I Know We’ve All Been Talking About Assad And His Micro Expressions, But His Transition Here From Incredulity

kind of obsessed with the characterization of jayce and viktor as fundamentally good people who will also go absolutely batshit insane if you separate them because theyre also ridiculously codependent to a degree that is concerning for everybody else's wellbeing. they were literally away from each other for a couple of months and almost ended the entire world

Elrond as Gil-Galad's Herald should be portrayed more often as a polite political fiction. Like, Elrond's heritage should put him in a very important political position, given exactly how many lineages of kings he's related to. But he's basically allergic to being in charge and every time a council member mentions Elrond getting named the heir, Gil-Galad has to spend half a day talking Elrond out of a tree. But they can't disregard it completely because there are plenty of elves whose loyalty is tied closer to Elrond than Gil-Galad no matter how publically Elrond defers to him.

So, they compromised and made him Gil-Galad's Herald, which is an important position that tells everyone he has Gil-Galad's explicit trust but also means he spends more time playing diplomat and messenger than expressing his own political opinions. Also, it'd be funny if Elrond spends more time essentially pioneering healing techniques than anything else and Gil-Galad sending him out on Herald work is essentially him saying "you're not allowed back in the library until you've eaten at least three meals (diplomatic dinners) and talked to ten people, you're the healer why do I have to tell you this."

Also, something with the two of them going to great lengths to try and get people to forget that Gil-Galad isn't actually that much older than Elrond. And at least one political dinner where a bard is about to sing the Lay of Luthien and has to make awkward eye contact with Elrond, because that's his grandma. And the public consensus that Elrond is probably the most forgiving person on middle earth given he acknowledges his technical kidnappers as his technical foster fathers. And how that acknowledgement technically makes him and Celebrimbor cousins (as opposed to the more distant cousin relationship through his grandmother, Idril, daughter of Turgon, son of Fingolfin, brother to Feanor - aka the guy who made the first jewelry wars were started over, Celebrimbor's grampa).

Taking Pause for Reflection- Part 1: Respectable Promiscuity and Only Friends

Well we are three marvelous episodes into Only Friends, and are already seeing the ways in which the narrative is making preparations to sow chaos in every single character’s life. By this point we have seen numerous examples of Boston fucking with Mew’s relationship, watched Top hook up with Boston, took note of Ray’s reliance on alcohol, his drinking and driving, and how he abandons his games with Sand the second he can play hero for Mew, and we’ve already unlocked Nick’s #hotgirlespionage era. In short, we are getting complex, messy, shitty, realistic, and three dimensional queer people on our screens.

As we all continue on our Only Friends journey, I think it is vitally important to look at the research that has been done on the subject of representations of queer people, and understand recurring themes in engagement with queer communities that I have personally seen being repeated in the reactions some people are having to the queer characters in Only Friends. 

Disclaimer: I am a Westerner, writing this from a Western gay lens, with Western sources, and primarily targeting the Western BL audience with this essay. That said, I would love to hear other people’s, non Westerners especially, thoughts on the themes I will be discussing here.

Anyway…

On the Subject of the Acceptable Queer and Respectable Promiscuity 

To make sure anyone who reads this is on the same page, I just want to define the term respectable promiscuity 

Respectable: Decent or correct in behavior or character (Miriam-Webster)

Promiscuity: having or involving multiple sex partners: not restricted to one or few sex partners (Miriam-Webster)

Respectable Promiscuity as defined by Jody Ahlm, “captures the negotiations individuals engage in as they enact stigmatized sexual practices, manage sexual reputations, and give meaning to their sexual practices within a specific sociopolitical context.” (2017)

Or in my understanding, how people cope with and justify the sex they have that society may see as morally wrong. Because so much of our world has been captured by this idea that sex, especially non-monogamous sex, sex outside of wedlock, or queer sex is inherently wrong or sinful, it is far more likely that queer people will be accepted by society if they are at the very least perceived to be engaging in respectable sex (aka monogamous, moderated, and more vanilla sexual practices). 

