TheLast

برای تداوم رابطه‌ ی بین دو شخصیت اصلی، 2 ساعت کافی نبود. داستان از نظر روایت ضعف‌ های جدی داشت چون تا قسمت 6 ابراز علاقه برای زوهو و اینسانگ کار پرمشقت و اضطراب‌ آوری بود

داستان هیجان انگیزی بود و اگه زمان بیشتری داشتن، داستان هیجان انگیزتری هم می شد

Even though your unimaginative use of profanity and ad hominem was the effort of a feeble, bitter brain to express itself in the heat of the moment, it sprung from good intentions. It takes an inner gratification in spreading the joy of gay love

Your explanation was fascinating for this discussion. It highlighted the issue of the chronically accessible de-sexualization of gay idols by women, which I agreed with in my previous comment:

"Homophobia may manifest itself differently in fluffy, de-sexualized gay stories. The refusal by the executive organs of sexuality to carry out gay acts, although the men show themselves to be intact and capable of performing the acts, and although a strong inclination to carry out the acts is present, has always raised my eyebrows"

Cheers

"The K-Pop agencies have figured out lots of little girls like to watch cute little boys PRETENDING to be in love and no sex allowed, please. Yuck"

Why the emphasis on "pretending?" The purpose of acting is to pretend. Actors may pretend to be doctors, engineers, presidents, service agents, gangsters, martial artists, openly gay people, etc. Acting asserts what actors do not think true or veridical. It is a socially acceptable form of lying, schizophrenia or deception where the audience dispose of truth, critical thinking and logic for something that is false, unreal or impossible in reality

To develop a coherent account of morality, you would have to treat all acting as closely related, if not equivalent, to pretense. The complete absence of falsehood and reluctance to admit falsehood would inform subsequent conclusions about the nature of acting; namely that "straight" stories are a set of lies agreed upon by the homophobic majority. A boy and a girl, a man and a woman, pretend to be together to entertain girls, boys, women and men of all ages

Do you harbor the same deep feelings of resentment toward "straight" roles that you do toward gay roles? If not, your inconsistent morality implies one thing as well as its negation and tells us nothing about the world. It would be illogical to trust such a morality

Agreed, however, that homophobia may manifest itself differently in fluffy, de-sexualized gay stories. The refusal by the executive organs of sexuality to carry out gay acts, although the men show themselves to be intact and capable of performing the acts, and although a strong inclination to carry out the acts is present, has always raised my eyebrows

"I mean look at his harem of pretty girls and the way he teases them LOL, even his friends pointed out the strange pattern"

Sang Man was the first to call him out on it. He asked him, "are you a pervert?"

Ji Eun (Hee Ah) minimized the quality of my viewing experience. She was a distraction that outlived her usefulness

However important it was to keep a woman with better financial prospects close, Joon Gi (Hee Woo) enticed his mind from subjects of equal importance: his job, family and team members. For him to see Ji Eun (Hee Ah) as more than just a business opportunity to climb the social ladder is to move hither and thither without a fixed course or aim

The "straight" agenda struck down what could have been a noble prosecutor or politician

"Maybe he swings the other way" (episode 15, 09:52)

He should have! Joon Gi (Hee Woo) collected men like Pokémon cards. Do Gyeom (Seung Wan), Sang Hoon (Min Soo), Ji Chan (Sang Man), Kyung Min (Seung Hyuk), Chul Ki (Seok Gyu), Choi Min (Yeon Seok), In Gyu (Min Guk), Young Jo (Seong Ho) and Woo Sung (K) were enchanted by him. Something about him drew their eyes

To fall in love with the same-sex; the only intimate, splendid romance. The intimacy between the men would have taken them unawares and hurled them into each other’s arms

Do Gyeom (Seung Wan): "You will come with me to the meet-and-greet, right [Joon Gi-ya]?"
Sang Hoon (Min Soo): "I don't want to"
Do Gyeom (Seung Wan): "Noone asked. Oh, and we will have to wear a suit [Joon Gi-ya]"
Sang Hoon (Min Soo): "So annoying"
Do Gyeom (Seung Wan): "You said you're not coming. You won't be missed"
Sang Hoon (Min Soo): "How can I not when [what's mine] will come?"
Do Gyeom (Seung Wan): "Who said he's yours?!"
Joon Gi (Hee Woo): ... (episode 2, 43:26)

Sang Hoon (Min Soo): "You're not laughing"
Joon Gi (Hee Woo): "Because you and I see eye to eye"
Sang Hoon (Min Soo): "I knew it, we are meant to be. Will you marry me?" (episode 2, 52:40)

Joon Gi (Hee Woo): "How did you find me?"
Ji Chan (Sang Man): "You didn't think you could hide from me, did you?" (episode 5, 49:31)

Ji Chan (Sang Man): "Can I sleep next to you?"
Joon Gi (Hee Woo): ... (episode 5, 59:56)

Ji Chan (Sang Man): "Isn't this dangerous?"
Joon Gi (Hee Woo): "It won't be. It's me we are talking about"
Ji Chan (Sang Man): "That's sexy! Will you marry me?" (episode 5, 1:03:51)

Joon Gi (Hee Woo): "You're talented, why are you working for me?"
Ji Chan (Sang Man): "Because I like you"
Joon Gi (Hee Woo): 🥺😊❤️ (episode 12, 40:50)

