in THIS economy?!?

If this show is actually just BL bait, GMMTV will have used a queer media platform to shore up a non-queer project. That will be unforgivable, and I will block GMMTV and all of their shows past and present going forward.

(*References and endnotes are posted in the comments.)

This past weekend, I was unwittingly brought into an event of toxic fandom instigated by @maybe-boys-do-love. The following is an account of that event, and a rebuttal to misrepresentations that he made in his posts.

1) Chronology of Events and Clarification of Communication, Connections, and Blocks

Late last week, @lurkingshan posted a thought piece about separating art and commerce in discussions of queer shows, and talked, in part, about Spare Me Your Mercy and the show's ratings popularity in Thailand as compared to its narrative shortcomings. The piece also talks about the artistic success, versus the public outcry, of the South Korean queer show, Love In The Big City. I, and a few others, reblogged the post with thought pieces of our own. (If you are interested in following along, reading the second link is a necessity.)

Tumblr user @maybe-boys-do-love subsequently posted, separately on his blog, a reaction post to Shan's post and my reblog of her post (1). His reaction contained misreads and dangerous misrepresentations of Shan's and my writing.

Shan and @maybe-boys-do-love had previously mutually blocked each other (2). Therefore, @maybe-boys-do-love went around the block to react to Shan's post.

He did not make clear to his audience that he was reacting to Shan's post. He wrote his reaction post without citing or linking to Shan's post, and did not tag me as well, thus removing both myself and Shan from a discourse that we had instigated, and prevented his audience from knowing or understanding his reference point for his reaction.

Mutuals reached out to me with @maybe-boys-do-love's piece, having previously read Shan's and my posts.

I DMed @maybe-boys-do-love to note to him that I had seen his post, and that I preferred to be tagged directly in discourse. I wrote that I would write today's post as a means of correcting the incorrect assumptions he made about my opinions. I also checked with @lurkingshan to make her aware of the post and ask if she wanted to be included in a response. Shan stated that she had already blocked @maybe-boys-do-love for previous instances where he indirectly vague-posted about her and misrepresented her writing, and that she had no interest in responding, but was fine with me doing so.

I then publicly reblogged @maybe-boys-do-love's reaction post with a clarifying note, sharing the link to Shan's original post and my reblog of our original SMYM discourse. I noted publicly that his reaction post contained misreads and inaccuracies that I will be clarifying today.

@maybe-boys-do-love deleted my reblog. I do not see my original reblog of his reaction post in his reblog notes. Mutuals confirmed, from their blogs, that they also cannot see my original reblog of his reaction post.

I requested to him by DM that he reinstate my reblog. He did not. He reblogged my reblog from my own blog (sorry, y'all) with a response to me and a general defense of his original reaction post.

He denied in DMs that he had deleted my reblog. I stated that I didn't believe him, and requested for our DM conversation to end (3).

2) Toxic Fandom and Expectations of Personal Accountability in Public Forums

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of responding to @maybe-boys-do-love's reaction post, I want to take a quick second to talk about toxic fandom and accountability, because it's been a topic bubbling up particularly in the world of the fandom of Asian, and specifically Thai, QLs. My public and private conversations with @maybe-boys-do-love about this reaction incident, prior to this post's publication, have been filled with a kind of noxious disingenuousness and deceit that has given me the damn creeps.

I've had tussles with other bloggers before about our disagreements of the art and economics of Asian QLs. The discourse has been almost always so much fun, often argumentative, sometimes gritty, sometimes passive aggressive, and sometimes parasocial involving the celebrities and creators of these shows.

I have always kept discourse respectful, and I pride myself with integrity on responding to any point that has been shot my way. I have been blocked for my takes, and I have encouraged others to block me if my takes are not to their liking, and they attack me for them. I encourage folks who don't like my takes to curate their Tumblr experiences, and take agency for what they agree with and want to read.

If I rant about someone's potential faves -- someone's fave shows or couples -- I put trigger warnings on those posts (here and here are two examples, and the most immediate link above also has a TW), knowing there's a lot of sensitivity out there over content. I trust the judgement of readers to read those trigger warnings and to skedaddle.

In other words, I take full responsibility and accountability for my writing, and I expect my readers to engage with me in good faith in return. I'm proud of the critical posts I've made over the last two and a half years here on Tumblr, especially my exploration of the history of the Thai BL genre through my Old GMMTV Challenge project.