…According to this [sexual value system], sex that is ‘good’,’normal’, and ‘natural’ should ideally be heterosexual, marital, monogamous, reproductive, and non-commercial. It should be coupled, relational, within the same generation, and occur at home. It should not involve pornography, fetish objects, sex toys of any sort, or roles other than male and female. Any sex that violates these rules is ‘bad’, ‘abnormal’, or ‘unnatural’. Bad sex may be homosexual, unmarried, promiscuous, non-procreative, or commercial. It may be masturbatory or take place at orgies, may be casual, may cross generational lines, and may take place in ‘public’, or at least in the bushes or the baths. It may involve the use of pornography, fetish objects, sex toys, or unusual roles. (Rubin, 1984)

Late last week I posted a whole essay on cruising culture in the queer community, and the possibility that Boston is a physical manifestation of historical queer cultural practices (a theme that I see continuing in Ep 3 simply with the kind of car that he drives). As part of that I talked about how the combination of the AIDS epidemic and the creation of mobile apps like Grindr have greatly contributed to the reduction in cruising culture, something similar can be said of the creation of respectable promiscuity: “The stigma of promiscuity in gay male culture has roots in the respectability politics of internal responses to AIDS, as well as homophobic responses from outside the community, and continues to haunt discourses of gay male sexuality.” (Ahlm, 2017)

I think a lot about media and media influence on personal beliefs and perceptions, after all media is political. There is a reason that when I think about and talk about media, I am in some capacity thinking about who the audience is and who a film was made for. How many queer films were truly made for queer people? I mean, seriously, think about how many movies and television shows over the past few decades that either were about or included queer people ended in tragedy. Those films aren’t meant for us, they are meant to show heterosexual people the struggles of being queer. We are meant to be shown suffering so that heterosexual people may, hopefully, learn to have some sympathy for queer people. Brokeback Mountain, for example, wasn’t made for queer people, if it was the promotional material would not have straight-baited the audience, if it was we would not have had to watch Jack Twist get beaten to death for being a faggot. 

Historical queer activism was fighting for far far more than just marriage equality, but over time marriage equality has become the most popularized and pervasive queer civil rights fight. Now the repeated theme we hear over and over again, a message that a lot of the BLs and QLs are pushing, is marriage equality. We see it in Not Me, Moonlight Chicken, Cutie Pie, The Wedding Planner, Love in the Air, GAP, etc. etc. as a result, if we see sex in a show, we see generally pure, and if not pure certainly monogamous sex in most BLs. While a production company like GMMTV may have some of their talent switch gay pairings (looking at you Mark Pakin, Fluke Pusit, and pre-Khao era First) once they find a pairing that is popular and profitable to them, they rarely split them up across their other shows but especially not within the same show. Truly, we have seen the main pairs mix and matching in shows how many times? Two? Three? Off the top of my head I can only think of…

Earth with Papang and Mix with First in Moonlight Chicken 

*gestures vaguely at all of Only Friends*

All of this to say: 

In the past two decades, marriage equality has been pushed to the front of LGBT organizing and with it the imperative of appearing ‘‘just like them(heterosexuals),’’ through sexual moderation, monogamy and the disavowal of deviant sexual subcultures. This assimilationist discourse is the foundation of homonormativity and the current politics of respectability in LGBT communities…‘‘Homonormativity’’ is a term Lisa Duggan (2003) uses to describe the assimilationist politics of the contemporary gay and lesbian movement that emphasizes individualism and sexual restraint. (Ahlm, 2017)

Which is a long-winded way of saying that in pushing for traditionally heterosexual practices, and general societal acceptance, representations of queer people have had to be pared down to seem less sexually liberated than our community may actually be (and just look at the way the aspects of queer culture like drag and like…just existing as a trans person are being increasingly associated with sex, sexual deviancy, and then warped in to pedophilia and sex crime narratives in order to turn society at large against us to make it easier to discriminate and eliminate us). 

