Yourfavaquarius

I’m honestly kind of disappointed with how they handled Babe’s second assault. In Season 1, they at least acknowledged what happened to him with Way Babe even got to voice his feelings about the whole thing. But in this episode, the scene in the sauna was deeply triggering and then it was brushed aside like it was just part of the plot progression. That’s rough, especially considering how traumatic it must have been for him, especially after already surviving a previous attempted rape.

Now, what happened to Babe in the sauna was horrible, full stop. But we also can’t excuse the way he handled things just because it turned out "badly" (for lack of better words). He still lied to Charlie and snuck out behind his back, and that’s a breach of trust. We have to remember that Charlie didn’t know what happened in the sauna was assault. And even if he did know, he’d still be allowed to be upset about being lied to. Those two things can be true at the same time: Babe was a victim, and Charlie is still allowed to feel betrayed by the secrecy.

As for Charlie’s so-called hypocrisy I don’t fully agree. Yes, he faked his death, and it devastated Babe, but he acknowledged how much damage that caused. He took responsibility, and Babe forgave him. The whole point of working through that was so they could learn from it and move forward. Communication is key so when Babe repeats the very same thing that hurt him and that they were supposed to be past: hiding things and not trusting Charlie with the truth, of course he still has a right to be upset about it and that is not hypocrisy. That’s the part that’s frustrating. You can’t say you’ve grown as a couple and then fall into the same trap again.

And omg, I swear, back in Season 1 I thought North and Sonic would be the easiest couple to come together. I really thought they’d be smooth sailing… but nope. Sonic saying he's in the friendzone like...honey, you walked in there yourself and locked the door behind you. If you want the cookie, don’t just stare at it, buy the damn cookie!! 😂

SIDE NOTE: Me tooooo! I’ve been patiently waiting for Kenta and Kim to give us more than just crumbs. I’m so ready for their story!! Gimme the romance, already!

Omg ! That moment actually pissed me off. Like if it was a problem that Charlie wasn’t paying attention to him, Babe should’ve brought it up before, not blurt it out mid-argument that wasn’t even about that. It just felt like he was using it to justify his behavior in the moment. And I know he didn’t intend to cheat and genuinely wanted answers, but it still gave me that same vibe as when people say, “I cheated because you didn’t pay attention to me.”

And mind you, at that point, Charlie still wasn’t even sure what Babe was trying to do or what his intentions were, so the whole thing felt manipulative. I just hate that kind of dynamic when someone clearly messes up, but somehow turns it into your fault. Like no, you crossed a line. Own it.

Yes, exactly. It’s not about attacking the genre , it’s about being honest about the patterns we’re seeing and the way certain tropes keep getting normalized under the guise of fantasy or romance. And you're absolutely right: we do need to stop minimizing these storylines just because people enjoy them or don’t want their buzz killed. Enjoying something doesn't mean we have to ignore the harmful elements it might contain.

There’s this strange belief that mutual desire and clear consent somehow ruin the tension or excitement in these stories that open communication is “boring,” while assault is “passionate” or “intense.” That narrative isn’t just outdated it’s dangerous. Especially when it's paired with the idea that it’s “different” or “less harmful” because it’s between two men. It’s not.

That double standard only reinforces the false notion that men can’t be victims or that male-male assault isn’t as serious. And it ends up romanticizing dynamics that would most likely not be acceptable if the genders were different. If we wouldn’t call it love in a heterosexual story, why do we tolerate it here?

Consent isn’t boring. Mutual desire isn’t dull. It can be just as charged, messy, complicated, and emotionally gripping without relying on coercion or violence. And acknowledging that doesn’t mean we can’t still enjoy complex or dark stories. It just means we stop pretending abuse is romance.

Exactly!! It could have been so interesting if they had actually leaned into how dark and complex it really is, instead of romanticizing it. I remember reading a manhwa once about a boxer and his physical therapist. The therapist was struggling financially because his grandma was in the hospital, and at one point, the boxer literally raped him. The therapist clearly said “stop” or “slow down,” but the boxer ignored him. You could feel the power imbalance and the tension. At first, I thought we were about to dive deep into their psyches, explore the trauma, manipulation, and fallout and I was genuinely intrigued.

But then I found out that the author was sexualizing the whole thing. She knew it was rape (I think she even called it that), but still framed it like twisted foreplay, as if it was romantic or somehow justified. I was so disgusted I couldn’t even finish it.

That’s the real issue it’s not that you can’t tell disturbing or morally grey stories. I loved Killing Stalking because it was clear from the start that it was a psychological thriller, not a romance. It wasn’t pretending to be something else. The author even said that I think. The problem is when stories blur the line so much that audiences stop recognizing abuse for what it is.

