I really wish they'd done a better job writing the villains in Queen of Tears because they just don't make a lot of sense.
For example, Moh Seul-hee. She has a very long-term con going to try to take control of the Queens group. Cool. But when Hae-in was like 8 (?) she tries to murder Hae-in and her brother, or maybe just whomever tried to go out on the boat. Fine, whatever. But then she never tries again ever? She lives with them another 20 years and never tries murder again? Why not? Because Soo-cheol is under her control through Da-hye but Hae-in remains a wild card. Why not murder Hae-in after she rejected Eun-sung?
It just doesn't make sense. It'd make more sense if the boat thing had been a random accident. Or it would have made sense that she was poisoning Hae-in instead of the illness being Magic Cancer, because Hae-in has brain cells and cannot easily be controlled.
I think enough virtual ink has been spilled over how delusional Eun-sung is so I won't even go there.
The world exists in such a baffling state of simultaneous sex-aversion and sex-hegemony. Every social platform on the internet is trying to banish sex workers to the shadow realm but I can't post a tweet without at least two bots replying P U S S Y I N B I O. People are self-censoring sex to seggs and $3× but every other ad you see is still filled with half-naked women. Rightwingers want queer people arrested for so much as existing in the same postal code as a child and are also drumming up a moral panic about how teenage boys aren't getting laid enough. I feel like I'm losing my mind.
truly just learn the phrase "I did not like this" instead of trying to give some moral or ethical reasoning behind why it's actually evil and morally wrong and problematic. you are allowed to just not like things because they're not good in your personal opinion, they don't have to be problematic you can just not like them
gilbert baker designed his flag with the express purpose of it including every single queer person. baker was so dedicated to making sure his flag was inclusive that he added another stripe in 2017, lavender, to represent diversity. the concept that it’s for white gay men came around later and needs to be changed.
can we please go back to associating the original flag, and ideally the modern rainbow flag, with inherent inclusion of every single queer person? instead of deciding that the original wasn’t good enough? personalized flags are important for representing those who have typically been excluded from the queer community, but reclaiming the original flag as a symbol of inclusion is important too.
setting up a romance line but waiting until one of the actors is a freshly legal adult before executing it is creepy, actually, especially when the co-star is 15 years older
As hilarious as it is to watch Floyd boredly swim across the screen, this is actually so devastating…
Floyd’s dream essentially involves him always winning, succeeding, and being the strongest at everything he does, which, as we know, is what he came on land to avoid. Life is more interesting for him when he isn’t able to achieve everything with ease.
Idia explains, in gamer terms, that if this were a video game one would simply be able to turn it off, walk away, and say “Not for me.” But Malleus has quite literally trapped Floyd in this dream, alone, without growth or enrichment, for all eternity.
And now Floyd’s given up on playing at all, reduced to swimming in circles like a goldfish in a bowl.
you know, I've been thinking about it, and there is actually one single scenario in which I would be okay with not getting a big ol' "Silver Vanrouge" out of Lilia.
(just kidding, I still need some "call me Silver, Mr. Vanrouge is my father" in my life, please don't let me down on this one Twst)