I am not sure how marriage equality was argued in other countries, but I do know that Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted marriage equality in the United States, was argued on the basis of privacy (and is also why people are fucking terrified at the reversal of Roe v. Wade, because that was also successfully won initially on the argument of privacy and was used as a precedent to win future cases like Obergefell). Which means that in arguing for gay marriage to be legally recognized, in order to get the rights that are afforded to us through marriage, we had to shift queer culture in to the spaces and definitions of privacy, rather than the public spaces that were foundational to historical queer culture. 

As the Lawrence ruling and the LGBT movement’s focus on marriage equality suggest, mainstream acceptance of gays and lesbians has thus far hinged on the sanctity of domestic privacy and the legitimacy of monogamous relationships. The success of this political strategy has brought about a dramatic shift in public opinion and legal recognition for same-sex couples in the USA, culminating in the Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) Supreme Court decision that extended marriage rights to same-sex couples throughout the country. This acceptance, though, is conditioned on creating a public image of group maturation where being gay is no longer associated with a sexual culture of promiscuity, bathhouses, outdoor cruising areas, and porn theatres. Language of sexual autonomy or sexual freedom has been replaced with the conventional wisdom that ‘‘what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business.’’(Ahlm, 2017)

TL;DR: Homophobia and the AIDS epidemic contributed to a decrease in historical queer cultural practices of public and semi-public, non-monogamous sex practices and the push for rights like marriage equality further contributed to the queer community being pushed towards privacy about their sex lives, resulting in representation of queer culture shifting to the image of the monogamous, sexually moderated, non-kinky homosexual. 

Homonormativity, like heteronormativity, privileges whiteness. Homonormativity produces a systemic policing of sexuality and gender, in part through a politics of representation that erases queers of color, poor and working-class queers, and gender non-conforming queers. Guided by an ‘‘ethics of sexual shame’’ (Warner, 2000) the contemporary LGBT movement distances itself from sexual deviants, and more generally from sex itself (Duggan, 2003; Robinson, 2005; Rubin, 1993). (Ahlm, 2017)

A huge part of what got me hooked on Asian BL was seeing representations of queer people that were not just white men with power. Getting to watch two people navigate the political nature of their queerness in conjunction with their socioeconomic status, seeing just the most casual inclusion of trans women (something that like never happens in Western media). Part of what got me so obsessed with KinnPorsche as my first Thai BL was the existence of Yok, who has 0% of a plot about being trans and 100% of a plot around being a surrogate mother to Porsche and just a generally massive party girl. A reason why I like shows like Bed Friend and The Warp Effect so much is because they actually include kink in their shows. (Even though  Bed Friend only really does it once with the pet play in Ep. 6 still with monogamous sex, and Jojo can only get away with heavy kink focus in TWE through a heterosexual couple.)

Finding BL gave me ways to see a lot of different flavors of queers, different dynamics between queers, while still being made to cater primarily towards heterosexual audiences. How many queer romances exist in the West? Big Eden (my beloved), two Christmas movies and the butchered corpse of Red, White, and Royal Blue? [do not come for me here, I know there are more, I have a whole syllabus from @bengiyo that has more than that on it, my point is mostly looking at how popular and increasingly, rapidly abundant and easily accessible gay romance is in BLs compared to how popular abundant gay romance is the West]. I loved Gay OK Bangkok because it gave accurate and honest depictions of three-dimensional queer characters, not two-dimensional, spoon-fed perfect gay men. I loved The Eclipse because it gave me extremely morally gray, queer characters. I loved 3 Will Be Free for both the representations of polyamory, and also for the humanity that Jojo allowed Mae to have. 

TL;DR Current LGBTQ+ political movements have started shifting away from highlighting sexual liberation as an aspect of queer culture, in order to make ourselves more palatable to the overarching heterosexual society. This bleeds through in to the kinds of media that exist, the types of queer people portrayed within that media, as well as how often gay sex is shown, the type of gay sex shown, and the number of gay sex partners depicted. (Read: generally infrequently, generally vanilla, generally one). 