I posted recently that the Asian QL scholar, Dr. Thomas Baudinette, believes that the number one threat to the growth of the Thai BL industry is toxic fandom and the prioritization of problematic markets.

It's funny that I posted that a few days before this incident happened. The specific elements of toxic behavior as demonstrated by @maybe-boys-do-love, as stated above, are that he

a) subverted blocks to read and respond to Shan's post without citing her, b) he did not clarify for his audience what he was reacting to, thus rendering untruthful his real intentions in writing his post, and c) his actual reaction post contained misreads and misinterpretations of Shan's and my analysis.

I'd like to name some elements of toxic behavior and fandom that occurred in the public communication I had with @maybe-boys-do-love to highlight them in order to emphasize the disrespectful nature of this incident.

In his reblog of my clarification post to his original reaction post, @maybe-boys-do-love writes,

"I also want to respect that not everyone wants to get involved in a back-and-forth on here."

Because of previous DMs, reblogs, tags, and comments on and of my work that @maybe-boys-do-love has made, I know that he is very familiar with my blog and my writing. We have previously communicated publicly and privately. I do not know why he would make an assumption that I would not have wanted to be tagged in his original reaction post, reacting inaccurately to points I made in my Spare Me Your Mercy post, considering that he and I have a public history of prior engagement. 

This assumption (remember the adage about assuming…) makes so little sense to me that I can only conclude he is coming from a stance of a disingenuous and untruthful defense.

More concerning, @maybe-boys-do-love follows with:

"I just wanted to create a post that made people whose queer tastes diverge from others feel welcome to their own preferences and appreciate that there’s not a single stance in the queer BL fandom about what qualifies as good and/or queer work."

Again, as @maybe-boys-do-love is familiar with my blog, I do not know why he would assume that my work is insular so as to not welcome different perspectives and discourse on my opinions -- as he and I had actually engaged, in the past, on our opinions of other content, and that there is overwhelming proof on my blog that I love engaging in discourse with others.

The statement that "there's not a single stance in the queer BL fandom" about my work is disingenuous, disrespectful, and toxic.

If it's not clear in the most obvious way -- and it may not be clear to some -- I am a personal blogger, posting my opinions and analysis, on a personal blog. My blog isn't Encyclopedia fucking Brittanica.

@maybe-boys-do-love indicates in his reblog that his mutuals helped him get around his and Shan's blocks. 

He also identifies as a "flaming gay guy" to characterize his position for his love of Spare Me Your Mercy, leading him to go around the blocks to comment on Shan's original post.

"Friends of mine shared the post with me knowing the love I, as a flaming gay guy, had for Spare Me Your Mercy."

I want to note that in the context of this characterization, I myself reached out to three gay male friends (one Asian friend, and two white friends married to each other). (There's nothing that IRL people love more than an Internet beef.) These three individuals range on the flaming spectrum, and assured me that @maybe-boys-do-love's position does not count as spoken monolithically for the gay male community (4).

Which leads me to my last point (for now) about toxic fandom. As iterated above: these Tumblr blogs we write on are personal blogs, homes to personal opinions, created by individuals.

The danger of trying to leverage group-think or group-speak to validate toxic opinions and toxic engagement with others is high within fandom discourse. I see it all the time on X in BL shipper circles. Maybe @maybe-boys-do-love's friends were too cowardly to write reaction posts of their own, and asked their friend to write one on their behalf. If that's the case, @maybe-boys-do-love can show us the receipts. But I'm guessing that didn't happen.

Within group and family therapy arenas, and human relations and business environments, counseling often focuses on "I-speak" -- the practice of using the "I" pronoun to claim accountability for facts, opinions, recounting of details, and so on. Using the "we" pronoun to justify a position -- without identifying who your "we" is -- weakens a stance, and at the same time, creates panic and fear within a group or community. It's a tactic often used in gaslighting or supremacist situations to generate collective fear over incorrect facts and threats.

This tactic is useless in a scenario like this, when there is ample published proof that @maybe-boys-do-love published a misrepresentative reaction post that did not link to the original source, deceiving his audience; he subsequently tried to monolithically speak for others, and to leverage and claim community to justify his doing so. It's wrong, it's disingenuous, and it's toxic.

I wouldn't want this guy speaking for me, and I hope readers of this post wouldn't want him to, either.

3) Responding to Misrepresented Points in MBDL's Reaction Post

Note: Much of @maybe-boys-do-love's reaction post reacted to points that @lurkingshan made about Spare Me Your Mercy and the Asian QL genre. I have consulted with Shan on my responses and she has approved them.

