jarabaa

I'm glad! I hope HUGE NUMBERS get to see it. I've discovered a way to watch and I'm loving it ...

All true ... yet it's the law in Singapore, whether one sees that as a technical point or not. The law was revised in 2007 to make lesbianism (which had been criminalised under a previous law) entirely legal, devoid of any criminal status. Everyone was in favour. The churches were happy etc. But at the same time there was a vocal consensus, led by the Christian churches, which insisted that MALE homosexuality is a crime which must remain punishable by law. In everyday reality, yes, as you report, the police allow bars and clubs and even a yearly LGBT pride event. Many things are better than in 2007 - above all the emergence of a broad range of public opinion against the anti-gay law.

However: all, and I mean all, attempts to repeal the law against male homosexuality in Singapore have been violently opposed - and have therefore failed. Archbishop Goh, the head of the relatively small Catholic community in Singapore, has gone to extraordinary lengths defending and promoting the law. He obviously believes that gay men in Singapore should indeed be prosecuted and locked up, and that Catholics should spy on their gay male colleagues, relatives, friends and neighbours - and report them to the police etc. He just doesn't supply all the details as to how this should be done. Nevertheless, he does insist that if gay men were to be released from their criminal pariah status in Singapore, they would use their freedom to campaign for gay marriage - which he sees as the ultimate sin, an evil to be fought against by every means. Unbelievably, people like Archbishop Goh wield huge influence and help to direct public policy in Singapore. I myself had a promising job opportunity in Singapore a couple of years ago which I had to abandon, very sadly, because of the law against male homosexuality.

I don't want to focus any negativity on Singapore. Or Malaysia. But the fact remains that two men making love remains a criminal offence in both countries. I think that's a tragedy. But I prefer to concentrate on the amazing pro-gay reforms and advances of Taiwan, the slight and slow positive developments we see in China itself, Thailand's spectacular "BL" output, the Philippines' sudden outpouring of sweet gay romances, the great things coming out of Korea and Japan etc. Hong Kong is of course part of China, with its own special version of autonomy - a jeopardised liberty which many Hong Kong citizens are very keen, even desperate, to uphold. I like to see this new Cantonese-language Ossan series as ... some sort of sign of freedom and openness. Obviously permitted by the Chinese authorities. But I love every minute all the same. I hope its joyful gay-love warmth can somehow ultimately help make things better for LGBT people in areas of Asia where their situation is ... not so good. Just being able to WATCH this series is great. At the same time. though, being criminalised under the law of the land is definitely ... not so good.

Yes indeed, as you emphasise, you and numerous contributors like to "always say" this same line: if you don't like it, you're not required to watch it.

And as I myself like to point out whenever I encounter this line: this whole site, and real communication between human beings, is made a whole lot more interesting and worthwhile when people make an effort to engage with things which they do not like very much. Nobody on earth is "required" to watch a specific South Korean web series in 2021, and because it's so absurd to imagine people "required to watch it" [e.g. Light on Me], saying this sort of thing to other viewers is obviously sarcastic and dismissive. Even contemptuous. I'd much rather read (and much rather say) : "Really? That's interesting. What do you not like - give me some details ... Please."

It is the efforts of others to keep going, their accounts of what they are not keen on, their attempts to identify what maybe really IS good (in their eyes), which keep this site going, which make all fans' viewing better informed, which lead to real exchange and enlightenment. It's an essential dimension of being a person in meaningful communication with others that we do NOT tell one another "if you don't like it, you're not required to watch it".

This sounds .... entertaining. But it is 100% inaccessible to almost all people on earth, including the vast majority of Chinese-speakers. I'm curious - is it in Mandarin? Or possibly Cantonese? It's made by Viu, a Hong Kong company, which only transmits to 16 countries in the world, mainly Arab countries in the Middle East where the reality of gay romance is totally illegal. True, the 16 countries include Malaysia and Singapore - where male homosexulity is likewise a crime. So, it's interesting to drop in here and read the comments, but I doubt I will ever have a chance of seeing a minute of this.

Good question! Who knows? It is only transmitted via a network called Viu, which is available in exactly 16 countries on planet Earth. Even more weirdly, though this series is made in Hong Kong, those countries do not include China or Taiwan. In fact, they are mainly Middle Eastern Arab states where all forms of sexual love between men are ... capital crimes. So I am not sure what this series is even doing here on kisskh when it's inaccessible to the vast majority of people in Asia.

So true. He isn't chubby. I don't want young guys looking at Jin, hearing/reading "chubby", and feeling bad about their own size and embarking on crazy diets. Secondly, of course "chubby" does not mean unattractive. How absurd. And finally, in the real world there are plenty of tall, slim young men (like Bbomb) who like "chubby" guys (and girls).

You are so right. It's really worse than that. Alcohol seems to play a huge role in these young guys' lives. That is rather ... unappealing. In fact, it goes so far that drinking interferes with their everyday lives. That is rather ... worrying. Not hilarious. Plus, just like being around blind drunk people in reality, being around blind drunk fictional characters absolutely isn't fun or funny. It's repetitious, it's agonising, it's embarrassing, and it's actually a bit distressing.