How Respectable Promiscuity Ties in to Only Friends

IT DOESN’T! Jojo, Ninew, Den, and the rest of the team are not interested in creating a story that takes audience perceptions of respectable promiscuity into consideration. All the boys are thirsty, all the boys are fucking, Boston is promiscuous as hell, Top is (potentially) a slut (or at least a former slut), Sand has been in multiple relationships and has had multiple one-night stand sexual partners (no repeats). Mew is maybe not as virginal as he has led us to believe. Every time any gay boy is standing next to another gay boy that they didn’t know like a week before, a third gay person is wiggling their eyebrows like “oh how do you two know each other?” (aka, you fucked?) See: Nick to Boston and Top, Sand to Boston and Nick, Yo to Ray and Sand, Mew to Ray and Sand. 

Sex has been and will continue to be abundant in this show. Jojo himself said “[Sex] is coming every episode…I’m screaming for Prince but I love gay slut too. No matter slut or good person they should be equally represented”

There have been no allusions to the contrary. Jojo has presented this as a bacchanal from the beginning. The pilot trailer has multiple sex and/or make out sessions, indications of cheating, First with a goddamn bat, pills, screaming, and crying.

The actual promotional trailer had: multiple sex and/or make out sessions, indications of cheating, First raining destruction down upon some glassware, pills, screaming, and crying.

The interviews with the cast members about why we should watch Only Friends had Neo saying Boston was an asshole, and you should watch Only Friends because it’s hot. In those same interviews Force said he was looking forward to everyone hating him. The playlist that Jojo made ages ago for this show has so many songs about sex, drugs, being cheated on, and breaking up. Jojo tweeted months ago that he had a meeting with the GMMTV office and he had permission to do whatever he wanted. Jojo and co have never once pulled the wool over our eyes as for what to expect from the physical intimacy in this show. We have been promised a sex fest, and we are getting a sex fest. We have been promised some form of a cheating plot line, and we are getting some form of a cheating plot line. We have been promised substance use issues, and we are getting substance use issues. 

Yet on tumblr I am seeing discomfort and as a result, alteration of character motivation and action, around behaviors these characters exhibit that result in sex. 

...Western cultures generally consider sex to be a dangerous, destructive, negative force (Weeks, 1981, p. 22). Most Christian tradition, following Paul, holds that sex is inherently sinful. It may be redeemed if performed within marriage for procreative purposes and if the pleasurable aspects are not enjoyed too much. In turn, this idea rests on the assumption that genitalia are an intrinsically inferior part of the body, much lower and less holy than the mind, the ‘soul’, the ‘heart’...Such notions have by now acquired a life of their own and no longer depend solely on religion for their perseverance.  

This culture always treats sex with suspicion. It construes and judges almost any sexual practice in terms of its worst possible expression. Sex is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Virtually all erotic behavior is considered bad unless a specific reason to exempt it has been established. The most acceptable excuses are marriage, reproduction, and love. Sometimes scientific curiosity, aesthetic experience, or a long-term intimate relationship may serve. (Rubin, 1984)

Boston is not a terrible person for cruising for sex, Boston is not a terrible person for being a slut, Boston is not a terrible person for not wanting to deepen his relationship with Nick beyond just having sex with him. What does make Boston kinda shitty is the fact that he manipulates people to get what he wants, strings Nick’s feelings along, and uses captured images and films of his friends and uses that to call their moral character into question.

