#but then i thought abt it and i said well. nick seems to understand it and he isn't part of the club

[livefromtheyard]

can i be sooooo real for a second about something that's kind of embarrassing

[namtanlovesfilm]

What you said abt p'jojo, I feel this.

For Chueam, I thought for sure she would be more developed but I understood quickly (but not so quickly) it wouldn't and i was sad. Yeah sure it's a BOYSLOVE, but I thought.

The thing is, I started the first 3 eps of the show and realized it wasn't what I thought it would be, and that is saying smthg bc I had zero expectations. So I did a thing that I already did for a little few other gmmtv shows, I stopped watching, let loose of my thoughts, and started over 2 weeks later and catching it up live again. And honestly it was better. But I wasn't like other ppl in the fandom lmao. I had no analysis, no theories, no nothing. It was just vibes😅 But then something happened and idk why, but I got bored of it ??? Idk maybe it's like you said and this series had lots of shocking value, but in other departments it was lacking.

 Like the lack of repercussions or like just you know, finishing somethings, having resolutions. And having it makes sense for the characters, bc how you feel with something tells you what kind of a person you are. But they seem to kind of always cut that ? I don't know the words exactly English isn't my first language sorry (I'm so mad I can't find the words it's killing me my god).

For me it was also too much for the stable pairings if it makes sense. Like the first and khao and book and force (Mark and neo in this series as a couple was a great choice bc I didnt that 'problem' with them). I don't follows the actors closely at all but sometimes I could sense something weird. Like it's for example an actor interacting with the other actor he's close with, and not another entity interacting with another with their own (fictional) feelings. Again I'm really sorry for my weird English I don't know how to say it 😅 hope it makes sense lol.

So all in all, kind of fun, I don't mind having characters that have a grey moral, in fact I like them the most, or having characters opposite of my morals, bc it makes me think, and keep things interesting (well usually).

I like the mess usually, and I did like some in this series, but maybe this show is not for me bc it was a mess yes be for me not the right reason in a way, I think. Also I love a series that is concentrated on friends but sometimes hum something was lacking idk.

There is one thing that happened who made me rrreeeaallly think. Bc a character isn't supposed to always be the light of reason, and can make mistakes, or just have a different opinion of mine the watcher. And I like that. But yeah at one point I wanted to wake-up-slap Chueam. Bc I dont understand what the show/the story/the show runners whatever  was trying to tell me. And that's what I talked abt earlier. Bc either it is something that is not well resolved until the end, or it is and that's just that. Honestly idk.

[ Boston find a new group of friends. Bc they're like yeah we're messy and fucked up and then act or pretend like they are morally white and the he is evil. But I do like though how Nick and Boston broke up. That he should find someone who is okay with his way of life and share the same sentiments abt monogamy.]

And lastly I like the actors but i I'm so tired of seeing them with the same couple pairing. I want them to grow up outside of their couple pairing bc you can sense a sense of safety net when they act together. I find they are GOOD actors, I just want them to fly more.

But then again, all of this is my opinion, it's very subjective (apart from the lack of development of chueam, of course).

Maybe I'll rewatch this series next year in a binge. I'll be waiting for your review, if you will do one.

Sorry this is long, I send you my regards 🐝

I agree with everything you've said above. I think that when p'jojo announced this show as the gay friend zone, I was hoping it would bring the one thing that friend zone does not have into its show: queer community. I was hoping that, despite the drama, this would feel like such a relatable show to anyone who has a queer group of friends... but it really wasn't. the only parts I truly LOVED are sand being openly bi, though sadly all of his relationships are with men, and the kiss scene between sand & nick when they just laugh bc they realize they're not compatible. THIS! this felt like the queer experience. if the show had leaned into this kind of scenes, I would've honestly overlooked everything else. but again, having watched friendzone where 1) its female characters are developed 2) its WLW characters are loved & developed 3) stud is the best "slutty messy gay" character and boston WISH he could be him 4) topmew are just a re-hash of samearth's boring ass relationship 5) arm's character in friend zone was everything boeing should've been... the purpose of only friends becomes only the audience being shocked bc two random actors kissed and/or fucked. and by the end? I got mond & first kissing yet I felt nothing. ME! the biggest not me stan & a fan of the gramyok ship... felt absolutely nothing about seeing them kiss. bc since everyone kissed there was nothing to be surprised about. I'm glad that despite the show's popularity, people are FINALLY opening their eyes & seeing that it was not a good show and never was from the very start.

