Hearing Gayed. Broken.

The following conversation took place this week between me (a gay man) and a friend of mine (a straight woman who’s hard of hearing). We sometimes watch BLs together. (Note: This conversation was first posted on Reddit, but felt more appropriate here.)

ME: So, what do you think (of Hidamari)?

SHE: What do *I* think? With all this praise from everyone, everywhere, all at once, you’d think this was the second coming of Christ!

ME: Tell me about it. I think there has been a sprinkling of healthy scepticism on Reddit, but it’s out and out war on the pages of MDL.

SHE: Let me guess. Between those who think it’s a disability drama, and those who think it’s BL?

ME: Bingo!

SHE: Are there any who think it’s bad at both?

ME: Ummm… you?

SHE: Bingo!

ME: There is also that other, internecine war on MDL: between that group of mostly young, mostly female population who want a chaste, aching BL, and the older gays who, understandably, don’t want the sex erased from homosexuality.

SHE: Well, you know whose side I am on.

ME: Mine, I hope. Anyway, do spill.

SHE: As you know, I don’t think art needs to be representational at all. It is not anyone’s duty to represent anything. But, insofar as people think that this show ‘represents’ disability, it is a miserable failure. Not least because it is primarily a plot device, whose purpose is to sow misunderstanding and miscommunication between our boys. As if Japanese characters don’t do enough of that to themselves already. Apparently, deaf people can’t communicate because… well… they can’t hear well. Get it? How original! Have you ever known me to be non-communicative?

ME: If only.

SHE: Might I remind you that you gave me your number? Anyway, I know I'm oversimplifying matters... but not that much. The idea that people hard of hearing cannot reach out, or do not reach out, out of fear, failure of confidence, or low self-esteem, is just so old and tired, I'm quite sick of it. Our lives are richer than that. There is nothing we want more than be part of the world, and we are often better communicators for it. I don't know if Kohei's syndrome was more cultural or physiological, but either way, he made me quite angry with all that self-pity. A highly unattractive trait in a man. At least Taichi brought a measure of joy and innocence into the drama -- and Kobayashi is an amazing actor -- but soon I grew weary of his naïveté too. He's so dense that even light would bend around him. I was patient enough of all this for the first few episodes, but then they brought in Maya...

ME: Who, by the way, has a lot of defenders.

SHE: Of course she does. Another straight, evil woman who comes in between the boys in a BL? It's revolutionary, I tell you.

ME: She transcends that trope, apparently...

SHE: By, let me guess, being deaf and having a sad past? Yay! Deaf people can be evil too! I feel seen! That’s true representation! Trope? What trope?

ME: I get it. I get it. Also, it's not as if either of us are against tropes, when done well. I seem to remember you did love Heart and Li Ming in Moonlight Chicken.

SHE: Oh, that was wonderful. I was swooning over them, and wondering where the fuck was my Li Ming. Was it good “representation”? No. (Let's face it, nor is Hidamari.) Was it “realistic”? No. (Again, nor is Hidamari.) But was it full of joy? Yes! Was it full of chemistry and sensuality and longing? Yes. Did it show that deaf people can be fun and joyous too and want rampant sex and can make fun of ourselves? Yes, yes, yes. It didn’t even have a proper kiss, and yet managed to be so full of physicality. Which emotionally starved fuck-up wrote this script?

ME: I’d rather not go into it.

SHE: Was the person who wrote the manga hard-of-hearing?

ME: I don’t know. I didn't think it mattered.

SHE: Good. Better that way. Because if I found out that they were, I might be tempted to cut them some slack, and I don't want to. I want to preserve my unrighteous indignation.

ME: When did you first become suspicious that the show was going to be a damp squib?

SHE: Shall we say it together?

BOTH: The kiss!

ME: Yes!

SHE: What a cop off!

ME: People tried to justify it, you know. Everywhere. The pearl-clutchers came up with all sorts of explanations. I just couldn’t accept it. At all. This is 20-fucking-24! It smelt too much of cowardice to me. If not institutional homophobia.

SHE: Thank god I can still smell.

ME: Indeed, and my tastebuds are thankful for it. But yes, it was a symbol, a symbol of oncoming failure of imagination, a lack of daring. I knew at that point that they were going to take the easy way out. I mean, the show had so many good things at the beginning. The set-up, the acting, the natural fluidity of presence between Kohei and Taichi. What happened?

SHE: Multitasking never works. Trust me. Not even for women. The show was vacillating from theme to theme, character to character, without knowing what it wanted to say, or show. In other words, the definition of a bad script, which no acting, however good, can redeem. It had no focus.

ME: And the focus should have been on love.

SHE: Yes. Why else are we here?

ME: You mean on earth, or in the BL world?

SHE: What’s the difference?

ME: I’m going to block you now.

SHE: Don’t. Then I have to talk to my husband. I'm just saying that if they wanted to marry the idea of love and hardness-of-hearing, they shouldn't have resorted to such cheap tricks as introducing Maya, or just make misunderstanding the whole machinery of the show. I could practically hear the plot creaking. Ironically...

