about question
Why is it common in BL? Why is it that ukes can't do no wrong and it's always the people around the uke that is fucked up? I hate it. I want ukes to be wrong in their own right as well, and be condemned. And if there is some human reasoning for them to be like that, making them not worthy of being fully condemned, I want the same for every other characters as well. I don't want some specially treated, audience pampered ukes, whiles every other character is scrutinized by the readers, I want ukes to face scrutiny as well. I want other characters to be able to be pampered and favored over ukes even when ukes are made out to be spotless innocent creatures, I just find ukes to always be written as innocent and can't do no wrong, or if they do, they are still loved and pampered where other characters aren't given the same, so I hate it. We need a change!!
about question
I was reading this article that another user had shared under the other forum post about porn addictions, the article is this:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too
And I couldn't help but link what it was talking about "porn addiction" to how people view and treat fujoshis and them reading BL. To quote the article: "Instead, higher levels of moral conflict over porn use predict higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and diminished sexual well-being, as well as religious and spiritual struggles." And I couldn't help but link this back to how people treat fujoshis. Making out women who are reading BL as inherently morally suspicious. Inflicting a moral conflict in them, about how they are fetishizers, and the triumphant win for doing all this is how it can bring this demographic, higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, shame. I feel like this is people's main motivation. To inflict this psychological distress on women about their consumption of BL through deeming them as fetishizers.
Would like to hear from fujoshis, or female readers of BL about this link being made.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too
And I couldn't help but link what it was talking about "porn addiction" to how people view and treat fujoshis and them reading BL. To quote the article: "Instead, higher levels of moral conflict over porn use predict higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, and diminished sexual well-being, as well as religious and spiritual struggles." And I couldn't help but link this back to how people treat fujoshis. Making out women who are reading BL as inherently morally suspicious. Inflicting a moral conflict in them, about how they are fetishizers, and the triumphant win for doing all this is how it can bring this demographic, higher levels of stress, anxiety, depression, shame. I feel like this is people's main motivation. To inflict this psychological distress on women about their consumption of BL through deeming them as fetishizers.
Would like to hear from fujoshis, or female readers of BL about this link being made.
about question
I was watching a tiktok video on Connor from Detroit becomes human, how he was experiencing boredom and how that's very human, and that it goes to show him being more that just machine, and I was like really? You can use boredom to identify humanity? I never thought of it that way.
But It also made me think about this one review I saw under the Little Mushroom novel on novelupdates, where someone was like "the MC is more human than some of the human characters despite being a mushroom" because I think the human characters were cruel or selfish (I haven't read the novel). And again I was like, Really? A stupid mushroom is deemed more human than humans. Don't humans themselves demonstrate what humans are, even the most selfish and cruel ones? Or is humanity just all the positive traits?
I don't know.... what do you guys think?
But It also made me think about this one review I saw under the Little Mushroom novel on novelupdates, where someone was like "the MC is more human than some of the human characters despite being a mushroom" because I think the human characters were cruel or selfish (I haven't read the novel). And again I was like, Really? A stupid mushroom is deemed more human than humans. Don't humans themselves demonstrate what humans are, even the most selfish and cruel ones? Or is humanity just all the positive traits?
I don't know.... what do you guys think?
about question
For me it's diluc and zhongli. Diluc because I lost my 50/50 to him once so I'm forever holding a grudge against him. Any content about him I just view it through how I once lost an important 50/50 to him so my opinion of him will always be sour. and zhongli because I couldn't understand how people found him hot or fawn over him when first of all he's old and second, his design with the colors reminds me of cockroaches! I came to like him a bit with some lore behind him, but he still looks like a cockroach, and he's still old, so you're never going to see me fan-girling him or have me care to highly regard him.
What about you guys?
What about you guys?
about question
For instance you thought you didn't like a certain trope or dynamic but then ended up liking a couple that had that dynamic and it made you rethink what you're into.
about question
I watched this video where this youtuber talks about going to art school and he watched a friend of his perform their work, where the friend had opened with a five minute monologue about 'gooning'. And the youtuber found no matter how much of an open mind he tried to have he couldn't get it. It wasn't until later when he talked with some of his guy friends, that his friends opened up to him about their porn addictions, some struggling with it since middle school, and that the monologue was the first time they've ever felt seen and that their addiction wasn't treated like a joke.
After hearing and watching that I felt like I gained I new perspective. I realized there's some/a lot of vulnerability in that.. but idk. I feel like the stigma behind porn addictions is still really bad to take this new found perspective seriously.
What do you guys believe?
After hearing and watching that I felt like I gained I new perspective. I realized there's some/a lot of vulnerability in that.. but idk. I feel like the stigma behind porn addictions is still really bad to take this new found perspective seriously.