My entire rebuttal is long. An abridged version is below, and the entire rebuttal is linked here at this private link.

I want to start my response to misrepresented points in @maybe-boys-do-love's reaction post by highlighting the most noxious misread he made. He writes,

"and just a friendly reminder that a simple BL romcom is equally as queer of a story as a story about HIV."

Much of @maybe-boys-do-love's reaction post seemed magically conjured out of his ass to assume or imply that certain points were made by @lurkingshan when they were most certainly not.

NOT ONCE IN @lurkingshan's POST WAS LOVE IN THE BIG CITY DESCRIBED AS A "STORY ABOUT HIV." IN FACT, HIV WAS NEVER MENTIONED AT ALL, BY ANYONE, IN THE ORIGINAL POST, OR ANY OF THE REBLOGS AND ADDITIONS.

That was a heinous and noxious misread and reduction of @lurkingshan's post, wholly inaccurate and misrepresentative of the tone and content of Shan's original writing, and more revealing about him and his perspectives about the shows, than anyone he was pretending to fight.

And nowhere in @lurkingshan's original post did she claim that a BL romcom was not as "equally as queer" as any other story.

I want to respond specifically to an analysis of capitalism and markets that I made in my reblog of Shan's post, that @maybe-boys-do-love then reacted to.

"just a reminder, if we wanna talk about capitalism, that the whole idea of a work being better or worse, queerer or less queer, more valuable or less valuable based on it’s reception in numbers (either higher or lower) is not something Marx and Engels would be into, since they ascribed to exchange value over use value. The labor put into the work is where it’s at—and all of these shows had plentiful hours of (queer) labor put into them! But not everyone who talks about the wrongs of capitalism on here is actually interested in the finer details of how capitalism operates, the full political and economic realities of the companies making these shows, nor the individuals who are forced to fight for change within capitalism’s global structure."

This was such a convoluted, random, and inaccurate reaction to my post that I had to send it to a family member who is an actual professional economist (again, remember, IRL people love internet beefs) (5). He assured me that Karl Marx and Fredreich Engels would NOT have wanted to get tangled up in this beef.

But, anyway. I'm not a communist, and when I speak about capitalism and the markets to which Asian QL content is marketed to, I'm not analyzing the quantity of labor put into these shows that needs to be exchanged on the various Asian markets in order for the shows to be made. That's a very specific sightline into production budgets that maybe tingles @maybe-boys-do-love's brain. I think he was just trying to sound smart.

I want to be clear that he reacted to nothing I wrote in my post. This was a made-up stream of something that only established how he watches and judges shows.

But because I used the word "capitalism" in my post to talk about how GMMTV and other studios are addressing queerness and queer perspectives in their shows, @maybe-boys-do-love found reason to take issue with my writing, and to assume an air of intellectualism to establish a false sense of superiority -- by posting drivel.

All responses can be found at this link.

4) Conclusion and a Public Request to Respect Boundaries

As I wrote above: I wrote this post to make a public record of rebuttal against misinterpretations made about my writing by @maybe-boys-do-love.

I will publicly request that @maybe-boys-do-love do not contact me again. Do not reblog, tag, or comment on my posts.

If I have to block @maybe-boys-do-love, I will. However, I want the ability to read any further reaction he might have to this rebuttal, especially if he continues to besmirch my writing inaccurately and disingenuously.

As he demonstrated that he could not respect Shan's boundaries prior to this incident, I will say publicly now:

RESPECT MY BOUNDARIES.

"Behold, a wild Bisexual appears"

So, watching with @bengiyo & I felt the need to talk about Yoryak's portrayal as a bisexual male and how I don't think I have seen such a great characterization of bisexual orientation in male characters. Not used to writing so I do appreciate your patience.

1st, when we get "bisexual" characters (normally men, because, well, BL), the woman is only really referred to by her level of physical attractiveness or how "nice" he is. She is usually the campus beauty, very popular, rich (but accessible), & an outwardly "nice" person. It's all surface. She exists as a function to move the story along; we know little to nothing about her. She is a living "face card", with little else to endear her to us, the viewers. the male character realizes his "true" feelings and runs away with the boy and everyone is happy. But it becomes clear in his early interactions with her that he respects her level of grind, the fact that Taem is also smart & he likes her PERSONALITY. We are never led to believe its just surface with him. There is a real attraction there for him.