note: I feel the need to say something bc a few people have been misinterpreting what I mean when referencing the queer community. I do think this show represents some of the queer community well, and perhaps I relied too much on people knowing my opinion of jojo tichakorn & his previous shows for it to get understood. what I'm saying in this ask is that the show didn't lean into the queer FRIENDSHIP enough like the nicksand kiss example that I stated above, not that the queer experience reflected on the show is bad or unrealistic.

xxx

[amber-angel]

I absolutely agree with what you said abt deaf and other disabled ppl not needing to be “fixed,” but to be 100% fair, while Flagg meant it as temptation, Nick was clearly not tempted. It pissed him off. They SHOULD have either not done it at all or had Nick directly tell him to fuck off, but his facial expression, body language, and ultimate reply seemed to imply he thought it was total bullshit.

I'm trying to be careful about my answer here, because while I was very forceful in my post, I haven't actually seen the episode, just read some reviews and seen gifsets. And it's difficult to explain even without those things being the case.

My main issue is with the fact that Nick is being portrayed by a hearing actor, even after multiple people specifically and respectfully reached out to both Josh Boone and Henry Zaga and asked them to consider casting a deaf person, someone who fits the role and understands the experience, to play Nick instead. I know (we all know) that in the majority of cases, actors do not actually share experiences with all of their characters. And I don't know if I can explain this well enough, but in cases like this, where there are people available who do share these experiences, I feel that directors and casting should try to cast those people. Because it's important that we tell stories, and I'd very much rather see my story told by someone who understands it.

In regards to that scene, it just... it really rubs me the wrong way. If there was intent behind it, I don't understand it, and would like to know what they were trying to accomplish. Even if Nick rejects it, Flagg represents temptation. He offers people their desires, and the implication that Nick could have no other desire than to be able to hear and speak was what pissed me off. That, with the combination of this character being played by a man who's never had to struggle with these feelings, it comes off feeling wrong, and while it is just TV at the end of the day, we have to be careful about dismissing things like this, because this shapes people's ideas. Stereotypes are formed and solidified by representation, and media has a huge hand in that. In 2021 I'd just like to see disabled people get some respectful representation.

[stopkingobama]

Weinstein Scandal Reveals This Sick Truth About Hollywood Liberals

Five years ago at the Democratic National Convention, I went to a Planned Parenthood rally, where one speaker was TV actress Lisa Edelstein.

“Do not go to the polls alone,” she told us. “Drag somebody, if she’s a woman especially, because those women are going to vote for Obama—if they know what’s good for them.”

Edelstein is hardly the only Hollywood figure to make the case that liberal policies are crucial to women’s happiness and welfare. Yet, with the media still reeling from the revelations about powerful Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s behavior toward women, it’s time to examine both the people promoting that worldview—and the worldview itself.

The Edelstein episode stayed with me because, as an avid fan of “House,” I was especially devastated to see the actress who had played the tough, smart Dr. Lisa Cuddy promote the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. That organization is now fighting in Ohio against a law banning abortions done on the basis of gender. In other words, the oh-so-feminist Planned Parenthood is OK with the termination of pregnancy just because the child is a girl.

Yet Edelstein is far from alone in her support from Planned Parenthood. At the Academy Awards this year, actresses Emma Stone (who would win “Best Actress” that night) and Dakota Johnson both displayed Planned Parenthood pins. “I stand with Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood stands up for me,” said Scarlett Johansson in a 2015 video.

