lolololol do you even know what normalisation means.... yes this shit happens irl that's why rape culture exists…
jksdlfskljsds ive never seen anything more dense than someone running circles around the actual topic of discourse because they can't comprehend what normalisation means. if you keep retracting your statements and reiterating them in a different way how am I supposed to respond.
I'm not gonna repeat myself, but I will say this: all of the shows in this list, as of right now, are romance dramas. aka stories of relationships the writers want us to support. is that so hard to understand? no matter how many times you say "fucked up shit happens in real life" that doesn't change the fact that these writers brush off toxic/abusive/manipulative actions within a relationship as merely forgivable character traits or interesting plot points. I don't understand how you don't understand that this is normalisation of said actions irl. it's literally that simple.
this is a list of asian dramas that I feel have bad representation of gay boys/men but are somehow popular and have received a positive reception. and you're saying i "lambasted" them? yeah that's the whole point of the list: to shed light on these harmful shows. if you think I conjured these criticisms out of thin air ~just because~ then I really don't know what to tell you except you're the delusional one here if you think some anonymous person on the internet has something to personally gain from giving a shit.
lolololol do you even know what normalisation means.... yes this shit happens irl that's why rape culture exists…
- I'm gonna stop you right there cos tbh its hard to take your response seriously after you used the dictionary definition of 'normalisation' and took it out of context with this issue. I can't say much else about this bc how am I supposed to argue with someone that doesn't even know what normalisation of unhealthy topics depicted in media is. take a sociology class maybe.
- anyway its pretty naive to think all gay dramas are produced by gay men bc the reality is that most of the writers are straight women trying to appeal to other straight women's gross, fetishistic fantasies. you can v much tell this w/ the fact that "BL" (a fetishistic term made by straight women btw) novels that are adapted to television are written by a female writer.
- "Submissive victims of physical abuse who die in horror films are then? Murders with mental illnesses in horror films are? Yeah, we get it. Fucked up shit happens because life is fucked up, but everyone's work and art doesn't have to be a political/moral statement. Sometimes just displaying shit as it is sends an objective message too." see this part I don't understand at all. first of all what the hell do you mean by the 2 examples you gave they're completely irrelevant and random. second, how does this dispute anything I said. I never argued against objective endings? and also the whole "not everything has to be a political/moral statement" yeah and I'm saying that when it is a certain negative/careless representation of gay men depicted by the (straight) writers you can tell through the lazy writing. the fact that you think a thoughtful, well-planned depiction of gay men (not necessarily meaning the gay character has to be the good guy) is a "political statement" is sooo fucking dense.
- when did I define someone's experience? like who are you even talking about thats such a vague cop-out to an actual argument and a half-assed "drag" lmaooo. also reducing solidarity as simply policing straight people? so fucking what?? I have no sympathy for straight ppl who fetishise lgbt+ people or have a narrow-minded view of us. I literally could not give less of a shit of what straight ppl think and I don't know why you do seeing as you had to include that lil sentence there, making a point of including my sexuality as well for no absolute relevant reason to your "argument" whatsoever.
- "Also, "barely legal"? The age of consent in Taiwan is 16. This was a university professor and his student...well beyond that." its very hard to trust someone that uses the "the age of consent is actually in the teens so predatory relationships are lawful therefore not actually predatory" argument, considering 1) not all laws protect people lmao its v superficial to think that 2) age of consent is about what age someone is *legally allowed to have sex, not that it's moral for ADULTS to have sex with "consenting" TEENS, 3) predators and pedophiles use this argument all the time, v disturbing if you don't think teens should experience things with people their own age and adults going after teens are predators despite the "age of consent" laws. also I literally said "if I remember correctly" about the barely legal character.
- lastly, you admitting you used ableist language and being unapologetic about it? nice. saying it doesn't deviate from your point (which I never claimed) and yet you felt compelled to throw these ableist terms at someone anyway (why even use it at all)? nice.
