Lesbians4KPOPBL

I think one of the great things about this drama is that it challenges our preconceptions.

For instance, asking ourselves: Is inebriation the same as incapacitation? If not, how does one distinguish between the two? Is there such a thing as drunken sex, or is all sex that takes place while drunk, rape? If someone regrets the sex that they had while drunk, does it suddenly become rape? Is it only rape if only one person was drunk, or is it still rape if both people were drunk? Can drunkenness simply lower inhibitions, or does it always render a person incapacitated? Are levels of lucidity and coherence to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not a person is incapacitated?

Further questions this series provokes are: What are "brothers" and what is the "incest taboo" really about? Does it apply to people who are of the same sex and/or people who are not biologically related? On what is our concept of "social" incest based? And how does this potentially apply or not apply to blended families? How, if at all, does it apply to people who are pubescent (which can occur as early as 9 or 10 years old in boys) at their time of meeting (suggesting that the somewhat debunked Westermarck effect does not apply)?

And lastly: How important is it to not jump the gun and reach conclusions bases on incomplete information, potentially judging situations and people incorrectly?

I think it's a clever series that encourages that level of contemplation. And HIStory 4: Close to You is definitely that kind of series.

I think one of the great things about this drama is that it challenges our preconceptions.

For instance, asking ourselves: Is inebriation the same as incapacitation? If not, how does one distinguish between the two? Is there such a thing as drunken sex, or is all sex that takes place while drunk, rape? If someone regrets the sex that they had while drunk, does it suddenly become rape? Is it only rape if only one person was drunk, or is it still rape if both people were drunk? Can drunkenness simply lower inhibitions, or does it always render a person incapacitated? Are levels of lucidity and coherence to be taken into consideration when determining whether or not a person is incapacitated?

BTW, the last 3 eps. have strongly suggested that no sex actually occurred between Xing Si and Yong Jie. But, we'll see.

Further questions this series provokes are: What are "brothers" and what is the "incest taboo" really about? Does it apply to people who are of the same sex and/or people who are not biologically related? On what is our concept of "social" incest based? And how does this potentially apply or not apply to blended families? How, if at all, does it apply to people who are pubescent (which can occur as early as 9 or 10 years old in boys) at their time of meeting (suggesting that the somewhat debunked Westermarck effect does not apply)?

And lastly: How important is it to not jump the gun and reach conclusions bases on incomplete information, potentially judging situations and people incorrectly?

I think it's a clever series that encourages that level of contemplation. And HIStory 4: Close to You is definitely that kind of series.

What's weird to me is being so committed to a position that as more information is becoming available with each episode, that that information is ignored in order to continue to defend that position.

The last three episodes have been offering strong clues that no sex actually occurred between Yong Jie and Xing Si.

And I think the juxtaposing of the two hotel scenes, showing the differences between them, also strongly suggests that no "rape" took place on YJ's birthday.

But, we'll only be sure by the end of the final episode. Until then, I think the writer may be teaching us that it might be wise to reserve judgement until all of the facts are in. Things may not be as they first appear to be.

"Twonk"? The last time I heard that word was in a Red Dwarf episode. XD

The three most recent episodes seem to be suggesting that no sex actually took place between Yong Jie and Xing Si and that the hotel scene in ep. 6 was actually the writer misdirecting the viewer.

There are some interesting clues that seem to have been left for the audience, as long as we don't jump to conclusions. But, we'll have to keep watching in order to see if that's the case.

I agree with much of what you wrote here, especially about the character of Yong Jie.

Though, I don't think that Li Cheng is pretending to be in a relationship with Mei Fang, though. They are just hanging out with each other, with Mei Fang keeping Li Cheng company as he nurses his broken heart. I concluded this from the conversation that Li Cheng and Mei Fang had in the break room, when he was confiding in her about Mu Ren having rejected him.

I think that ep. 12 actually proves that Yong Jie is not a "sociopath". The very fact that he went away and carefully considered Xing Si's words and concluded that he would not continue to pursue a romantic relationship with XS if XS decided that he wanted to remain in a stepbrother relationship with him, is the evidence. Also, YJ's diary entries that reveal that he worked against his own best interests in order to insure XS's happiness is even further evidence.

I know that it's easy to throw that label around as a sign of dislike or disapproval of a person or character's actions, even though it's outdated and now officially has been replaced by the term "antisocial personality disorder".

I find the character of Yong Jie exceptionally interesting, and think that the writing is teaching us not to be too quick to judge situations or people.

With each week, we learn more about YJ that suggests that what might have been our immediate impressions of him may have been wrong. I think that is actually clever storytelling and look forward to the continued unfolding of the story and further reveals regarding this character.

Yong Jie admitted to getting Xing Si drunk on purpose, but we don't know for certain what his purpose was. It could have been as part of the plan I described above. It could also have been to get XS to admit his feelings for YJ.

After what was written in the diaries, getting XS drunk in order to have sex with him would seem inconsistent with the character revealed through those diary entries. That's what makes it hard for me to believe.