Which makes the 2nd point just as important: he really likes Dr.Wandee. There is never an issue of confusion because he knows he likes the dr, just as much as he likes Taem, there is just more there. "But its a guy" never crosses his mind, not once. He is Bisexual, PERIOD.

Its also worth noting that when he is thinking about his feelings for Wandee, he hears HER voice and recalls what she said about people having issues and not always being strong. He LISTENS to her and it's her voice he hears as inner monologue. He LISTENS to her and values it. He hears & retains. She isnt just there to move a story along. She is a WHOLE person, not just the plot axis.

3rd, he is constantly respecting borders and talking about consent in a way I dont think we get a lot with seme coded characters.

@bengiyo actually put the topic of consent in better perspective, so I would love for him to chime in.

What I found interesting is that in the first episode, Yak's crush is slight brushed aside. He asks her out, she declines, we can see that he's a little disappointed but he plays it off as light-hearted and the narrative doesn't dwell on it.

On the surface, it seems like a usual BL tale of a guy who has a crush but it's all superficial and he'll move on once he's found his next crush, i.e. our hardworking but occasionally adorkable doctor.

Then episode 2 comes around and that narrative cracks. We see Taem and Yak's friendship in more detail. We see that she genuinely cares about and supports him; that he admires and respects her; that he feels safe enough around her to put on a cowsuit and act a little silly.

And this was the scene where I thought "By talos, they've done it!" because I was realised I could ship them. If they were the side couple of the show, I'd be behind them 100% of the way.

I know! A het ghost ship in MY BL? Insanity.

Yak's feelings for her felt genuine and understandable. They have a great dynamic and amazing chemistry. She feels like a real and fleshed out character. And the show managed it just TWO scenes. Colour me impressed.

And it's even more impressive given that the main leads also have fantastic chemistry. Yak and Dee are the gift that just keep giving and not just because they genuinely make me feel like they're having fun in the bedroom. There's so much yearning in the two of them, for different reasons perhaps and maybe even for different things, but it's so interesting to see how that influences how they interact.

When we got to the end of the episode, we were talking about Wandee's request for consent on new things they try, but how Yoryak had to push for Wandee to say his name properly. From a narrative standpoint, the reason to create rules is for the characters to break them. We're already preparing to see Wandee break the first rule about keeping their personal lives separate next week.

“But I am! Everyone tells me that I’m special. I’m beautiful and smart and funny and I’ve done everything right. These bad things would never happen to me!” 

Watch the video again. 

True, you might be lucky and you might live a fairy tale life. But what if you didn’t? 

I’m a woman turning 40 this year, and I’ve lived a fairy tale life so far. I met my future husband in high school and we’ve been inseparable ever since. We supported each other through all-nighters and final exams in college, celebrated each other’s first jobs, traveled the world together, kissed under the Eiffel Tower and snorkeled the Great Barrier Reef. We got married and had two beautiful children who get compliments and free candy everywhere they go. We have jobs that give us personal satisfaction. We have a little place to call home that we own free and clear. We still hold hands after 20+ years together. 

Despite all this, I still have a backup plan in case anything ever goes wrong. 

Why? Because I just need to look at my mom and her generation to see what could easily happen to me, and what happens to many women. My mom did everything right too. She was young, beautiful, smart, hardworking, and kind. She went to college, got a job, got married, and had kids. She cooked, she cleaned, she drove us to piano lessons and art lessons. She showed up at our recitals and she was there on graduation day. 

And she was miserable. (Still is.) Because the happiness that was promised to her if she did all this, if she sacrificed her life for her husband and her family, if she was a good wife, did not materialize. Instead she was left an old, lonely woman in a loveless, debt-ridden marriage. 

My father was not a bad man. He never beat or abused my mother, he didn’t do drugs or drink excessively, he had no gambling or other vices, he was present in our lives, and he brought home a paycheck. But he was also stuck in a marriage where the love had fizzled under the never-ending burden of dishes and laundry and mortgage bills. Under arguments of whose turn it is to clean up the kids’ vomit and why did you spend money on this and how are we going to pay for the new transmission now. So when a younger woman started giving him attention and didn’t care why he forgot to take out the trash yet again, he started buying gifts for her. Expensive makeup, Louis Vuitton handbags, and the like. He was sad and lonely, and the woman was sweet to him. Meanwhile, my mom who was trying to get us to all of our dentist appointments and parent-teacher conferences, got nothing for Christmas. (She didn’t get him anything either.)

