You know meaningful glances and silly flirtations accompanied by sound effects between two men is also gay romance.…
You just can’t go without having the last word, can you? Alright, I’ll do you a favor, haha! Write whatever else you want, I’m not going to reply to you again, hopefully that makes you feel better 😁
You know meaningful glances and silly flirtations accompanied by sound effects between two men is also gay romance.…
I don’t care what that person does, I wasn’t even arguing with them in the first place, just stating my view. And the fact that they label a series as homophobic without even having watched it, based on such weak arguments, and completely ignore the dozens of points we made that directly challenge their one dimensional view, just shows how narrow minded they are.
You know meaningful glances and silly flirtations accompanied by sound effects between two men is also gay romance.…
Right, because clearly the only possible interpretation of what I said is that the majority is always right and deeply enlightened. That’s definitely the most sophisticated reading you could have gone with. And of course, bringing up politics is the perfect shortcut when the actual point isn’t convenient to engage with. Very original, very nuanced. As for your “shots,” don’t worry, they didn’t land. They just explained you a bit more than you probably intended.
You know meaningful glances and silly flirtations accompanied by sound effects between two men is also gay romance.…
Please, you’re the last person to talk about taste and discernment. You said it yourself in previous comment, you’re in the minority, thankfully. You just like taking shots at anyone who disagrees with you like a middle schooler, which honestly you might be, I don’t know, without offering any real arguments. At least, luckily for me, I can see the bigger picture and listen to different opinions without mocking and insulting people.
You know meaningful glances and silly flirtations accompanied by sound effects between two men is also gay romance.…
I think I did respond to everything you said, but it seems like you’re the one who doesn’t want to hear other perspectives and is sticking rigidly to your own. The fact that you’re making broad conclusions about shows you haven’t even watched makes you the one who is stubbornly unwilling to consider other viewpoints. Anyway, I think we’ve said enough. Good night, or good morning, whatever it is where you are.
You know meaningful glances and silly flirtations accompanied by sound effects between two men is also gay romance.…
I did read what you wrote, and I get the point you’re trying to make, but I still don’t think the conclusion really holds up. First, the idea that this kind of slow build or delayed physical affection only exists in gay stories isn’t accurate. There are plenty of straight romances, especially in certain industries or markets, where relationships take many episodes to reach even a first kiss. It’s often a matter of tone, audience, censorship rules, or just a preference for slow burn storytelling, not necessarily something rooted in the nature of the relationship itself. Second, I think you’re attributing intent where there isn’t always evidence for it. Saying that these portrayals exist because “gay relationships are seen as too nasty to show openly” is a strong claim, and while that may have been true in some contexts historically, it doesn’t automatically apply to every modern series that uses a softer or more restrained approach. Sometimes it’s just a stylistic choice or a limitation of the production environment, especially in regions where all romance, not just queer romance, is toned down. Also, infantilization would imply that the characters or their relationship are being treated as inherently childish, but light humor, awkwardness, or physical comedy aren’t exclusive to BL or queer storytelling. Those elements show up all the time in straight romcoms too without being interpreted as degrading the relationship itself. And finally, I think it’s a bit unfair to generalize based on a subset of shows, especially if you haven’t watched how a specific story develops. Some series do stay in that “in-between” space, sure, but others do move forward in meaningful ways, just on a different timeline. So I completely understand why that trope doesn’t work for you, but calling it inherently homophobic feels like an overreach to me.
You know meaningful glances and silly flirtations accompanied by sound effects between two men is also gay romance.…
Honestly, I don’t really understand what exactly you find “homophobic.” It’s totally valid and understandable that you don’t like this approach and don’t have the patience for shows with these kinds of tropes, but calling it homophobic just doesn’t make sense. Especially when you haven’t actually watched it, so you can’t really know how the story and characters develop. Unless the word “homophobia” means something else that I’m not aware of, I don’t know what to say. Also, this trope shows up in tons of straight series too, let’s be real, so that’s another reason why your argument doesn’t really add up to me.
How could you read the mtl, I give up after chapter 4 🤣https://futiledevices.blog/chusans-liuyi-childrens-day/This…
I can’t say for sure because the series follows a different timeline from the novel and includes many scenes that either aren’t in the novel or are changed. Based on their relationship, I’d say we’re around chapter 24 out of 111 in total, but the series has also shown things that happen later in the novel. So overall, I’d say it has covered roughly a third of the novel, maybe a bit more, since they definitely can’t include absolutely everything.
Sure, that's a pretty good reason to skip a show... You make a good decision, it's surely not for you, you probably…
Haha! You don’t know what else to say so now you’re calling names? I’m not going to stoop to your level, it’s way too low for me and I’d rather not waste my time any more with your kind. Take care!
Sure, that's a pretty good reason to skip a show... You make a good decision, it's surely not for you, you probably…
For once, you could stop making assumptions just to insult people and try to understand what an example actually means. It was just an EXAMPLE. I could have said skinny or with single eyelids. Do you get it now? Saying no shade after that comment doesn’t make it any less offensive, it’s just common sense. And yes, I loved the show enough to want more people to watch and appreciate it. Stalked me much? Feel free to keep stalking, I don’t mind.
And of course, bringing up politics is the perfect shortcut when the actual point isn’t convenient to engage with. Very original, very nuanced.
As for your “shots,” don’t worry, they didn’t land. They just explained you a bit more than you probably intended.
The fact that you’re making broad conclusions about shows you haven’t even watched makes you the one who is stubbornly unwilling to consider other viewpoints.
Anyway, I think we’ve said enough. Good night, or good morning, whatever it is where you are.
First, the idea that this kind of slow build or delayed physical affection only exists in gay stories isn’t accurate. There are plenty of straight romances, especially in certain industries or markets, where relationships take many episodes to reach even a first kiss. It’s often a matter of tone, audience, censorship rules, or just a preference for slow burn storytelling, not necessarily something rooted in the nature of the relationship itself.
Second, I think you’re attributing intent where there isn’t always evidence for it. Saying that these portrayals exist because “gay relationships are seen as too nasty to show openly” is a strong claim, and while that may have been true in some contexts historically, it doesn’t automatically apply to every modern series that uses a softer or more restrained approach. Sometimes it’s just a stylistic choice or a limitation of the production environment, especially in regions where all romance, not just queer romance, is toned down.
Also, infantilization would imply that the characters or their relationship are being treated as inherently childish, but light humor, awkwardness, or physical comedy aren’t exclusive to BL or queer storytelling. Those elements show up all the time in straight romcoms too without being interpreted as degrading the relationship itself.
And finally, I think it’s a bit unfair to generalize based on a subset of shows, especially if you haven’t watched how a specific story develops. Some series do stay in that “in-between” space, sure, but others do move forward in meaningful ways, just on a different timeline.
So I completely understand why that trope doesn’t work for you, but calling it inherently homophobic feels like an overreach to me.
Also, this trope shows up in tons of straight series too, let’s be real, so that’s another reason why your argument doesn’t really add up to me.
https://youtu.be/EDrqp6OVtR4?is=-VRrTG_9leFQ7ACL
But we're finally getting it, and I can't, I was so happy today with their concert and now this 🥹🫠
Trailer for the special episode 🥹
And yes, I loved the show enough to want more people to watch and appreciate it. Stalked me much? Feel free to keep stalking, I don’t mind.