In time, hopefully the writer will reveal the truth of YJ's actions. But for me, it seems like ep. 6 was supposed to fool us into thinking one thing about YJ in order to have some sort of reversal later. I mean, why have YJ reveal that in order to help XS leave home in the first place, YJ pretended to act up, even if he didn't want XS to leave. He worked against his own best interests in order for XS to be happy. Yet, this person then didn't care at all about how XS would feel and just tried to get him drunk for his own benefit? Seems sketchy to me, but we'll see.

I absolutely agree with you!

DOES this happen in real life to het men, because I have yet to hear of one single, confirmed incident of that.

I have heard of MSM (het Men who have Sex with Men), but a committed, long-term, loving relationship? I have only heard of that phenomenon occurring among het women not het men.

I personally don't mind at all if they use that line, because it signals pretty strongly that it is a BL and not a gay drama: there are differences. BL occurs in an imaginary world where het men can fall in love with other men. Gay dramas typically depict the realities faced by men in various stages of their coming-out processes, as well as gay culture. A gay guy who falls in love with a het guy in a gay drama, for instance, will either end up with a broken heart, insulted or even physically assaulted, which is pretty realistic.

BLs are not realistic. The love stories in BL world are imaginary. That's why that line was created in the first place. To show the difference between the reality of the static sexual orientation of het men and the fantasy of het men suddenly becoming fluid enough to actually fall in love with a man and live happily ever after.

I also don't think that Yong Jie actually had sex with Xing Si. I think this was all part of his plan for XS to be able to return home (I've explained how in other comments, so I won't revisit that again).

However, I was asking about the different filmed versions of what was supposed to be the same scene. In ep. 6, YJ used two hands to unbutton Xing Si's shirt, while in ep. 12 he used one hand. Was that just a mistake (sloppy production work) or did it actually mean something? That was the question.

Along with you and Rahab75 (and a growing number of others as the series goes on), I also have doubts as to whether or not Yong Jie and Xing Si had sex with each other.

I've been skeptical for quite some time now. At the very least since the episode where Xing Si was reading Yong Jie's diaries. Those diaries, which described Yong Jie as someone who was willing to sacrifice his own happiness just to see XS happy, didn't seem to me to be someone who would want to upset him in any way. I think YJ got XS drunk enough so that he wouldn't remember what happened, so that when YJ tried to convince XS's father of his "one-sided love", XS wouldn't be able to speak up and say "nothing happened", ruining the plan. I think XS thinking that he was a "0" that night may just have been an assumption he made based on what he could recall of YJ's actions.

Like Rahab75, I hope this hypothesis proves true, because then the people who were shouting "rape" the loudest will have to figure out how a rape could possibly occur where there was no sex.

But, regardless of sex or no sex, I agree with Rahab75 and several others that by his actions and his coherent, complex responses, XS showed that the alcohol had lowered his inhibitions, so that he could admit his feelings for YJ, but did not render him incapacitated. Plenty of people have drunk sex, even sex that they regret the morning after, but that doesn't mean they were raped.

Anyway, we'll see how it all turns out.

So, one vote for "sloppy".

Believe me when I say that I have thoroughly understood and accepted everything you've said. And if we were discussing reality, then I would also heartily agree with you.

However, this is the imaginary land of BL. Whatever more diverse audience it may attract now, it was created for het women to look at two good-looking men fall for each other. This is because het women are attracted to men, and two gorgeous het men falling for each other against their orientation, not because of it, is what passes as true love: it is "despite", rather than "because of".

Opposing your society, parents and friends because of what comes naturally to you (if you are gay) is one thing, but opposing the same only because of this single person then equals "true love" in this genre.

With the removal of so many social obstacles to love, the sexual orientation obstacle is one that can fulfill the purposes of making that love harder to obtain, while appealing to het women who love looking at good-looking het men, and enjoy the thought of those men being attracted to one another, instead of just hanging out or being rough with one another, which is often the case in real life. Because it's the het "female gaze" it's more like: "Can't you see how beautiful he is? How can you not be attracted to him? (Because I am.)".

Gay men may be attracted to watching it because the men are beautiful/handsome and get into relationships with one another, but that's beside the point. It's made for het women to swoon over the people they find attractive.

I cannot pretend to know why there are so many het women who love to watch beautiful/handsome men, who are not culturally gay (no gay culture in BLs for example) internally struggle and then finally admit to their feelings for one single other male exception. Maybe because this can actually happen between women in real life and as a result, women can't believe that it doesn't happen to men. I don't know. But, whatever it is, BL is not about gay men in gay relationships. It's a fantasy world where, for example, a whole group of het male friends can end up in their very own, personal gay relationship with a het guy who's an exception to them, without any judgement by their peers (no reality in that one). Or where het guys in an entire school are all dating one another. Or where a guy like LC falls in love with a guy like MR, when in real life, he probably would have beat him up if anything about MR had inadvertently stirred something in his pants.

In real life, there are incidents of MSM (het Men who have Sex with Men), but to "fall in love" with them and have long term relationships? Pull the other one. That's why so many gay films that feature a gay guy falling in love with a het guy always ends in tears.