A story told from the victim’s POV, where they themselves try to justify or romanticize what happened because they don’t know how else to cope that would be so powerful. It would be heartbreaking, thought-provoking, and incredibly real.

But when writers frame abuse as love, it does real harm. You can absolutely write dark, intense, gritty stories. Just don’t package abuse as romance. Let it be what it is and trust the audience to handle the truth.

Yes I was ! I personally loved both seasons <3 Honestly I love that we got to focus on Louis in season 2 and enter his psyche and that we will do the same for Lestat in season 3 I am soooo ready for rockstar Lestat<33

Exactly. The sad reality is that most men don’t report crimes committed against them especially when it comes to sexual violence because of shame, fear of not being believed, or internalized ideas that they should “tough it out.” Society often tells men that being a victim makes them weak, so they stay silent. And that’s probably part of what was going on with Chain too. He went through something horrific, and when his sister asked him to report it, he froze. That silence is realistic in a way it reflects how trauma messes with your sense of reality and how deeply male victims struggle to even name what happened to them when it comes to rape.
But then the show adds this confusing layer where the flashbacks of abuse are almost romanticized like they’re not just signs of trauma, but the start of some twisted love story. Flashbacks can absolutely be used to show that someone is still hurting. But when the music swells or the visuals soften, it sends mixed signals. It makes viewers question whether what they saw was abuse or just “complicated passion” and that’s how harm gets normalized.
So yeah, I totally get your frustration. It was a crime. He was kidnapped, tortured, and raped. But because it’s framed the way it is, it muddies the waters, and people end up reading it as romance instead of what it really is : trauma.

Exactly! The thing is, people will bend over backwards to justify their favorite character’s actions no matter how clearly wrong they are !! When they really don’t need to. It’s totally fine to like flawed, even terrible characters. You don’t have to rewrite reality to enjoy fiction.
Like… I don’t know if you’ve seen Hannibal, but nearly every character in that show is deeply messed up. Hannibal especially I mean that motherfucker literally eats people and I still love him hahaha. I’m not trying to excuse what he does. I know it’s wrong. He’s not exactly a good person. And that’s okay. We’re allowed to be drawn to complex, twisted, or morally grey characters. We can even relate to parts of them. That doesn’t mean we have to lie to ourselves or others about what they’ve done.
I think some people feel guilty for liking a character like Vegas, or for relating to him, so they twist the narrative to make his actions seem less harmful and they try to reframe the abuse as something romantic or justified to make it sit better. But that just ends up excusing abuse and distorting the story. You can like the character and still acknowledge the abuse for what it is. Being honest about that doesn’t ruin the story it actually makes it richer.
Same with Interview with the Vampire , I loved Lestat and Louis’s relationship in season 1, but I also know it was toxic as hell. I love both their characters and they are toxic, I’m not going to pretend they were healthy or “nice” people. We don’t need to justify every horrible action to love a character or enjoy a story.

It’s honestly such a relief to see more people speaking out and recognizing how harmful it is when abuse gets romanticized especially in BLs, where certain tropes cross serious lines but still get packaged as “passion.” When I first got into it, so many people acted like it was normal or okay. I even caught myself thinking it was fine sometimes because it’s often framed in a way that hides how serious it really is.
What happened to Chain, to Pete… it’s not just uncomfortable , it’s disturbing. But because they’re men, people often see it differently. There’s this harmful idea that men can’t be victims or that if they’re strong, they could have stopped it. And if the abuser is attractive, people tend to minimize the harm, as if beauty somehow erases abuse. That mindset not only erases what actually happened in these stories it also hurts men in real life who have experienced rape or coercion and are afraid they won’t be believed.
Sometimes we don’t call it what it is because it’s framed in a way that looks sexy or romantic but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still rape. And while it’s okay for fiction to explore dark themes and complex dynamics, we need to be honest about what we’re seeing. Just because someone stops resisting or kisses back under pressure that doesn’t mean they gave real consent.
Liking a morally grey character or a messy storyline is one thing. But romanticizing abuse, especially without acknowledging the trauma behind it , is dangerous.
So thank you for saying this out loud. It really does make a difference when more people are willing to speak up and name things for what they are. 🙏