Nick is not pure of heart and dumb of ass for enjoying sex with Boston or for wanting to define his relationship to Boston. Subjectively, his actions for acquiring sex with Boston the first time (aka adding his photo to Boston’s phone) is a gay wrong we support for the chaos, objectively that is a massive invasion of privacy the likes of which rival Boston holding on to photos and videos of Ray and Mew together for two years. Subjectively, it is a power play from Nick to have wiretapped Boston’s car to catch him hooking up with another person and I am excited for Boston to potentially see some consequences as a result of this. Objectively this is once again a massive invasion of privacy, and it is entirely possible there will be a lot of fallout as a result of the evidence Nick just acquired, despite the fact that objectively Top and Boston did nothing wrong.

Boston never committed to monogamy, and Top and Mew never officially defined their relationship as boyfriends (yes, I know Top calls Mew his boyfriend at the bar, but he is saying that to someone he wants to stop hitting on him)  and we have seen no conversations around whether or not they are exclusive. Is it maybe kinda shitty that Top fucked Boston this far in to trying to become Mew’s boyfriend? Probably. But Top is not an inherently terrible person for having sex with Boston, nor is he an unwilling or inactive participant being pressured into having a second round with Boston (he even initiates the kiss). 

On the opposite end, Mew is not perfect or immune from doing or causing harm in the past, present, or future just because he is withholding sex from Top. Mew isn’t dumb or naive, he doesn’t need protecting, he knows what game he might be in, and he is playing it to the best of his ability. Jojo and co are incredibly talented at writing complex characters, the fact that Mew is possibly a virgin, the fact that Mew is aware that sex for him means something deeper than sex might mean for Boston does not mean Mew should be placed on a pedestal of purity.

Much like I think Boston is a physical manifestation of older queer culture, I think Mew may be a physical manifestation of more current beliefs around queer people: 

As a result of the sex conflicts of the last decade, some behavior near the border is inching across it. Unmarried couples living together, masturbation, and some forms of homosexuality are moving in the direction of respectability (see Figure 9.2). Most homosexuality is still on the bad side of the line. But if it is coupled and monogamous, then society is beginning to recognize that it includes the full range of human interaction. (Rubin, 1984)

Mew is absolutely playing games with Top, he has said that himself, about holding out long enough to see if Top genuinely cares about him rather than just wants a virgin to conquer. But he has also stated that he knows that if he has sex with Top that he will become obsessed. He wants to know Top, and care about Top as a person, and know that Top cares about him as a person before he will have sex. Everyone around Mew is obsessed with his sex life, desperate for him to lose his virginity, desperate for him to join them on the other side of the line. So many of the other queer characters are trying to publicize Mew’s gay sex life, (including Top who publicly asked him to be his boyfriend), while Mew desperately tries to maintain the depiction of purity that his friends think he is. Which is to say, where Boston is cruising for casual sex, and frequently engaging in public sex, Mew is maintaining respectability and looking for long-term and intimate private sex. 

(Also a tangential thought, but I don’t remember Ray saying anything about Mew’s need to lose his virginity, I think that has really only been Boston, Cheum, Yo in part, and even Top have all had discussions around Mew’s virginity or need to have his first sexual encounter). 

Conclusion

I want to end on this quote: 

Most people find it difficult to grasp that whatever they like to do sexually will be thoroughly repulsive to someone else, and that whatever repels them sexually will be the most treasured delight of someone, somewhere. One need not like or perform a particular sex act in order to recognize that someone else will, and that this difference does not indicate a lack of good taste, mental health, or intelligence in either party. Most people mistake their sexual preferences for a universal system that will or should work for everyone. (Rubin, 1984)

I hope as we proceed through this story, and more characters fuck, get fucked, and fuck up that we are able to interact with the source material and connect with the characters as they are presented on screen, not with what we have shaped them to be in our heads. I hope we are able to separate from the mindset of respectable promiscuity, and refrain from placing false perceptions of purity or morality to characters who do or do not uphold heterosexual society’s understanding of what a good homosexual is supposed to be. Only Friends has never lied to us, the characters might have, the way their dynamics play out might subvert our expectations, but the subject matter, the level of heat, the commitment of gay wrongs is what this show was always going to be. I don’t know about y’all but I am here to sit back, watch my BL boys commit as many gay wrongs as possible within 12 episodes, and write overly academic pieces on sex, sexuality, and queerness in Only Friends for the bit. 

