For a deconstruction/reformulation of the concept of "craft" in the classicist camp, see https://lithub.com/25-essential-notes-on-craft-from-matthew-salesses/ . I have been judging craft according to my own distinctive (perhaps idiosyncratic) cultural expectations, and I will continue doing so (but perhaps with a bit more open-mindedness about other possible sets of cultural expectations).
I'm glad you found the information useful! Everything I shared is also stuff I've been learning about over the past week to better understand arguments made by earlier commenters on this page, and that made me realize that a lot of my knowledge had been about the situation around ten years ago, before a lot of recent advances in the scientific/clinical knowledge - for example, the U=U public health messaging was only launched in 2016. We're all in the same boat when it comes to updating our knowledge about HIV, and that applies to scientists and doctors too :)
It sounds like you're replying to the person above me, and I think you and I agree that disclosing STI status is the more ethical thing to do in relationships (just like how disclosing sexual activity with multiple partners would be more ethical, since that information can help partners make informed decisions about how they will engage in sexual activities). However, I think focusing on it as a "moral obligation" is not necessarily helpful, and maybe a distraction from actually changing peoples' behaviors: if we want to encourage status disclosure as an aspect of ethical participation in relationships, then we must simultaneously also acknowledge and respond to the various difficulties (many of which are related to stigma) which discourage people from disclosing their status, so that we can reduce those barriers. To have a deeper understanding of those barriers in the context of HIV and the ways that HIV stigma discourages status disclosure, I would encourage anyone interested to look through https://www.hivlegalnetwork.ca/site/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Legal-Network-HIV-disclosure-to-sex-partners.pdf .
I also think the situation with HIV in particular is more complex than other STDs because of the scientific/clinical consensus about U=U (undetectable = untransmissible), as alluded to by https://kisskh.at/profile/sasameyuki1950/review/398482. U=U means that, as long as Yeong is fully adhering to his treatment instructions for anti-retroviral therapy and has a HIV viral load which stays below the 200 copies/mL threshold, then he has *zero risk* of sexually transmitting HIV - regardless of whether condoms, PrEP, PEP, etc. are used. Relying on U=U in one's sexual activities is a practice known in public health as "Treatment as Prevention". I think this is related to what @ioadrak was trying to say in their reply under your original comment; and I think the public-health implications of Treatment as Prevention are something you might have missed in your reply to them: if you have a disease which you cannot sexually transmit as long as you are taking your medications correctly and monitoring your viral load regularly, then should questions about disclosure/nondisclosure for that disease be answered in the exact same way as for some other disease which you can sexually transmit? I think the answer is "not necessarily": the relevant considerations for ethical questions about disclosure/nondisclosure are somewhat different between those two situations (there is also some additional nuance which I discuss in https://kisskh.at/758821-love-in-the-big-city#comment-19193696 , but that's maybe tangential to this discussion). The science of U=U and its implications for how we should think about HIV status disclosure are discussed in detail by https://www.eatg.org/hiv-news/singapore-commentary-hiv-treatments-have-evolved-the-law-needs-to-catch-up/ (which also talks about the specific context of Singapore); and its implications for how we might address HIV stigma are discussed in detail by https://icjournal.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3947/ic.2021.0127 (which also talks about the specific context of South Korea).
HIV transmission through kissing only occurs in open-mouth kissing that is so deep that the partners have blood-to-blood contact (e.g. through cuts/sores/etc. on both people) such that blood from one person enters the bloodstream of the other person (see https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/about-hiv-and-aids/how-is-hiv-transmitted for details). Saying an HIV-positive person with a bleeding wound should send their kissing partner for blood tests in the depicted situation is kind of an overreaction - at least it would be much more reasonable to weigh transmission risk against other contextual factors (like whether that person has any mouth wounds or sores, that person's risk tolerance, and any safety risks involved in disclosing HIV status) before making a decision - and ideally that process would involve some kind of conversation and decision-making process together between the two people to establish informed consent. But unfortunately reality often falls short of ideal, by making it difficult to have such conversations, like in this scene where one of the people involved has very impaired decision-making due to being very drunk and also has a lot of HIV stigma internalized from the people around him. If we want to encourage people to have those kinds of conversations then we need to address the stigma - and I think a hyperbolic reaction to this situation like saying that "the script should have some educational value" and including your proposed changes is unhelpful at best, or stigmatizing at worst.
I've been putting together a BL alignment chart (made from my "best-of" lists of LGBTQ-themed/queer films and series, plus several other entries I was able to squeeze into empty spaces), and maybe it has something you haven't seen yet which feels happier but also not silly/trivial: https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1jolnBulmREnHg-V46PzFqY3KZGyxEGGI7J6l4c3-PsM/edit If you're looking for something that is relatively real-world (like "Love in the Big City") but more joyful and with more fluffy emotions, and you're also open to GL, then my first recommendation is "She Makes My Heart Flutter" (lesbian indie romcom miniseries on YouTube)! If you're looking for more traditional BL series, "Cherry Magic"/"30-sai made Dotei Da to Mahotsukai ni Nareru rashii" has the most fluffy moments, and it also engages with more serious topics about self-esteem and insecurity.