And the list of Planned Parenthood celebrity supporters goes on and on, including Kerry Washington, Nick Offerman, Alan Cumming, Ashley Judd, Mark Ruffalo, Chrissy Teigen, John Legend, Stanley Tucci, and Neil Patrick Harris, according to Newsbusters. Weinstein himself pledged $100,000 to Planned Parenthood in May, although the organization says he never delivered on the promise.

And that’s just Planned Parenthood. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both racked up considerable celebrity endorsements in their presidential races, compared to virtually none for Donald Trump and Mitt Romney. In a speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, actress Lena Dunham stressed how Clinton would help women, saying: “Do you want equal pay for equal work? The right to make decisions about your body? Paid family leave?”

So shouldn’t Hollywood be a liberal utopia?

Yet the revelations about Weinstein’s behavior suggest Hollywood is not, in fact, a good place to be a woman.

Writing for The New Yorker, Ronan Farrow—who was raised by Woody Allen, who continues to be tolerated by Hollywood after marrying his stepdaughter and being accused of child molestation by another daughter—spoke to 13 women who accused Weinstein of behavior ranging from sexual harassment to rape. Here are some of their accusations:

— “He forced me to perform oral sex on him … I said, over and over, ‘I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,’” recounted Lucia Evans, at the time an aspiring actress. “He’s a big guy. He overpowered me.”

— Weinstein “lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested,” wrote Farrow of beauty pageant contestant Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, recounting her report to the police after the incident.

— An unnamed woman who worked with the producer “said that Weinstein brought her to a hotel room under a professional pretext, changed into a bathrobe, and ‘forced himself on me sexually.’ She said no, repeatedly and clearly,” wrote Farrow.

And more and more stories have come out about Weinstein, with actresses such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie speaking out about his treatment of them.

Yet Weinstein is hardly a total outlier in Hollywood. After issuing a statement about Weinstein, actor Ben Affleck was accused of grabbing actress Hilarie Burton’s breast on MTV in 2003. He tweeted an apology.

He also grabbed Hilarie Burton’s breasts on TRL once. Everyone forgot though.

— Shanice Brim (@ShaniceBrim) October 10, 2017

Joss Whedon, the producer and writer behind TV shows including “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel” and writer-director of the blockbuster “Avengers” movies, came under fire from his ex-wife Kai Cole, who penned a damning essay about his affairs during their marriage in The Wrap this August. Cole wrote:

Despite understanding, on some level, that what he was doing was wrong, he never conceded the hypocrisy of being out in the world preaching feminist ideals, while at the same time, taking away my right to make choices for my life and my body based on the truth. He deceived me for 15 years, so he could have everything he wanted. I believed, everyone believed, that he was one of the good guys, committed to fighting for women’s rights, committed to our marriage, and to the women he worked with. But I now see how he used his relationship with me as a shield, both during and after our marriage, so no one would question his relationships with other women or scrutinize his writing as anything other than feminist.

Whedon did respond to Cole’s essay with this statement to The Wrap: “While this account includes inaccuracies and misrepresentations which can be harmful to their family, Joss is not commenting, out of concern for his children and out of respect for his ex-wife.”

And let’s not forget Roman Polanski, who remains a Hollywood darling, despite his inability to come back to the United States—because he has refused to serve jail time for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Besides facing groping, assault, and rape, Hollywood women have the right to be upset about other matters, too. Despite being a land allegedly crammed with feminists, it’s common for female actresses to receive less pay than their male co-stars. And the number of female directors and producers remains small. I’ll let The New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis take it from here:

Women helped build the industry, but it has long been a male-dominated enterprise that systematically treats women—as a class—as inferior to men. It is an industry with a history of sexually exploiting younger female performers and stamping expiration dates on older ones. It is an industry that consistently denies female directors employment and contemptuously treats the female audience as a niche, a problem, an afterthought.

And let’s also not forget that Weinstein’s disgusting behavior seemed to be well-known in Hollywood—yet no one, with a thought to future victims, blew the whistle. In 2013, Seth MacFarlane made a pointed joke at the televised Academy Awards ceremony about Weinstein, telling Best Supporting Actress nominees, “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.” Based on the nervous laughter of the audience, it appears there wasn’t confusion at the allusion—but it would be four more years before the story broke.

