-year-old had not reached the legal age of adulthood (20) to be mentally or legally capable of "consenting" to selling her body or sleeping with a 40-year-old. This constitutes sexual assault, or, if you prefer, statutory rape and falls under the broader category of sexual crimes

"... just because you SAY you haven't committed crimes, I"m to believe that? Why? I"ll be like you and assume you HAVE committed crimes"

I said, "you're free to form your own opinions about me." Assume what you want. I don't care about other people's assumptions or opinions

You can't erase the past. Someone who paid their debt to society isn't automatically entitled to praise. We're talking about sexual assault/rape, it's a serious crime and the impact lasts for years or a lifetime

Society shrugs off sexual assault against girls and women and blames them for it (what you're doing), leaving a gaping hole in the legal system. There's room for doubt about someone's rehabilitation and innocence

I don't participate in unfounded accusations against someone, and I don't presume their innocence. Instead, I take a neutral stance. He might be guilty of more crimes, or not

"What crimes are YOU committing that we don't know about?"

I've not been charged with or convicted of any crimes. My conduct speaks for itself

If you have concerns, you're free to form your own opinions about me

"All are just shit"

That's how I feel about straight dramas/movies. They make me want to disinfect my eyes with hand sanitizer

It's not the truth

"... so many problematic actors having so many fans ready to defend them at all cost"

Worshipping celebrities isn't a BL thing, it's a universal issue. You're blaming a single car for causing a traffic jam, isn't that toxic of you?

Madness affects all fans (yourself included). Whether you're defending a problematic singer, actor, content creator, gamer, influencer, comedian, or reality TV star with more drama than an entire season of "Game of Thrones," the issue is the same. Fans believe they have a personal connection with the celebrities they follow on social media

"... then there is the shipping culture"

Shipping is a normal and healthy way for fans to express their love for their favorite characters or actors. Who doesn't want to see Captain America and Iron Man in a passionate embrace? It's only logical

I admire the chemistry between two characters or people of the same sex, and sail my fave same-sex pairings out into the great sea of imagination. It's like playing with paper dolls. You can dress them up however you want, make them do whatever you want, and it's in good fun

I draw the line at believing that the paper dolls are alive (the actors or actresses are dating IRL), that's when you'd check yourself into Paper Doll Rehab

"... my point stands. most BL fans are toxic and that's that"

Your point stands as well as a drunk person at a party. It's wobbling and not making sense

You want to talk about toxicity? Take a look in the mirror. Labeling an entire fandom as "toxic" is itself a form of toxicity

Tokenism isn't the path forward. Boycotting dramas/movies that censor gay content is a powerful form of resistance and sends the message to the entertainment industry that the gay community won't support crumbs and queer-baiting in place of representation and equality

I'm not willing to settle for less. You're creating a complacent culture where gay people are asked to "wait their turn" or "be grateful for what they have." We should demand better, hold the entertainment industry to a higher standard, and boycott dramas/movies that fall short of the standard to "push the envelope" and help Korea develop

"And if this one receives positive feedback, guess what? They’re going to keep pushing the envelope"

The opposite will happen

Producers won't be motivated to create gay stories if they see that audiences are willing to settle for watered-down and censored versions. They'll continue to exploit gay stories for profit, and never acknowledge or respect the community

They knew that by censoring this gay story, they would receive positive feedback. They weren't taking a risk by censoring it; they were pandering to homophobes to make a quick profit. Supporting this type of censorship isn't helping the gay people in Korea or "pushing the envelope," it's perpetuating homophobic attitudes in the entertainment industry

"Like I said, that works both ways"

Representing gay relationships in media isn't an infringement on anyone's rights, it's a basic act of respect for gay people and their experiences. Homophobes aren't "forced" to engage with gay stories. They have the choice to not watch or read them

Censorship of gay stories is a violation of the rights of gay people and those of us who value diversity, and equating it with the act of representing gay relationships is gaslighting and victim-blaming at best. It's not "both sides." One side is fighting for basic human rights and respect. The other side is erasing them from existence

Applying your "works both ways" logic, you'd have to accept that straight media is infringing on my rights by existing. I don't want to see a man with a woman or vice versa. It doesn't align with my values and preferences. Are you going to censor all straight media for me?