Yes, exactly! Thank you for bringing this up. A lot of people still think rape only "counts" if it's physically violent or if the victim is unconscious but that’s a very narrow and outdated view.
Legally and psychologically, rape isn’t just about physical force. It’s about lack of freely given, enthusiastic, and informed consent. And you're right ,there are different types or degrees of rape, depending on the circumstances. To break it down simply , there are three commonly recognized types of rape based on the method of coercion (it varies depending on the country tho ) :
First-degree rape involves forcible compulsion or a victim who is physically helpless.
Second-degree involves age (e.g., statutory rape).
Third-degree involves lack of consent without force (e.g., coercion, manipulation, or incapacity to consent).
The VegasPete situation clearly falls under this third type. Pete was emotionally broken down, isolated, and literally tortured. He wasn’t really free to leave, and his “compliance” was driven by manipulation not real consent. It's similar to real-world examples like someone agreeing to sleep with their boss because they're afraid of losing their job not because they actually want to.
So yes, even if it wasn’t "forcible" in the classic sense, it was still rape, because Pete’s ability to genuinely consent was taken away by the extreme psychological and physical coercion he was under.
These situations are complex, but it's important that we understand that consent isn’t just about what someone does it’s about the freedom they have to make that choice without fear, pressure, or manipulation.

Hey! You’re right that Vegas didn’t physically force Pete in a typical way, and that Pete tried to run away multiple times. But I suspect Pete developed Stockholm Syndrome, which helps explain why he stayed and eventually cooperated despite everything.
Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response where someone who’s been abused or held captive starts to form emotional bonds or sympathy toward their abuser. It’s a survival mechanism when a person feels trapped and threatened, their brain sometimes creates complicated feelings to help them cope with the trauma.
Think of it like a battered wife who defends her abusive husband by saying things like: “He didn’t mean to,” “He promised it wouldn’t happen again,” “He loves me,” or “He was abused by his dad.” These are psychological shields , ways of protecting oneself from fully facing the painful reality. Similarly, in KinnPorsche, some fans and even Pete himself try to excuse Vegas’s behavior by saying he was abused by his father.
But the thing is Vegas isn’t hurting his father. He’s hurting others. If we excuse that just because he was abused, then where do we draw the line? Do we excuse Jeffrey Dahmer or any other serial killer or rapist who had a traumatic past? Trauma may explain behavior, but it doesn’t excuse it.
Victims who are held captive for long periods often try to make sense of their situation by finding reasons or even justifying the abuser’s actions because that’s emotionally easier to live with than constant fear. (You can read more about this dynamic in the study it’s really interesting : Cognitive Distortions and Coping Strategies: Stockholm Syndrome among Victims of Assault in Ivory Coast | European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences )
A real-life example of this is Patty Hearst, who was kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army in 1974. During her captivity, she formed a bond with her kidnappers and even took part in a bank robbery with them. Her case is often used to explain how Stockholm Syndrome can affect judgment, identity, and agency.
Also, it’s important to recognize that this kind of situation where “consent” is given under pressure, fear, or manipulation is one of the most misunderstood types of sexual assault, even by the victims themselves. Because the victim may appear to “agree” or even defend the abuser, many people don’t recognize it as rape but legally and ethically, it absolutely is.
For another real-life example: imagine someone is kidnapped and held hostage for weeks. They “agree” to sex not because they want to, but because they know resisting could get them hurt or killed. That’s not real consent. Elizabeth Smart’s kidnapping is a perfect case she was held for nine months, forced to live with and “marry” her abductor. Her “compliance” came from fear and control, not free will.
So, even though Pete’s case is fictional and emotionally complex, and even though he might have feelings for Vegas later on, what happened was still coercion. It qualifies as rape and abuse no matter how the characters or fans try to justify it.
Hope this helps bring some clarity. 😊

I really appreciate the way you’re approaching this. You're right that harmful depictions of sexual assault and romanticized abuse exist across many genres, including straight romances. That’s a widespread issue across the media industry.

But we can’t pretend it’s the same everywhere. The truth is, we see this kind of thing far more often and more blatantly in BLs. That doesn’t mean every BL series is problematic (and yes, Tokyo in April is… is a great example of how it can be handled responsibly), but it does mean the genre has developed a pattern of normalizing or even romanticizing sexual violence under labels like “enemies to lovers,” “passion,” or even just a “misunderstanding.”

And it’s not only about how these stories are written it’s also about how they’re received. The way fans sometimes defend or even celebrate scenes of assault as “hot,” “intense,” or “romantic tension” is really concerning. It’s become so normalized that even clear-cut rape is often reframed as confusion or attraction, instead of what it actually is.

Regarding the “fiction” disclaimer , I understand that fiction isn’t real life. But fiction shapes how people understand things like love, desire, boundaries, and consent. When certain narratives go unchallenged, they absolutely affect how people think and behave in real life. A viewer discretion warning doesn’t erase the impact of the story.