How is this supporting women?

It is easy to call Hollywood elites and liberal politicians hypocrites. It is frankly astonishing that Hillary Clinton, who tweeted in 2015 that “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported” (a claim that did not seem to extend to her husband’s alleged victims), took five days to denounce Weinstein. As top White House aide Kellyanne Conway tweeted, Clinton isn’t always so slow to react:

It took Hillary abt 5 minutes to blame NRA for madman’s rampage, but 5 days to sorta-kinda blame Harvey Weinstein 4 his sexually assaults.

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 10, 2017

Likewise, the Obamas took five days to issue a statement.

The common factor may have been the amount of money given to their campaigns, thanks to Weinstein. According to Politico, Weinstein’s efforts resulted in $1.4 million for Clinton’s 2016 campaign and $600,000 for Obama’s 2012 campaign. Not to be cynical, but: I think we have a motive for delay.

Now that Democrats and Hollywooders have realized there’s going to be no comeback for Weinstein, that there’s too many accusations of horrible things, they are quickly changing course. Weinstein has been fired from his company. The Democratic National Committee, which has received $300,000 from Weinstein over the years, is donating $30,000 to charities including EMILY’s List, which seeks to elect pro-abortion female politicians.

Which brings me back to my point: Perhaps Weinstein isn’t a hypocrite, but rather the fulfillment of the real values that undergird Hollywood. Maybe the abortion obsession shared by Democrats and celebrities isn’t about giving women futures, but about giving men the guarantee to have consequence-free sex, even if the condom breaks or the birth control fails.

Sure, it’s often actresses, not actors, supporting Planned Parenthood—but if we’ve learned anything from the Weinstein saga, it’s that actresses often feel compelled or pressured to do certain things in order to have a successful career.

Again: Let’s look at Hollywood’s behavior, not what it says. It’s a place where young women are cherished and older women have to desperately fight for good roles. It’s a place where men get paid more, and where men more often are the leaders. It’s a place where somehow Weinstein was allowed to sexually harass and assault women for decades, and a place where a rapist like Polanski and a man who married his adopted daughter, like Allen, can remain lionized.

Sarah Palin isn’t controlling Hollywood. Nor is George W. Bush, or Donald Trump, or Michele Bachmann, or Mike Pence, or any other conservative figure the left slams. There’s no vast right-wing conspiracy here, no outside forces upsetting the liberal utopia that is Hollywood.

No, this is the world Hollywood has made for itself—and it’s a really ugly place, particularly if you’re a woman. Perhaps, as Whedon is accused of doing by his ex-wife, Hollywood men have just realized it’s easier to get away with bad behavior toward women if you say you embrace feminism.

It’s great that Weinstein is finally facing accountability. But it’s just not him who should; it’s the values of the entire system that kept him safe in a liberal cocoon for so long.

To steal Edelstein’s phrase, if women “know what’s good for them,” they should take a long, hard look at Hollywood’s liberal values—and see if they make a better world for women, or instead make it easier for men to act like out-of-control frat boys.

Commentary by Katrina Trinko. Originally published at The Daily Signal.

[americanlibertypac]

Weinstein Scandal Reveals This Sick Truth About Hollywood Liberals

Five years ago at the Democratic National Convention, I went to a Planned Parenthood rally, where one speaker was TV actress Lisa Edelstein.

“Do not go to the polls alone,” she told us. “Drag somebody, if she’s a woman especially, because those women are going to vote for Obama—if they know what’s good for them.”

Edelstein is hardly the only Hollywood figure to make the case that liberal policies are crucial to women’s happiness and welfare. Yet, with the media still reeling from the revelations about powerful Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s behavior toward women, it’s time to examine both the people promoting that worldview—and the worldview itself.