ME: No wonder you bought me lube for my last birthday. When did you throw in the towel then?

SHE: An episode or two after Maya came in. You?

ME: The episode where Maya came in.

SHE: You quit sooner? That almost never happens!

ME: Yes, but I have been keeping up with discussions on MDL — you know I’m a masochist — and Reddit, and it has been going exactly where I thought it would go. I knew the romance would disappear, I knew that there would be no further intimacy, I knew that Maya would occupy too much time… it all came true. I have developed a sixth sense for turgid BLs.

SHE: And you call me harsh.

ME: I'll do one better and call the ending now. There will be a time-jump, there will be another almost near-miss, there will be an “I’ve loved you all along” realisation, and then the worst bad-angle, fish-eyed kiss imaginable. You know, with the kind of chemistry that causes asphyxiation? Or death by proptosis? That is, of course, if there is a kiss at all. Maybe they'll end it with a low-five.

SHE: What is a low-five?

ME: Where they just hug, or briefly hold hands, and as soon as their hands move downwards, they go: Ewww... gay.

SHE: I've taught you well. And I bet they’ll try to redeem Maya too.

ME: Like Tong in whatchamacallit.

SHE: My Stand-in?

ME: Sorry, I’m too busy.

SHE: What are you watching now?

ME: Happy of the End. Terrible title, but it is sooo good! I'm hoping it will redeem JBL for me this year. You?

SHE: 4Minutes, mainly to see Fuaiz being a power-bottom. I'm hoping that, in the finale, he'll be railed to death by Win and Korn, and maybe have a Great Tyme too.

ME: I’m still waiting for a Thai power couple named Gang & Bang.

SHE: One can only hope. On which note…


Reader's Digest:
DO SAY: What's your love language?
DON'T SAY: What's love in sign language?

Citeste mai mult

[Preliminary Review] Fruits 'n Suits

THE BAILIFF: All rise. The court is now in session. Justice Bea Yeller presides.

DEFENCE: Objection!

JUDGE: Counsel, we haven’t even begun yet.
DEFENCE: We're here, we’re (not) queer, and we’re loud and clear.
JUDGE: Oh, do sit down. (To the Prosecution): Now, what is the substance of the claim here?

PROSECUTION: A JBL programme, your Honour. Love is Poison. We claim that it is another predictable, pointless and disappointing addition to the canon, and that in 2024, it feels dated and retrogressive.
DEFENCE: Spoilsports!
JUDGE: That’s not a legal ground for objection, counsel. 

DEFENCE: But it is in the show!

JUDGE (sighing): They don’t pay me enough for this.
THE JURY: Nor us, your Honour.
JUDGE: Alright, I’ll hear from the Defence first. What do you have to say?

DEFENCE: We say, simply, that LIP is a fun, funny, silly, enjoyable BL, that warms our hearts, and fills us with joy. It does not aspire to anything more than that. And it should not be taken to task for not being anything more than that. The entirety of Prosecution’s case rests on what it *wants* a BL to be, not what it is.
JUDGE: And what is it? 

DEFENCE: A BL.
PROSECUTION: Objection. Facts not in evidence, your Honour.
JUDGE: Sustained. Counsel, you can't just go around begging the question. What do you mean by "just a BL"?
DEFENCE: It’s a fantasy in which two men fall in love. That’s all. It is governed by a set of well-established conventions, and Love is Poison merely follows most, if not all of those conventions. That does not make it derivative or dull, even if it is predictable.
JUDGE: Alright then. What makes it so fun and enjoyable? What is it that warms your hearts and fills them with joy?

DEFENCE: Two very handsome leads, one nerdish lawyer and one sexy rogue. Workplace romance that is half Suits, half Legally Blonde. A very silly, almost wafer-thin plot which we can comfortably ignore as background noise. People talking to succulents, succulents talking back. Food porn. Manga-style very loud interior monologues. (Japanese sounded never more masculine.) A killer soundtrack. (With helpful furigana to sing along.) The assurance of a happy ending. And, it is very, very funny. What more could you possibly want?
JUDGE: Does the Prosecution dispute any of this?

PROSECUTION: No, your Honour.
JUDGE: Then why are we here?

PROSECUTION: May we put certain questions to the Defence, your Honour?
JUDGE: Why?

PROSECUTION: Latitude, your Honour.
JUDGE: Go ahead. I need to file my nails anyway.
PROSECUTION: Those two very handsome leads, do either of them call themselves ‘gay’?
DEFENCE: No.
PROSECUTION: Is there a character in the show that explicitly does?
DEFENCE: Yes.
PROSECUTION: Is he handsome, the openly gay person? Is he shown with his lover? Are the two shown in any intimate light? Is he anything more than an unattractive, supportive sidekick?
DEFENCE: No. No. No. And no.
PROSECUTION: Do the leads kiss?

DEFENCE: Objection, your Honour. Where are they going with this?