I was pretty sure you were nuts after reading some of your comments on a series I just watched, but you clearly…
lolololol do you even know what normalisation means.... yes this shit happens irl that's why rape culture exists and what I'm saying is thats the fucking problem!!! you act like these characters' personalities and behaviours aren't the creation of real living people. why I use the word "normalisation" even though I know there are gross predators and situations like this irl is because writers use this as merely a plot point as if it isn't a societal flaw; that's the whole point of "normalisation". i.e. rape/assault within a relationship: the writers Want us to root for this relationship because they've established them as protagonists and treated the assault as a small quirk or flaw in their relationship. small flaws in relationships could be arguments that don't lead to abuse, if it leads to abuse then that makes the relationship toxic and not something we're supposed to normalise, and yet this is what these writers do: they don't give a shit about domestic abuse victims irl, they just want to "spice up" the dead plot. you can't act as if these characters are real, living, conscious people. if the writers really did want to give a "realistic" plot that highlights domestic abuse victims that are manipulated into staying in a relationship, then these would not be labeled as "romance shows". they are *normalising* rape culture and that's that.
also, about your example with Cruel Intentions just shows that you don't know what normalisation means. normalisation =/= popularity. the whole point of the film was to showcase the unlucky protagonist who was manipulated into the relationship, and the writer lets the audience know that this was in no way a romance but instead a look into how the protagonist's world falls apart after trusting the wrong person. that is not a normalisation; it's a tragedy plot.
meanwhile shows like Dark Blue and Moonlight (yes cheating exists irl but you can tell the writers don't think cheating is an immoral start to a relationship with the way they painted the main character's apathy towards his actions and yet they still made him the protagonist; the good guy), History with the incest and teacher/student relationship (yes, all of these happen irl I didn't dispute that, and I'm sure the writers know they happen irl thats why they wrote it, and teacher/student relationships ARE predatory, no matter how they made the teacher look like he had a lot to lose: irl the teacher always has full control, being the authority + the student being "barely legal"), etc show us, the audience, a relationship they want us to root for. pls try wrap ur head around that. they want us to root for their toxic relationships to work out, no matter how "real" they can be, they aren't "realistic" considering their intent on making this a weird fantasy where "fucked up shit" ends on a happy note. I'm not saying it's easy for people irl to get out of a toxic relationship, but it isn't a "happy ending" irl if the toxic relationship sustains at the end. if anyone is living in a fantasy it's you considering you can't seem to grasp the fact that these characters' actions aren't their own creations: they are the creation of other people that don't give 2 shits about gay men except the money they can make off of them from a narrow perspective of what 'representation' is.
you really can't compare romance tv shows that show a skewed normalisation of abuse to horror/slasher films that show exactly what the genre has to offer; that's a logical fallacy lmfao. unless ofc the slasher film mainly show body horror of specifically women to satisfy the perverted male gaze, then yes I have "gripes" with it because that's an example of misogyny and sexual objectification in the film industry, which is a whole other conversation that is also relevant to have. if that's what you mean, then I don't know why you're comparing the two as if you can't care about more than one social issue at once.
I don't concern myself with gay representation of men in the media because they make me uncomfortable as a lesbian, that makes no sense (also, I'm bi), but because that's what empathy is lolll. ofc I would care about representation of other identities within the lgbt+ community thats literally lgbt solidarity.
also, calling me nuts and l*oney because of my display name? not even mentioning the ableist slurs, but what's wrong with wanting sapphic representation that's lacking in asian tv shows? me being sapphic and wanting more representation is "cr*zy"??? if you're gonna end on a "I was jus curious" note how about not resorting to calling me slurs and acting like you know me.
It's really not that uncommon. IIRC the main couple in Love Sick's actors were 17 & 20 when it first began airing.
bitch i aint even American i'm an asian teen living in an asian country so gtfo here with that "logic" that all laws are just and protect kids. kids can't consent to marriage cos they're KIDS they're not in the right mental capacity aka AGE to get married or have sex especially with grown ass adults who should know better than to be a mf pedophile. if u don't consider them victims then ur heartless and shouldn't be around kids at all. perspective.
It's really not that uncommon. IIRC the main couple in Love Sick's actors were 17 & 20 when it first began airing.
if u don't know how minors constantly being in adult spaces (especially romantic and low-key sexual from what I'm seeing in the trailer) can be mentally damaging then idk what to tell u except do some research beloved. kids need to be surrounded with people their own age.