My father was not a bad man. He looked like a good man when they got married. I see their old photos from when they were young, before they had kids and a mortgage, and they looked happy. It hurts to look at their hopeful faces and know how things turned out in the end.

My mom’s story is not unique. All of my aunts are either depressed, divorced, or stuck in loveless marriages. Same with my friends’ parents. My mom recently reconnected with some friends whom she had not seen since college, and these five women were shocked to discover that they all had the same story: graduated from school, got jobs, got married, had kids, and became good wives, only to be bitterly disappointed by their husbands’ lack of partnership. They did what they were supposed to do, they carried their families on their backs, and they ended up with very little to show for it.

This video is about how common this scenario is, especially for idealistic young women who believe that this would never happen to them because they’re special. My mom was special too. So were my aunts. Everybody thinks they are special. Everybody thinks they’ll be the one to beat the odds.

And maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re one of the lucky ones. My mother looks at me, and she’s told me point blank, “You have a better fate than me, and for that I’m grateful.” When I look at my mother and the women of her generation, I see the lessons they learned the hard way and paid for dearly so that I can learn from their experience and avoid a similar fate. That’s why I cringe when I hear young women dreaming of a traditional life where they put their whole lives into their husband’s hands. I want to shake them and say, “Did you learn nothing from your mother’s sacrifice?!?!”

I still dream of living a fairy tale life, of growing old with my husband and being surrounded by our children, but I don’t forget the lessons of the women in my family who came before me. I have my own career, I have my own savings, I have no debt, I have maintained my health, I have maintained my own interests, and I have maintained my own social relationships. I can walk on my own two feet if I have to.

How do I love King? Let me count the ways.

Uea told King to wait, and King stopped immediately, which made Uea smile. Good boy.

King did not hesitate to tell Uea he finds him attractive.

And he didn't hesitate to show Uea either.

King is honest about sex. Always.

He knows something is bothering Uea, but he never pushes. He respects Uea and the boundaries he has in place.

He is part spider monkey.

King knows Uea strongly reacted to something he did, and even though he doesn't understand why, he apologizes and assures Uea he won't do it again. No questions.

He called Uea before he went out, let him know he wouldn't be doing anything against their rules, ignored that woman in favor of the fries, and texted Uea when he got home. He said, "there will be NO miscommunication ruining my guaranteed three-times-a-week-sex deal," which is great since Gun had already told Uea everything the next day before King texted him.

He isn't giving Uea room to doubt him. King said "you ain't gotta be suspicious cause I'll put a tracker on my own ass if you want me to."

He was quick to admit that he was jealous of Gun, who he knows finds Uea attractive, looking cozy with Uea.

He took the olive branch (SEX!) Uea gave him because my boy may be hurt but he ain't stupid, and he reacts when Uea says that the reason he is sleeping with King is because he wants to fuck up his life even more. He doesn't take offense because he realizes Uea is in pain, and even offers him a safe place, not just figuratively but literally as well.

My boy said, "I'm lonely" while setting up an entire thirst trap like the slut he is. Good boy.

All his clothes are made out of boyfriend material.

And above all else, the way he LOOKS at Uea every damn time.

decided to put these in a bit of a chronological order as i can’t help but form a story behind the scenes. it’s a storyteller’s habit. and yeah i do have an idea i would genuinely like to explore with gail simone as a crossover comic. 

i don’t want to be the writer for this. but at the same time i always found diving into these things and exploring the character chemistry was the best way to get an artistic feeling for it.

this is also how i usually develop my own stories.

anyhow, while many think this is me drawing some shipping, in fact this a proof of concept for an adventure story  featuring lara and diana. Gail simone at some point asked if they would kiss and i gave it some genuine thought. i am a character first kind of a writer, myself, so i contemplated this. then i decided, yes, probably.

after all, romantic subplots have been the bread and butter of adventure writing since its inception and i always liked that aspect of adventure stories.

 i hope this puts some things in context from my end XD

and while there will probably be a few more of these, there will be no nsfw pics. after all, camera pans away from indiana jones in those moments as well  XD

3 years it took this girl to turn this piece of truck garbage into her home and it was beautiful. 😍😮 Have a good trip!

But they never talk about how assuming everyone is straight is harming people!!!

Calgary Central Library by Snøhetta

David Romero Detailed Renderings of FLW Lost Works

I made a thing but I don’t think I like it. Maybe I do? I can’t tell.