What do you guys believe?
about question
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-who-stray/201808/science-stopped-believing-in-porn-addiction-you-should-too
Who ever shared this porn addiction article it was really interesting and eye opening. I think others should read it. I want to hear others' opinions of this pleasee
Who ever shared this porn addiction article it was really interesting and eye opening. I think others should read it. I want to hear others' opinions of this pleasee
about question
I'm not trying to have a debate or a conversation about certain critiques in this post, I'm just asking straight up isn't this misogyny?
Isn't denying female readers nuance for what they read misogyny? As if we don't live or society wasn't built on patriarchy that has shaped how women lived, what experiences they had, how they cope with the world. Like I'm not trying to say critiques aren't allowed but when we don't take into account or try to care for the nuance of why women engage with or write certain stories, relying on one-note assumptions or assessments, isn't that just straight up misogyny? I think it's interesting how nuance is demanded with things like "not all men" but no nuance is considered for women, especially when it comes to the stories they engage with. Again im not saying critiques can't happen, I don't mind if critiques happen, but I don't understand why critiques must become sweeping judgements and generalization of women that becomes the general idea of how we view those women, despite whatever nuance they have or give, when also on the flip side people are more vigilant in generalizing men going "not all men".
I think critiques are valid to make and have but I think the nuance should also be engaged with, not to justify, but to address the root problems. Don't you guys think so too? And if we don't care to give women nuance or engage with their nuance, to the point where we rarely do and instead run on the sweeping generalizations we make of them, what does that say about us? Aren't we now the pawns of patriarchy, doing it's job for it? Blaming women, excerting most if not all our energy on deeming a 'bad'/'unpleasant' women and putting them down, deflecting from the primary boogeyman/puppet master the patriarchy.
I also think it's interesting about what rights we think we have to deny a group their nuance and their context of being under a systemic power. Are we saying or telling them they aren't /that/ affected by that system? Why do we feel the need to do that? To impose our judgements over their nuance? Isn't this a power play? I could go on but I'm stopping here.
Isn't denying female readers nuance for what they read misogyny? As if we don't live or society wasn't built on patriarchy that has shaped how women lived, what experiences they had, how they cope with the world. Like I'm not trying to say critiques aren't allowed but when we don't take into account or try to care for the nuance of why women engage with or write certain stories, relying on one-note assumptions or assessments, isn't that just straight up misogyny? I think it's interesting how nuance is demanded with things like "not all men" but no nuance is considered for women, especially when it comes to the stories they engage with. Again im not saying critiques can't happen, I don't mind if critiques happen, but I don't understand why critiques must become sweeping judgements and generalization of women that becomes the general idea of how we view those women, despite whatever nuance they have or give, when also on the flip side people are more vigilant in generalizing men going "not all men".
I think critiques are valid to make and have but I think the nuance should also be engaged with, not to justify, but to address the root problems. Don't you guys think so too? And if we don't care to give women nuance or engage with their nuance, to the point where we rarely do and instead run on the sweeping generalizations we make of them, what does that say about us? Aren't we now the pawns of patriarchy, doing it's job for it? Blaming women, excerting most if not all our energy on deeming a 'bad'/'unpleasant' women and putting them down, deflecting from the primary boogeyman/puppet master the patriarchy.
I also think it's interesting about what rights we think we have to deny a group their nuance and their context of being under a systemic power. Are we saying or telling them they aren't /that/ affected by that system? Why do we feel the need to do that? To impose our judgements over their nuance? Isn't this a power play? I could go on but I'm stopping here.
about question
Like even generalizations against the rich, white people, cishet, men?
Asking because I woke up to a reddit post under the subreddit r/changemyview titled, "CMV: Modern day feminism generalizes against men in ways that would consider racist, xenophobic, or bigoted if used against other groups - especially when using offender statistics" and OP tried to paint how the way people generalize men online would come of as wrong if the same language was used to talk about other minorities. Someone in the comments pointed out how generalizations are more accepted to groups that are seen in power, like the rich, white people, cishet people etc. and though the commenter understand this precedance they still dislike generalizations at large.
Most pointed out to OP though that, what they are claiming is modern feminism in their post, is just an extreme being rewarded online and by the algorithm. Most feminists aren't like this in the real world.
I was just curious on your guy's thoughts on the generalizations part? Do you guys think some forms of generalization aren't that concerning like generalizing groups that have systemic power? For me I've never questioned it.
Or do you guys think all forms of generalization is bad and that more nuanced and accurate language should be encouraged/used instead?