I agree with all the points you make - though I cannot say I thought it was a "beautiful episode". But a lot of important topics are being addressed. Unfortunately that is prompting some fans (not you!) to sound off on the issues they see addressed here - that is, if they are sympathetic to these causes; otherwise, they dismiss the series as chaotic and boring and refuse to watch any more. Oh well. You can't have everything.

And those who complain of "cringe" (I am sick of that word, plus "toxic" and "creepy") should ask themselves: have series about heterosexual love stories devised a perfect technique for bringing in social issues relating to crime, corruption, criminality, poverty, homelessness, begging etc? No, they haven't. The type of popular drama we learn to enjoy throughout the world - which we are conditioned to find light and enjoyable and so on - IS often "light and enjoyable and so on" but it has a way of making us think that storylines about poor and vulnerable people struggling against deprivation, fear and injustice are ... BORING. "Preachy", "dull", "grim", "clunky" etc. But think about it: creating entertaining, charming, thoroughly pleasant, visually impressive series often depends on giving us stories about rich people leading lives of privilege and luxury in huge cities. I myself find those series as entertaining, charming etc as anyone else. So congratulations to the people behind Hometown's Embrace for giving us not only a multitude of serious social topics, but quite a few beautiful men and what may well turn out to be sweet, appealing gay love stories.

Finally, thanks, Not a Robot, for drawing attention to Buddhism. It is the underlying spiritual foundation of all Thai culture - and all Thai BL. In particular, it provides people with a distinct set of ideas and beliefs inspiring them, for example, to engage in "good deeds". It may all seem to add up to the same thing as in Christian societies in the West, but the spiritual motivations are really quite different. I think as well that the understanding of gay love is different. In the West, everything is dominated by the homophobic hostility of so much of the world of religion, especially the Christian churches. Gay and bisexual men all learn to think of themselves, ourselves, as evildoers, sinner, enemies of the family etc - however much we reject this endless corrosive defamation. But corrosive it is, all the time. I do not dare to try to explain how Thailand is different - but it's different. LGBT people do not experience the prevailing, ever-present religion of their country as an adversarial force constantly attacking them and insulting them. And the "religious" things they do in everyday life are quite different from what passes for religious life in other parts of the world.

Hmmmm. I've said elsewhere that I think the "BL" genre has produced quite a wide range of gay/bisexual male characters in a rather short period of time. Believe me, I have watched a lot of different series - from the Philippines, Thailand, China, Korea, Taiwan and Japan - so that's actually 6 different countries - dating back as far as 2016 and of course going right up to the present. And as a no-longer-young gay man, that is, a man who loves men, I am very interested in the way that other males similar to me are characterised. These "m/m romances" from the Far East (which is how I like to describe what's called "BL") have featured a range of enchanting men - beautiful, sweet, charming - who in every respect .... excel. The media in Europe and North America do not offer any equivalent programming output - nothing even remotely similar.

And I have begun to revise how I understand ... male charms! Not sure how to put it. But the western model of masculine vs feminine or "effeminate" just doesn't work; even if people in different Asian countries do indeed see certain gay/bisexual male characters that way. Thus we have a lot of husband and wife (or "wifey", which no one actually says in English) vocabulary and characterisations - and this prompts some criticisms and objections - criticisms and objections which I entirely understand. Nevertheless, if that's the way people in a given country think about certain men in gay relationships, so be it - I want to know more, understand this language and this thinking better.

Meanwhile, though, as I follow the stories of all these interesting man-loving male characters, ideas of "masculine" and "femine" drift out of my consciousness, and I start to see other ... male dichotomies - character configurations - types. The main one is something like this: effervescent vs serene. One guy is sweet, expressive, spontaneous, open, light . The other is: placid, reserved, measured, firm, decisive, guarded, focused on power and action. And they're both 100% male. No one is masculine or feminine. And who knows ... maybe you could find this same contrasting combination of qualities in two female characters in some totally different storyline and genre ("GL"?) And when I think about the characters I admit I have fallen for (hook line and sinker), it's more the first kind, the "sweet and sparkly" guys. And increasingly I love this contrasting combination of male "types". There's a great dramatic energy in it. No stereotypes. No pastiche of what are thought of as male/female roles. Just diversity and contrast, male-male sexual attraction, complementarity, richness of characterisation, guys being guys but in different ways. I like it!

You're right. In fact ... there's a good variety of storylines, plot devices, routes of dramatic build-up. I like m/m love stories and I'm more than satisfied!

Sure there are clichés, overworked tropes, stock characters. But every story-telling genre around the world features those. In my opinion, this particular romantic universe - let's say Asian drama series in 2021 focusing on stories of young men in love - could be narrow, limited and formulaic. It isn't. It could also be ... nothing at all. An empty wasteland. And it absolutely isn't that.