The Edelstein episode stayed with me because, as an avid fan of “House,” I was especially devastated to see the actress who had played the tough, smart Dr. Lisa Cuddy promote the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. That organization is now fighting in Ohio against a law banning abortions done on the basis of gender. In other words, the oh-so-feminist Planned Parenthood is OK with the termination of pregnancy just because the child is a girl.

Yet Edelstein is far from alone in her support from Planned Parenthood. At the Academy Awards this year, actresses Emma Stone (who would win “Best Actress” that night) and Dakota Johnson both displayed Planned Parenthood pins. “I stand with Planned Parenthood because Planned Parenthood stands up for me,” said Scarlett Johansson in a 2015 video.

And the list of Planned Parenthood celebrity supporters goes on and on, including Kerry Washington, Nick Offerman, Alan Cumming, Ashley Judd, Mark Ruffalo, Chrissy Teigen, John Legend, Stanley Tucci, and Neil Patrick Harris, according to Newsbusters. Weinstein himself pledged $100,000 to Planned Parenthood in May, although the organization says he never delivered on the promise.

And that’s just Planned Parenthood. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both racked up considerable celebrity endorsements in their presidential races, compared to virtually none for Donald Trump and Mitt Romney. In a speech at the 2016 Democratic National Convention, actress Lena Dunham stressed how Clinton would help women, saying: “Do you want equal pay for equal work? The right to make decisions about your body? Paid family leave?”

So shouldn’t Hollywood be a liberal utopia?

Yet the revelations about Weinstein’s behavior suggest Hollywood is not, in fact, a good place to be a woman.

Writing for The New Yorker, Ronan Farrow—who was raised by Woody Allen, who continues to be tolerated by Hollywood after marrying his stepdaughter and being accused of child molestation by another daughter—spoke to 13 women who accused Weinstein of behavior ranging from sexual harassment to rape. Here are some of their accusations:

— “He forced me to perform oral sex on him … I said, over and over, ‘I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,’” recounted Lucia Evans, at the time an aspiring actress. “He’s a big guy. He overpowered me.”

— Weinstein “lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested,” wrote Farrow of beauty pageant contestant Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, recounting her report to the police after the incident.

— An unnamed woman who worked with the producer “said that Weinstein brought her to a hotel room under a professional pretext, changed into a bathrobe, and ‘forced himself on me sexually.’ She said no, repeatedly and clearly,” wrote Farrow.

And more and more stories have come out about Weinstein, with actresses such as Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie speaking out about his treatment of them.

Yet Weinstein is hardly a total outlier in Hollywood. After issuing a statement about Weinstein, actor Ben Affleck was accused of grabbing actress Hilarie Burton’s breast on MTV in 2003. He tweeted an apology.

He also grabbed Hilarie Burton’s breasts on TRL once. Everyone forgot though.

— Shanice Brim (@ShaniceBrim) October 10, 2017

Joss Whedon, the producer and writer behind TV shows including “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and “Angel” and writer-director of the blockbuster “Avengers” movies, came under fire from his ex-wife Kai Cole, who penned a damning essay about his affairs during their marriage in The Wrap this August. Cole wrote:

Despite understanding, on some level, that what he was doing was wrong, he never conceded the hypocrisy of being out in the world preaching feminist ideals, while at the same time, taking away my right to make choices for my life and my body based on the truth. He deceived me for 15 years, so he could have everything he wanted. I believed, everyone believed, that he was one of the good guys, committed to fighting for women’s rights, committed to our marriage, and to the women he worked with. But I now see how he used his relationship with me as a shield, both during and after our marriage, so no one would question his relationships with other women or scrutinize his writing as anything other than feminist.

Whedon did respond to Cole’s essay with this statement to The Wrap: “While this account includes inaccuracies and misrepresentations which can be harmful to their family, Joss is not commenting, out of concern for his children and out of respect for his ex-wife.”

And let’s not forget Roman Polanski, who remains a Hollywood darling, despite his inability to come back to the United States—because he has refused to serve jail time for drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977.