To be precise (because of the stigmas associated with HIV & AIDS), he got HIV but not AIDS. HIV is the chronic…
The end of the series is open-ended and bittersweet. Whether you consider it "happy" depends on what you mean by "happy" and what you're looking for in a "happy ending": - Is it the protagonist being in a romantic relationship with someone? This series does not end like that. - Is it the protagonist having a good chance in the future to rekindle the relationship where he felt the most love? This series ends like that. - Is it the protagonist finally not being totally lonely anymore, because he has friends who care about him? This series ends like that. - Is it the protagonist making progress towards a deeper kind of self-acceptance? This series ends like that.
I didn’t understand in the last episode about everything turning black and a stay in hospital. What was going…
https://kisskh.at/758821-love-in-the-big-city#comment-19206638 Here's my interpretation of the entire story arc with Habibi. I think the "everything turning black" and Habibi only remembering seeing the ceiling make more sense if you compare them with the scene right before (where Gyu-ho stares at the sky), and with the way Yeong has been revisiting his own past memories while in Thailand.
im on episode 1 can someone tell me how gets aids ? please mark as spoiler
To be precise (because of the stigmas associated with HIV & AIDS), he got HIV but not AIDS. HIV is the chronic infection which only develops into AIDS if it's not treated and managed with medication.
Might I cheekily and gently suggest moving Old Fashion Cupcake here? My favourite BL ever, and I think one of…
Old Fashion Cupcake was right on the S-vs.-A borderline for me - I had a hard time putting it into A tier, but at the time I couldn't figure out what specific angle I'd be able to articulate in writing an S-tier review of what makes it special (as opposed to an A-tier review). On the other hand, my viewing experience was a bit distracted at the time because this was the series I had just started watching with my last ex right at the end of that relationship lol. So it's definitely a prime candidate for reassessment once I get around to rewatching it! Maybe I'll reach some clearer thoughts/feelings for an S-tier review about the the show's engagement with the question of restarting/reconnecting with a desire for living fully, since that question has definitely been a key part of my emotional connection to other works over the past year which pushed them artistically into S-tier/"great" on my lists.
1
I also think the situation with HIV in particular is more complex than other STDs because of the scientific/clinical consensus about U=U (undetectable = untransmissible), as alluded to by https://kisskh.at/profile/sasameyuki1950/review/398482. U=U means that, as long as Yeong is fully adhering to his treatment instructions for anti-retroviral therapy and has a HIV viral load which stays below the 200 copies/mL threshold, then he has *zero risk* of sexually transmitting HIV - regardless of whether condoms, PrEP, PEP, etc. are used. Relying on U=U in one's sexual activities is a practice known in public health as "Treatment as Prevention". I think this is related to what @ioadrak was trying to say in their reply under your original comment; and I think the public-health implications of Treatment as Prevention are something you might have missed in your reply to them: if you have a disease which you cannot sexually transmit as long as you are taking your medications correctly and monitoring your viral load regularly, then should questions about disclosure/nondisclosure for that disease be answered in the exact same way as for some other disease which you can sexually transmit? I think the answer is "not necessarily": the relevant considerations for ethical questions about disclosure/nondisclosure are somewhat different between those two situations (there is also some additional nuance which I discuss in https://kisskh.at/758821-love-in-the-big-city#comment-19193696 , but that's maybe tangential to this discussion). The science of U=U and its implications for how we should think about HIV status disclosure are discussed in detail by https://www.eatg.org/hiv-news/singapore-commentary-hiv-treatments-have-evolved-the-law-needs-to-catch-up/ (which also talks about the specific context of Singapore); and its implications for how we might address HIV stigma are discussed in detail by https://icjournal.org/DOIx.php?id=10.3947/ic.2021.0127 (which also talks about the specific context of South Korea).
Regarding question 2, yes and yes.
If you're looking for something that is relatively real-world (like "Love in the Big City") but more joyful and with more fluffy emotions, and you're also open to GL, then my first recommendation is "She Makes My Heart Flutter" (lesbian indie romcom miniseries on YouTube)!
If you're looking for more traditional BL series, "Cherry Magic"/"30-sai made Dotei Da to Mahotsukai ni Nareru rashii" has the most fluffy moments, and it also engages with more serious topics about self-esteem and insecurity.
- Is it the protagonist being in a romantic relationship with someone? This series does not end like that.
- Is it the protagonist having a good chance in the future to rekindle the relationship where he felt the most love? This series ends like that.
- Is it the protagonist finally not being totally lonely anymore, because he has friends who care about him? This series ends like that.
- Is it the protagonist making progress towards a deeper kind of self-acceptance? This series ends like that.