I live in Europe. There isn't one country here which has produced or is now producing anything approaching, say, Thailand's or Taiwan's rich and diverse output of series not just touching on gay characters and relationships but really focusing on m/m love stories.

His country is Taiwan ... fortunately, it's VERY open about homosexuality. The most open country in Asia. But you're perfectly right about Singapore. OMG. Male homosexuality is still a crime according to Singaporean law. Unbelievable. In 2021! Taiwan is the absolute opposite - it even has same-sex marriage.

Well, if the Chinese male torso is your thing ... Think washboard, six-pack etc. I guess I found Bruce Lee's body a bit ... bizarre. Too freakishly muscular and ultra-lean ... somehow both pained and painful. Nevertheless, for any admirer of the male physique, riveting.

Anyhow, I need to get acquainted with this series - and get acquainted with Boat & his celebrated Lee-esque torso.

So sweet and charming, and such a fine actor. He totally nails the character of Meen in FUTS. Totally ... distinctive and talented.

Spectacularly handsome. It's impossible to look at anything or anyone else on the screen.

You're right. But living with that lingering insecurity in the back of one's mind, as you put it very eloquently - that is a tension which is one of the main threads of human existence. "The lingering sense of insecurity" - unsaid questions. So true. But ultimately true of most meaningful relationships. Relationships to people - places - memories - states of being - vocations and professions - forms of art. Books! Paintings! All the time we live with some lingering degree of uncertainty, doubt. We yearn for an ideal which we actually might not recognise if it stood in front of us in a floodlight. A partner who dedicates himself exclusively to me all the days of my life? Is that what I really want? Why? Because my goal is absolute perpetual sexual monogamy with ... my very first boyfriend?? No, what I want is something like what we see here. With all the insecurity and doubt which most real couples-in-love deal with.

But you're right again about the final episode. "The reality is much more more complex". It sure is. But the actual decision to stick together, to go ahead together, to move beyond guilt and forgiveness, to be open as a couple to the full adventure of love ... even in real life it's badly written, spontaneous, crazy.

By the way, of course there may come a point with a certain person where the insecurity is too profound, reality is too messy. And believe me, in those cases you know. Simply because the agony of staying with someone and repeatedly dealing with all of that insecurity outweighs the bliss of the "adventure of love" with him (or her). However, in many many cases, the sting of youthful dramas becomes a faded and forgotten scar as the adventure of sharing life with your lover continues. That's how I see Teh and Oh-aew.

Quite. All of these very apt questions present themselves. We're watching a rather sophisticated drama about young gay men in Thailand, a Buddhist Asian country. "Once a cheater, always a cheater" has the sound of some painfully simplicistic, rather churchy nostrum formulated in a very different cultural setting far away from Thailand. Nevertheless, of course anyone anywhere in the world has the right to hold to what feels like the moral certainty of "Once a cheater, always a cheater", - but to pick up Flypsyde's point[s], ... think it over, please. "Once a cheater, always a cheater" really IS a "silly slogan" - it's untrue and short-sighted, and certainly is not any kind of insight which needs to be turned into a universal moral absolute, nor is it in any way an illuminating criterion to apply when criticising a work of drama - from any part of the world.

I would ask those who want to believe this "slogan": Think about it in terms of real life - and drama. How on earth would believing such a thing actually help you get through life - do you really want to assume that every person who is in any way "unfaithful" is by definition a repeat offender who will "always" do the same thing, again and again? That's obviously nonsense, and if you apply that rule invariably when dealing with your fellow human beings, there is so much you won't be able to understand, just as there is so much grief and isolation you will actually bring upon yourself. Likewise, how on earth could "once a cheater, always a cheater" add up to helpful standard to use when judging the quality of a drama? Good grief, what drama is about a couple demonstrating perpetual fidelity to each other from adolescence to the grave in old age?? What you call "cheating" is the substance, the matter, of drama. But it's more the grief and isolation I mention above that worry me.

Indeed. And it made me smile. Hmmmm. Looks like some people don't share your sense of humour. ("JFC grow up"...? ! Well. as I said - hmmmm.)

Hot is the understatement of the year. What a beautiful man. Stunning.

You've convinced me! I to have had enough of seeing the charmed lifestyles and opulent interiors of so many super-rich students and their families in Bangkok and Manila. I absolutely DO want to see people trying to get by on normal incomes, people struggling with real poverty, people who face daunting odds every day. But also people who are enjoying and appreciating aspects of life that have nothing to do with wealth. I know that poverty and struggle are the reality of many people in Thailand and the Philippines. I also want to see stories about guys in the countryside and in small towns and villages. So if people are natural and real, even poor and struggling, then definitely - that's what I need and want to see.

Yes, I felt exactly the same as you. So I am quite ... taken aback by the way that others specifically home in on Jimmy and Tommy, SaiZon, as a prime example of a fake, unconvincing couple. Whereas I find their intimate interactions very ... authentic and convincing! I like them as individual actors, ditto, but I LOVE seeing them together. (However, sorry, I have ...NO wish to see Jimmy in a straight role.)