It's really not that uncommon. IIRC the main couple in Love Sick's actors were 17 & 20 when it first began airing.
uhhhh EVERYONE should care?? considering it's teens' mental healths at stake? i find it very disturbing that adults aren't concerned about the spaces they put children in because they want to make money off of them. as well as adults that brush it off just cos they want to watch a tv show where teens are sexualised...
It's really not that uncommon. IIRC the main couple in Love Sick's actors were 17 & 20 when it first began airing.
the legality isn't the issue: adults attracted to minors are predators, end of. there are laws that don't protect children from this, everyone should know this. it's the gross mentality behind the idea that adults being attracted to minors is seen as normal as if adults don't know themselves that their attraction is manipulative. think about it: why would an adult go after a minor instead of someone their own age/another adult? these irl situations are very predatory and tv shows that normalise this behaviour (ADULTS behind the camera) don't want teens to know this to play into their own sick fantasies. however, I don't know if the character is a minor or it's just the actor. but the casting directors (adults) should know better than to give a role much more mature for his age.
It's really not that uncommon. IIRC the main couple in Love Sick's actors were 17 & 20 when it first began airing.
now that's even worse why would they portray a relationship between a minor and an adult in a positive way as if it isn't borderline pedophilic (ephebophilic or whatever if you want to be linguistically technical)
It's really not that uncommon. IIRC the main couple in Love Sick's actors were 17 & 20 when it first began airing.
I didn't imply that it was the older actor that's predatory, they're just doing their job, but that the casting directors are responsible. why would they hire a minor for this role they should know better.
I was excited to see fresh faces in the cast list until I found out a 17 year old is acting as a a 20 year old's lover which is a little concerning........
"having to act humble in front of a girl as a response to current feminist trends is the greatest hypocrisy of modern-day males" made me drop this and it's only the first episode lmao. maybe i'l come back to it but solely for xukun
god the bff trio are horrible people. i wouldn't mind their character traits if the series didn't keep switching between a melodrama to a rom-com, brushing off their unhealthy behaviours as simply people with flawed but redeemable personalities. and fans treat this like a shipping contest (suprise! all these relationships/friendships are toxic and aren't worth rooting for!). but if this show's end-goal is to reveal their twisted mentalities after sugar-coating it, then i cant wait. anyway, taehee and kyungjoo deserve better.
I'm not gonna repeat myself, but I will say this: all of the shows in this list, as of right now, are romance dramas. aka stories of relationships the writers want us to support. is that so hard to understand? no matter how many times you say "fucked up shit happens in real life" that doesn't change the fact that these writers brush off toxic/abusive/manipulative actions within a relationship as merely forgivable character traits or interesting plot points. I don't understand how you don't understand that this is normalisation of said actions irl. it's literally that simple.
this is a list of asian dramas that I feel have bad representation of gay boys/men but are somehow popular and have received a positive reception. and you're saying i "lambasted" them? yeah that's the whole point of the list: to shed light on these harmful shows. if you think I conjured these criticisms out of thin air ~just because~ then I really don't know what to tell you except you're the delusional one here if you think some anonymous person on the internet has something to personally gain from giving a shit.
- anyway its pretty naive to think all gay dramas are produced by gay men bc the reality is that most of the writers are straight women trying to appeal to other straight women's gross, fetishistic fantasies. you can v much tell this w/ the fact that "BL" (a fetishistic term made by straight women btw) novels that are adapted to television are written by a female writer.
- "Submissive victims of physical abuse who die in horror films are then? Murders with mental illnesses in horror films are? Yeah, we get it. Fucked up shit happens because life is fucked up, but everyone's work and art doesn't have to be a political/moral statement. Sometimes just displaying shit as it is sends an objective message too."
see this part I don't understand at all. first of all what the hell do you mean by the 2 examples you gave they're completely irrelevant and random. second, how does this dispute anything I said. I never argued against objective endings? and also the whole "not everything has to be a political/moral statement" yeah and I'm saying that when it is a certain negative/careless representation of gay men depicted by the (straight) writers you can tell through the lazy writing. the fact that you think a thoughtful, well-planned depiction of gay men (not necessarily meaning the gay character has to be the good guy) is a "political statement" is sooo fucking dense.