Asking because I woke up to a reddit post under the subreddit r/changemyview titled, "CMV: Modern day feminism generalizes against men in ways that would consider racist, xenophobic, or bigoted if used against other groups - especially when using offender statistics" and OP tried to paint how the way people generalize men online would come of as wrong if the same language was used to talk about other minorities. Someone in the comments pointed out how generalizations are more accepted to groups that are seen in power, like the rich, white people, cishet people etc. and though the commenter understand this precedance they still dislike generalizations at large.
Most pointed out to OP though that, what they are claiming is modern feminism in their post, is just an extreme being rewarded online and by the algorithm. Most feminists aren't like this in the real world.
I was just curious on your guy's thoughts on the generalizations part? Do you guys think some forms of generalization aren't that concerning like generalizing groups that have systemic power? For me I've never questioned it.
Or do you guys think all forms of generalization is bad and that more nuanced and accurate language should be encouraged/used instead?
about question
Bonus question: what do you think makes a good/great female protagonist?
about question
I'm grateful for the user Sunnysidebrainrot for translating the Q&A, author's notes, worldbuilding notes for Sunnyside Daycare Classmates.
Grateful for Kaoru for uploading and updating Sunnyside daycare classmates.
Grateful for all the readers who read Sunnyside Daycare Classmates alongside me.
Who are you guys grateful for?
Grateful for Kaoru for uploading and updating Sunnyside daycare classmates.
Grateful for all the readers who read Sunnyside Daycare Classmates alongside me.
Who are you guys grateful for?
about question
I'm getting love island usa on my feed, one of the contestants is Kenzie and she's blonde and people have identified her as a 'dumb blonde'. But then my sister was watching the flash series on the TV and I saw one of the characters, Eddie Thawne is blonde and he reminded me of Thor, and I thought, "hmm.. blonde men. I've never heard of blonde men being stereotyped as dumb. But I think Thor is kind of like a dumb blonde, but I never seen anybody call him a dumb blonde or associate him as a dumb blonde.." but I'm not saying this to say men should face this stereotype too, just why does it exist and mostly directed towards woman/girls.
about question
My favs are Mo Guanshan from '19 days', Lu Lanqiao from 'God's Id Card' and I'm really loving Hyun from 'The Secret to Winning an Unrequitted Love'. For me these three are the GOATs bc I just like their characters so much. ε=ε=(ノ≧∇≦)ノ
about question
Please reccomend me some newly released BL titles that you've liked, maybe from 2025-2026 or a little earlier than that. I've been liking 'The Secret to Winning Unrequitted Love', and feel I just want to read some more BLs that are new or atleast fairly new. I'm not feeling up to reading any long standing BL titles rn. Thanks :)
about question
Like even when someone or another character has a valid reason to have a problem with the character/thing they relate most to, people find it necessary to pick apart that person or character for having a problem with the character/thing they relate to. Why do people feel the need to do this? I find it's pretty weird. :/
about question
For me I hate Jinx from Arcane. It's made me hate the show as a whole, and want nothing to do with it and anything related to League of Legends, to Arcane etc.
about question
Y'know? because woman and man should be seen as equal and not different from each other or polar opposites. Do you guys agree that woman and man are not polar opposites or different to each other?
I think they should be viewed as synonymous of each other, on the same end of a spectrum, not on opposite ends. Because what even is the difference between man and woman outside of sex. Sex doesn't determine how a man or woman act, so why differentiate them, view them as different and categorize them as different when the one thing that makes them different, it itself doesn't dictate that men act a certain away that is different to women that would make a conceptual differentiation/separation between man and woman worth it. I say, screw the idea that man are different or the opposite of woman, /and/ screw the need to make/have men be different or the opposite of women! Society, Fuck you for ever establishing this and pushing for it!
What do you guys think? (sorry if this question is an obvious answer type question)
I think they should be viewed as synonymous of each other, on the same end of a spectrum, not on opposite ends. Because what even is the difference between man and woman outside of sex. Sex doesn't determine how a man or woman act, so why differentiate them, view them as different and categorize them as different when the one thing that makes them different, it itself doesn't dictate that men act a certain away that is different to women that would make a conceptual differentiation/separation between man and woman worth it. I say, screw the idea that man are different or the opposite of woman, /and/ screw the need to make/have men be different or the opposite of women! Society, Fuck you for ever establishing this and pushing for it!
What do you guys think? (sorry if this question is an obvious answer type question)
about question
I think there is a beauty in still hating characters even though they have valid/human reasons to be a fuck up/not totally reprehensible. I think it's lovely to still hate those characters and should be normalized, that idc how human they are I'm still going to hate them. Opinions? Anyone else ever feel like this?