And honestly even if there is a disclaimer, and even if it is fictional, it’s exhausting that so much LGBTQ+ media still centers these toxic dynamics so often. Queer people deserve more non-toxic stories too. It would be good to see same-sex sexual violence taken seriously, because it rarely is. And that’s not even touching the issue of how rape against men is treated but that’s a whole other conversation.

So yes, the problem exists across genres but it’s especially frequent and under-critiqued in BL. And that’s why we need to keep naming it, even in fiction.

I understand you're trying to make sense of a complex scene, but honestly, I'm exhausted by the constant need to find excuses , soften or justificaticate rape. What happened between Jorn and Chain was not confusing or ambiguous. It was s3xual assault , plain and simple.
You mentioned that Chain appeared to come on to Jorn, and yes, that part is true. But context is everything.They were in the shower. He had just asked Jorn to untie him so he could shower. Jorn refused, saying something like, "You think I’m stupid ? You just want to escape."
So what did Chain do? He told Jorn to take his pants off for him and tried to seduce him when he saw an opening, yes but not because he wanted sex. He was trying to survive. That was a survival tactic. Chain was likely trying to manipulate the situation to gain some power back, maybe hoping Jorn would untie him. That is not consent.That is not seduction. It’s survival. It’s manipulation born from desperation.
And then, right before the rape, Jorn said: "Quit crying. If you don’t, I’ll make you stop crying myself." That is a direct threat , followed by sexual violence. He knew exactly what he was doing. Chain was sick, emotionally vulnerable, physically weaker, and totally under Jorn’s control. He is in uni , he is old enough to know the difference between consensual sex and r*pe.Even if Jorn thought Chain was flirting that does not justify or excuse what followed.
This idea that a victim “gave mixed signals” is a dangerous and familiar argument that many real-life r*pe apologist use . “She kissed me first.” “He said he liked me.” “She confused him.” “She was dressed provocatively,” “She said she liked him.” None of that matters unless there is clear, informed, and uncoerced consent. And Chain could not give that.
Even if the scene had gone differently , even if Chain had initiated a kiss or even asked for sex it still would have been r*pe because he was not in a position to consent. That’s the core issue people keep ignoring.
Also, I get the point about subtitles but the emotions, body language, and Jorn’s line alone make it painfully clear what was happening. This wasn’t a miscommunication. It wasn’t an emotionally complex moment. It was r*pe.
We need to stop finding ways to soften or romanticize s3xual assault just because it’s between two men, or because it’s fictional. R*pe is r*pe, no matter who it happens to, and no matter what genre it’s in.

Please on tiktok it's even worse people are calling it ennemies to lovers

I seriously need to talk about how rape is being glamorized in the BL world because it's happening way too often and it’s beyond disturbing.
The scene between Jorn and Chain wasn’t f*cking s3x. It was r*pe and it's incredibly upsetting to see people romanticizing it like it’s some enemies-to-lovers moment. Chain was sick, restrained, and clearly incapacitated. There was no possibility of consent. Yet somehow, people are still shipping them ?
I understand if sometimes it’s confusing.Take VegasPete for example (which was also r*pe, by the way). There were blurred lines and emotional manipulation, sure, and I understand how that can confuse viewers. But here, there is no ambiguity. Chain was literally chained to the bed incapacitated , and people are acting like it was some kind of twisted love story.
Let’s be real , if this was a straight couple the outrage would be immediate. Producers wouldn’t even dare to frame it as romantic. But somehow, because it's between two men, people ignore the violation and treat it like a hot scene? That’s so messed up.
And yes, I get that this is fiction. The issue isn’t the story existing, it's people calling it something it’s not. This wasn’t a steamy hookup. It wasn’t about passion or unresolved tension. It was r*pe.
I literally cried watching that scene. And to see Jorn kiss Chain’s shoulder afterward like they were lovers? That’s not romantic. That’s disgusting.
People really need to stop romanticizing s3xual assault, regardless of gender. R*pe is r*pe. It doesn’t matter if the victim is a man or if the attacker is “hot” or “in love.” If someone is incapacitated, unable to consent, or if consent is not freely given, it is rape period.
I can’t believe I still have to say this in 2025.

me tooooo!!!!

I did but thank you for telling me <3

I was crying pls I just wanted it to be over 😭 (btw love the Kubz Scout gif)

Lol I did afterwards but if I had known I would've waited for season 2 I just can't with open endings

Wise choice wish I had done the same 😭

Okay, I hadn’t watched the real ending yet, so there’s still hope… but I would’ve waited for Season 2. What if there isn’t a second season ? 😭 I would be stuck withthis ending 😭 I’m still suffering—I just wanted a happy ending. Why must it be so complicated?! 💔😭