Besides facing groping, assault, and rape, Hollywood women have the right to be upset about other matters, too. Despite being a land allegedly crammed with feminists, it’s common for female actresses to receive less pay than their male co-stars. And the number of female directors and producers remains small. I’ll let The New York Times film critic Manohla Dargis take it from here:

Women helped build the industry, but it has long been a male-dominated enterprise that systematically treats women—as a class—as inferior to men. It is an industry with a history of sexually exploiting younger female performers and stamping expiration dates on older ones. It is an industry that consistently denies female directors employment and contemptuously treats the female audience as a niche, a problem, an afterthought.

And let’s also not forget that Weinstein’s disgusting behavior seemed to be well-known in Hollywood—yet no one, with a thought to future victims, blew the whistle. In 2013, Seth MacFarlane made a pointed joke at the televised Academy Awards ceremony about Weinstein, telling Best Supporting Actress nominees, “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.” Based on the nervous laughter of the audience, it appears there wasn’t confusion at the allusion—but it would be four more years before the story broke.

How is this supporting women?

It is easy to call Hollywood elites and liberal politicians hypocrites. It is frankly astonishing that Hillary Clinton, who tweeted in 2015 that “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported” (a claim that did not seem to extend to her husband’s alleged victims), took five days to denounce Weinstein. As top White House aide Kellyanne Conway tweeted, Clinton isn’t always so slow to react:

It took Hillary abt 5 minutes to blame NRA for madman’s rampage, but 5 days to sorta-kinda blame Harvey Weinstein 4 his sexually assaults.

— Kellyanne Conway (@KellyannePolls) October 10, 2017

Likewise, the Obamas took five days to issue a statement.

The common factor may have been the amount of money given to their campaigns, thanks to Weinstein. According to Politico, Weinstein’s efforts resulted in $1.4 million for Clinton’s 2016 campaign and $600,000 for Obama’s 2012 campaign. Not to be cynical, but: I think we have a motive for delay.

Now that Democrats and Hollywooders have realized there’s going to be no comeback for Weinstein, that there’s too many accusations of horrible things, they are quickly changing course. Weinstein has been fired from his company. The Democratic National Committee, which has received $300,000 from Weinstein over the years, is donating $30,000 to charities including EMILY’s List, which seeks to elect pro-abortion female politicians.

Which brings me back to my point: Perhaps Weinstein isn’t a hypocrite, but rather the fulfillment of the real values that undergird Hollywood. Maybe the abortion obsession shared by Democrats and celebrities isn’t about giving women futures, but about giving men the guarantee to have consequence-free sex, even if the condom breaks or the birth control fails.

Sure, it’s often actresses, not actors, supporting Planned Parenthood—but if we’ve learned anything from the Weinstein saga, it’s that actresses often feel compelled or pressured to do certain things in order to have a successful career.

Again: Let’s look at Hollywood’s behavior, not what it says. It’s a place where young women are cherished and older women have to desperately fight for good roles. It’s a place where men get paid more, and where men more often are the leaders. It’s a place where somehow Weinstein was allowed to sexually harass and assault women for decades, and a place where a rapist like Polanski and a man who married his adopted daughter, like Allen, can remain lionized.

Sarah Palin isn’t controlling Hollywood. Nor is George W. Bush, or Donald Trump, or Michele Bachmann, or Mike Pence, or any other conservative figure the left slams. There’s no vast right-wing conspiracy here, no outside forces upsetting the liberal utopia that is Hollywood.

No, this is the world Hollywood has made for itself—and it’s a really ugly place, particularly if you’re a woman. Perhaps, as Whedon is accused of doing by his ex-wife, Hollywood men have just realized it’s easier to get away with bad behavior toward women if you say you embrace feminism.

It’s great that Weinstein is finally facing accountability. But it’s just not him who should; it’s the values of the entire system that kept him safe in a liberal cocoon for so long.

To steal Edelstein’s phrase, if women “know what’s good for them,” they should take a long, hard look at Hollywood’s liberal values—and see if they make a better world for women, or instead make it easier for men to act like out-of-control frat boys.

Commentary by Katrina Trinko. Originally published at The Daily Signal.