JUDGE: Overruled. Continue.
PROSECUTION: Do the leads kiss?
DEFENCE: It depends on what you mean by kiss.
JUDGE: I think we all know what kissing means, counsel.
PROSECUTION: To clarify, your Honour, we mean a kiss that clearly shows two men desiring each other. Not a kiss in which one man presses his lip against another as if he might catch the plague, or worse, turn him “gay”.
JUDGE: No need to be snippy, counsel.
PROSECUTION: Cheerfully withdrawn.
JUDGE: Very well, do they kiss?
DEFENCE: Ummm... We refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it may incriminate us.
PROSECUTION: Alright. Is there an intimate scene in which one actor does not plank on top of the other, again, you know, because… eww… gay…
DEFENCE: Objection!
JUDGE (at the same time): Counsel! You are on a short leash here.
PROSECUTION: Apologies, your Honour.
JUDGE (to the Defence): Answer their question.

DEFENCE: No, there isn’t. But the actors…
PROSECUTION: Oh, we actually do have a statement from the actors, your Honour. In which they say that they have no problems whatsoever with same-sex intimacy. That it is part of their job. That the homophobia was not theirs.
DEFENCE: Objection. There’s no homophobia in the show.
PROSECUTION: We don’t disagree, your Honour. There *is* no homophobia in the show. That is part of what makes it enjoyable. Right? 
It is pure fiction.
DEFENCE: Yes. So what? Is that wrong? Many of us need that fantasy to escape this world, and we are well within our right to.
PROSECUTION: We take no issue with that. But everything around and about the show is, shall we say, more 2014 than 2024. After all, why introduce a gay character with no individuality, no depth, and no heart, except to support the very straight-coded leads?

DEFENCE: Straight-coded? Are you suggesting the leads be effeminate to conform to a stereotype?

PROSECUTION: Not at all. But the Defence has already admitted to the existence of BL conventions by which LIP abides. Did you not? Would you not then agree that this is one of them? That the leads must, to all appearances and in all aspects, act ‘straight’? One consequence of which is that they can never identify as ‘gay’? And another consequence of which is that effeminate or openly gay characters don’t ever get to be the leads?
DEFENCE: Objection, your Honour.
JUDGE: What is it this time?
DEFENCE: Relevance? Must these people ruin everything that is fun by making it about something grave and important? 

PROSECUTION: These people? Might I remind the jury that BLs are, by the defendants' own definition, stories of two men in love? Which makes the question of whether or not they are gay or bisexual is more than relevant.
JUDGE: Overruled. Hurry up, counsels. Some of us have to go to lunch.
PROSECUTION: Your Honour, what the Defence calls conventions, we call clichés. What they call silly, we call stupid. What warms their heart, makes us cringe. What fills them with joy, fills us with regret.
JUDGE: Isn’t this all a bit subjective, counsel? What exactly do you want me, and the jurors, to do about it?
DEFENCE: Exactly. Why harsh our mellows?
JUDGE: Is that a legal code, "harshing one's mellows"?

PROSECUTION: Your Honour, we don’t ask for realism from BLs. Not at all. That would be an oxymoron. We just think that many of the conventions, as the Defence calls it, or tropes, as we call it, are backwards and regressive. They are exclusionary, even discriminatory. We would also enjoy LIP a lot more if it did not resort to these tropes in 2024. When the majority of Japanese are in support of gay marriage. And when Japan, as a society, seems apt to move on.
JUDGE: What does the Defence say?

DEFENCE: We don’t believe in telling people what to make, your Honour. We just enjoy what is given.
PROSECUTION: But not telling people what to make is to tacitly endorse what they are already making. By claiming to enjoy it for what it is, you are voting for more of the same. For stasis and mediocrity. And it shows.
DEFENCE: Objection.
JUDGE: Overruled.
DEFENCE: Your Honour!
JUDGE: O-ver-ruled. (To the Prosecution): Wrap it up, counsel.
PROSECUTION: Your Honour, we would love to do nothing more than enjoy the same BLs that the Defence does. Nothing would make us happier. But many of these outdated conventions leave a very bad taste in our mouths. We love all the cactus choreography, we love all the blinding white camera flares, and we all love the strategic towel drop that accidentally reveals the nerdish lawyer’s unexpectedly hot body. We love the stupidity of the BL insistence that every student, lawyer, doctor, be the best in the whole country. We love the even greater stupidity that they all also happen to be hot, popular, and surrounded by girls who do nothing but shout ‘kawai’, and run around with gifts and flowers to give the ‘ikemen’. (Of course, we won’t talk about how JBLs treat the women in the show, which is a whole different can of worms.) All we ask is that gay people’s identities be not erased in the name of appealing to the masses, and pandering to the homophobes. We don’t think we are being unreasonable.
JUDGE (to the Defence): Anything more to add?
DEFENCE: The Defence rests, your Honour.
JUDGE: Very well then. Jurors, deliberate, and when you come to a conclusion, let me know. I’m off to Bianca’s.

THE JURY: Still out there.

Citeste mai mult