Stay tuned for Part 2 where I discuss racism and the commodification of queer men of color. 

Sources

Ahlm, Jody (2017) Respectable promiscuity: Digital cruising in an era of queer liberalism, Sexualities, DOI: 10.1177/1363460716665783

Chong-suk Han (2007) They Don't Want To Cruise Your Type: Gay

Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Exclusion, Social Identities, 13:1, 51-67, DOI:

10.1080/13504630601163379

Rubin, Gayle (1984) The Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality- Chapter 9: The Sex Wars. 

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank @bengiyo, @emotionallychargedtowel, @lurkingshan, @so-much-yet-to-learn, and @waitmyturtles for reading through this post, adding your thoughts, and helping with edits! Y'all are the best

"If you were actually in that much pain you'd be screaming in agony" well, the thing is, screaming takes energy and so does being in pain, and I also have other shit to do, you know. I think people only have the context of pain as being an acute concept, like stubbing your toe...something that comes and then gets better. You kinda get used to chronic pain, but it never stops hurting. You just learn to exist with it, because you don't have another choice

LISTEN UP AGAIN KIDS STOP REBLOGGING THIS FUCKING GARBAGE POST. IT IS 100% FUCKING BULLSHIT AND CAN AND MOST DEFINITELY WILL LITERALLY KILL. DO YOU NOT SEE WARNING LABELS THAT SAY “DO NOT INDUCE VOMITING”? THEY AREN’T FUCKING AROUND. YOU CAN FUCKING BURN THEIR ESOPHAGUS BY CAUSING VOMITING, CAUSE CHOKING, DROWNING, OR MAKE IT WORSE! AGAIN DO NOT FORCE ANYTHING DOWN ANYONE’S THROAT. THEY. CAN. DROWN. IF SOMEONE IS LOSING CONCIOUSNESS ALL THE CHIT CHAT IN THE WORLD WILL NOT PREVENT IT AT THAT POINT THEY ARE IN SERIOUS DANGER. “Buuut i don’t wanna take them to the hospital!!!” WELL SUNSHINE GLAD YOU’D RATHER HAVE A DEAD FRIEND THAN A LIVING ONE BUT YOU’RE IN LUCK CALL FUCKING POISON CONTROL. THEY ARE NOT THE COPS. THEY WILL HELP YOU. AND IF THEY SAY GO TO THE FUCKING HOSPITAL YOU GO TO THE FUCKING HOSPITAL. NO EXCUSES. 0. NONE. I have seen this shit cross my dash SO MANY TIMES so PLEASE fucking reblog this and prevent some well meaning idiot from accidentally killing someone they love!

Tutor & Pete!Twin AU ↳ Tutor isn’t quite on board with Pete’s new boyfriend. Especially after the last one.

armand's mask slipping

The haunting ancient Celtic carnyx being played for an audience. This is the sound Roman soldiers would have heard their Celtic enemies make.

I wake up every day to an equation I wrote 15 years ago from which there's only one conclusion, I'm damned for what I do.

okay so the wilds got canceled for low viewership and negative responses, first kill got canceled for not holding viewership long enough and negative responses, paper girls again got canceled for low viewership, and warrior nun *checks notes* oh warrior nun had overwhelmingly positive responses but got canceled for not holding viewership long enough… weirdly tho these “low viewership” numbers are incredibly similar to many shows that did get renewed and did get largely promoted-namely heartstopper, young royals, elite— so i cant help but wonder if maybe maybe low viewership isnt the problem at all. and that maybe maybe the problem is the other thing that is shared by all of these shows, which is their main love story being wlw and their primary audience being sapphics. and that maybe maybe these shows were never meant to be renewed, as the disparity in promotional investment is obvious, because of that very reason. maybe that has something to do with it. fuck netflix and fuck streaming.