That's why I believe that BL cannot be analyzed from the point of view of existing cultural norms about gay male relationships.

One thing about the shorter, younger, less physically "masculine" guy being assigned the position of "bottom": BLs, by being created by and for het women, often make the partner who seems more "womanly" into the "bottom", probably because, in het relationships, women, for all intents and purposes, are always the "bottoms". It probably serves as some aspect of familiarity for them or something. That being said, Knock and Korn were physically pretty similar, but I forever read in comment sections, girls swooning about how wonderful "the height difference" is. ICK.

HEAVY SIGH of exasperation.

Go figure.

"This trope also perpetuates the extremely dangerous idea that m/m relations is a choice, or that gay men can "turn" straight men if they just try hard enough."

That's why it's BL and not a gay male drama. If young gay men are taking their cues from BL, they will, indeed be sorely disappointed, and as het men tend to be highly volatile when approached by other men romantically, potentially dangerous. As I said above, het men do not fall in love with gay men, no matter how beautiful/handsome and wonderful they are; no matter the extent of the compatibility between the two men. It just doesn't happen.

Which is more proof that BLs and gay dramas are not the same thing.

I just realized something.

In the ep.6 version, Yong Jie uses two hands to unbutton Xing Si's shirt. However in the ep. 12 version, he uses one hand in the recording.

Sloppy filmmaking? or is there perhaps another reason?

Type isn't gay. As far as I recall, Knock isn't either.

I see nothing wrong with acknowledging when both guys in the lead couples is gay. For example, Fighter and Tutor from Why RU, Pi and Mork from Fish Upon the Sky (at least that's the way it seems so far); James and Ait from CIWYW, Cairo and Gavreel from Gameboys, Mes and Thun from He's Coming to Me, Karl and Vlad from Gaya sa Pelikula, and the list goes on,

However, though there is overlap (and let's not forget marketing machines that have determined that BL might be an easier "sell" than "gay dramas") BL was originally all about two het guys falling in love with each other. That tends to be the predominant configuration. The second most frequent is when one of the guys is gay, but the other is het. A third has to do with indeterminate orientations.

Saying this doesn't mean that someone is homophobic. It just means acknowledging that the world of BL is a fantasy world, not a realistic one, because in real life, het guys do not fall in love with each other; only gay, bi or pansexual ones do.

I agree.

Poor HIStory franchise!

Ever since HIStory 2, fans have been slagging every one of the dramas off while they were airing, only to decide that they were suddenly great afterwards.

I remember the complaints about the age difference in HIStory 2: Right or Wrong; the stepbrothers in HIStory 2: Crossing the Line; the first kiss going to the "wrong guy", the attempted rape of Tang Yi by Zhi De, the lack of a bed scene in the episode when Tang Yi was clearly grieving, the repeated near-death escapes of Shao Fei, the lack of screen time for the second male couple, too much het couple screen time, and the ending of HIStory 3: Trapped, which most people now claim was the best of the franchise.

Don't even get me started on the criticism of HIStory 3: MODC: the pushiness of HaoTing, the scene where he had a fever and forced Xi Gu to participate in his sexual activity, as well as the age difference between Bo Xiang and Zhi Gang, and all that before the ending, which really sent viewers into a tailspin.

Back when HIStory 1 came out, there were some complaints about the first three stories, but not the avalanche HIStory gets now.

I guess they're just cursed, when it comes to this unbelievable level of disapproval while airing.

I was hoping things would be different with this installment of HIStory, but no such luck.

Oh, well.

How does saying "I'm not gay" equal homophobia? If that's not your orientation (in the fantasy world of gay relationships between het guys in BL, of course) then I don't really get what's wrong with saying that.

In this situation, LC didn't just make this declaration out of the blue. Mei Feng was trying to think of men to set him up with in order to get his mind of MR, so he just wanted to let her know not to bother, because he's not interested in men. He likes/loves MR despite the fact that he's a man, not because of it (which would be a gay relationship between gay men as opposed to a gay relationship between het men, which is what BL is about). That makes MR the exception, not the rule, which is what LC is suggesting here. There are times in BLs when one of the partners is gay (TharnType, Love By Chance, HIStory 2: Right or Wrong, etc), but usually not where they both are, or, at least their orientation is indeterminate or undeclared. Granted, there is overlap sometimes (such as in Why RU, Fish Upon the Sky, etc.) , but generally speaking BLs are about gay relationships between het men. That's why the time leading up to the confession and the confession itself is usually so fraught, as it was in several episodes of this series. At least one of potential couple, but often both have to figure out how they're going to deal with having a relationship with a guy, when they've always liked girls.

Anyway, since Mei Feng asked that question (remembering that she had assumed earlier that LC was closeted), it made sense for the story, even if it hurt some sensitive viewers' sensibilities.

So comforting to read some appreciation for this series, and specifically for this episode.

I'm in the same boat with you. I also have watched hundreds of BL series and films, and I really LOVE this BL. The more I watch it, the more I love it!

Because of HIStory 4: Close to You, Sunday has become my favourite day of the week!