Joon Gi (Hee Woo) was caught in a foursome from the moment he was admitted to law school. Torn between his three suitors, who will he pick? Do Gyeom (Seung Wan), Sang Hoon (Min Soo), Ji Chan (Sang Man) or all three of them? All three of them, of course

Seo Joon (Ki Joon): "What are you doing on Christmas Day?"
Ha Neul (Hee Yeol): "I'm going to an internet café with you"

He wanted to spend the holiday season with his man 🥺

I knew from a young age that "motherhood" was a cage I will never inhabit

I can sympathize with your situation. Say what you feel about your "parents," because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. You have every right to hold them responsible for what they did to you

Childfree people take into their regard considerations concerning future others who would have occupied this overpopulated world after they themselves are gone. They are responsible actors who hold themselves and their "parents" to external oversight

You are incapable of bringing extended considerations into your realm of concern. "Love" and "happiness" clouded your judgement

It's not as bad as you fitting your entire vocabulary into one-sentence drivels

"Idols do not do as they please. They are tightly controlled by their agencies"

Everyone's "choices" are manipulated by the powers that be. The idols were "free" to "choose" what they willed; to advance their careers, play "straight" or BL roles, etc. The agencies did not threaten them to sign their contracts or debut

An ode to celebrate BLs starring Korean idols, what else would it be?

"... love does play an important role. And it's not like you can believe in it as you believe in God. It exists. Period"

What seems obvious to you camouflages deeper questions for others. Such is the state of affairs that fuels the dilemma about the existence of love

You would have to explain what the word "exists" means in the context of love. To a physicist, love exists as an emergent property of a collection of molecules or atoms. To a biologist, love exists as a chemical reaction—a reward system, a subcortical circuit, a localized cortical region (or set of regions), a profile of endocrine, inflammatory, or cardiovascular responses in addition to a diagnostic facial expression and set of behaviors that can be recognized in people, etc

Then, you would have to explain what the word "love" means. Love as a god-given instruction for a successful marriage or a constant, consistent, unconditional enthusiasm does not exist. Love changes or fades with time

We know love exists—that is, subjectively. It's objectively, that it does not exist. Love cannot be measured and does not continue to exist in the absence of a human mind to perceive it (i.e., it's perceiver dependent)

It is in this more objective sense that we say, "love does not exist." These are not idle semantics. They are quandaries that strike right to the heart of how language works

"I'm not sure if I wanna dive further into the series"

Please, do. Lee Jun's fear of love was a reaction to his failed relationships. He learns to love and be loved in later episodes

That explains why he didn't remove the tag. As you said, it's common for people to buy wearable items with the intention of returning them after use. Perhaps, that's what he had the intention of doing

A more professional aquarist happened. This time, the fish were treated with care

I put myself in their shoes and realized that's not "absurd"

Perhaps, he was too embarrassed by the tag to remove it right then and there?

Han Gyeol (Haram)'s love, so generally regarded as offensive and unorthodox, so avowedly opposed to the fashionable vices and prejudices of the modern times, healed Hyun Min (Lee Jun)'s heart

This love painted Hyun Min (Lee Jun)'s cheeks with roses, adding new lustre and intelligence to his eyes; imparting strength and elasticity to his steps, grace and dignity to his mien, courage to his heart, eloquence to his tongue, and poetry to his thought

Hyun Min (Lee Jun) knows what Han Gyeol (Haram) has done to him. He did not close his lips to the man whom he has already opened his heart

He felt a yearning for a kindred heart and linked his "destiny" with some dear one of the same-sex. His lips settled onto the lips of his lover. It was then only that his wants were supplied. What a lovely kiss that was

And I couldn't agree with you more

It's healthy to indulge in an alternate world that offers structure and resolution, rainbows and happy endings, to make up for the heteronormativity, wretchedness and unpredictability of this world

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, my friend

Detailed discussions about the moral status of Haram's behaviors are beyond the scope of this comment section

Much of "love" consists of possessions and unequal conflicts between the haves and the have-nots. When in love, one is more alarmed than irritated to win their beloved. They will redouble their efforts to make themselves more lovable than every other; to possess the beloved as a good, exclusively or pre-eminently. "You're mine." This is a common sign for long-term commitment; a source of pride, obsession, emulation and rivalry

The obsession spurred Haram to intrude on Lee Jun's "personal" space and perimeters with a piercing gaze, fiery oratory and air of mystery. He cannot lose the man he fell in love with, or he would see his loss as another man's gain, such that there is (potentially) a direct transfer of the good from him to his (potential) rival. He has no time to waste. His spontaneity and unpretentiousness may catch us off-guard, but what we caution ourselves to avoid outside fiction can be an impetus to improving the relationships between fictional characters. Perhaps, a part of Lee Jun wants an assertive, feisty man who will go to the ends of the earth for him

Fiction is a much-needed psychological escape. Your tone of scorn or pity with which the word "escape" is used lacks nuance. And you ask for nuance in fiction?

"There are infinite shades of gray between black and white..."

Grey is an intermediate, neutral color between black (absence of light, no color, "straight") and white (presence of light, all colors, gay). Torn between the two opposites, how is the indecisiveness, dullness, tediousness, or lethargy that comes from grey interesting?

I'm more interested in the all-white, all-gay end of the spectrum