- when did I define someone's experience? like who are you even talking about thats such a vague cop-out to an actual argument and a half-assed "drag" lmaooo. also reducing solidarity as simply policing straight people? so fucking what?? I have no sympathy for straight ppl who fetishise lgbt+ people or have a narrow-minded view of us. I literally could not give less of a shit of what straight ppl think and I don't know why you do seeing as you had to include that lil sentence there, making a point of including my sexuality as well for no absolute relevant reason to your "argument" whatsoever.
- "Also, "barely legal"? The age of consent in Taiwan is 16. This was a university professor and his student...well beyond that."
its very hard to trust someone that uses the "the age of consent is actually in the teens so predatory relationships are lawful therefore not actually predatory" argument, considering 1) not all laws protect people lmao its v superficial to think that 2) age of consent is about what age someone is *legally allowed to have sex, not that it's moral for ADULTS to have sex with "consenting" TEENS, 3) predators and pedophiles use this argument all the time, v disturbing if you don't think teens should experience things with people their own age and adults going after teens are predators despite the "age of consent" laws. also I literally said "if I remember correctly" about the barely legal character.
- lastly, you admitting you used ableist language and being unapologetic about it? nice. saying it doesn't deviate from your point (which I never claimed) and yet you felt compelled to throw these ableist terms at someone anyway (why even use it at all)? nice.
also, about your example with Cruel Intentions just shows that you don't know what normalisation means. normalisation =/= popularity. the whole point of the film was to showcase the unlucky protagonist who was manipulated into the relationship, and the writer lets the audience know that this was in no way a romance but instead a look into how the protagonist's world falls apart after trusting the wrong person. that is not a normalisation; it's a tragedy plot.
meanwhile shows like
Dark Blue and Moonlight (yes cheating exists irl but you can tell the writers don't think cheating is an immoral start to a relationship with the way they painted the main character's apathy towards his actions and yet they still made him the protagonist; the good guy),
History with the incest and teacher/student relationship (yes, all of these happen irl I didn't dispute that, and I'm sure the writers know they happen irl thats why they wrote it, and teacher/student relationships ARE predatory, no matter how they made the teacher look like he had a lot to lose: irl the teacher always has full control, being the authority + the student being "barely legal"),
etc show us, the audience, a relationship they want us to root for. pls try wrap ur head around that. they want us to root for their toxic relationships to work out, no matter how "real" they can be, they aren't "realistic" considering their intent on making this a weird fantasy where "fucked up shit" ends on a happy note. I'm not saying it's easy for people irl to get out of a toxic relationship, but it isn't a "happy ending" irl if the toxic relationship sustains at the end. if anyone is living in a fantasy it's you considering you can't seem to grasp the fact that these characters' actions aren't their own creations: they are the creation of other people that don't give 2 shits about gay men except the money they can make off of them from a narrow perspective of what 'representation' is.
you really can't compare romance tv shows that show a skewed normalisation of abuse to horror/slasher films that show exactly what the genre has to offer; that's a logical fallacy lmfao. unless ofc the slasher film mainly show body horror of specifically women to satisfy the perverted male gaze, then yes I have "gripes" with it because that's an example of misogyny and sexual objectification in the film industry, which is a whole other conversation that is also relevant to have. if that's what you mean, then I don't know why you're comparing the two as if you can't care about more than one social issue at once.
I don't concern myself with gay representation of men in the media because they make me uncomfortable as a lesbian, that makes no sense (also, I'm bi), but because that's what empathy is lolll. ofc I would care about representation of other identities within the lgbt+ community thats literally lgbt solidarity.
also, calling me nuts and l*oney because of my display name? not even mentioning the ableist slurs, but what's wrong with wanting sapphic representation that's lacking in asian tv shows? me being sapphic and wanting more representation is "cr*zy"??? if you're gonna end on a "I was jus curious" note how about not resorting to calling me slurs and acting like you know me.