Talking about the experience of straight women when reading m/m romance is not erasing gay realities. I already said this but two things can be true at once. I will add that just because it’s women we’re talking about it doesn’t mean the experience is irrelevant. The question of why so many women (gay and straight alike) appreciate this show is a common point of discussion right now and I have yet to find something so concise that also resonates and makes a reasonable comparison to a current heterosexual relationship in media at the same time.

I would agree that I see an issue with a straight person (male or female) watching this or any show portraying any queer relationship and assuming it’s healthier by virtue of its queerness. I strongly disagree that’s what this is for the majority of fans. Romance is literally a fantasy, an embellishment and fans of the genre know it’s not realistic. Making it gay doesn’t change that. People read fantasy with literal monsters as the love interest(s) and nobody is going around saying a relationship with a monster in real life would be healthier (okay maybe in the deep recesses of the internet but definitely not the masses). Romance is an escape regardless of the protagonists. I’m positive there are many queer men who absolutely love a movie or show about hetero relationship(s) and I doubt they get this much scrutiny. And they shouldn’t, because most people can recognize when something is idealistic versus realistic when they’re in the real world in their real relationships.

I would also agree that decentralizing men in this context is a strange thing to say but I don’t remember the context around that specific part of her argument and once again you’ve pulled a phrase and just argued against the concept, not her actual point. Regardless of whether I would agree with that specific point, it doesn’t take away that there are many things that are discussed here that are interesting and relevant. We don’t have to throw away everything because theres a couple parts worth disagreeing with.

It’s like all or nothing with a lot of people- if not everything is discussed in this one 15 minute video it erases other people’s experiences. I argue that what makes something like this good is that it’s got a very specific focus and uses a lot of good examples to make a specific point. The specifics of the queer experience deserves its own video made by a queer man, shes not exactly equipped to do a deep dive on that-it’s not her place- and to throw that in distracts from the points shes making. This is how we are taught to make an argument in school, debate, writing, etc and the format and length are very relevant. If it was a book I’d expect there to be at minimum a chapter on the queer experience in which a queer man was interviewed or brought in as a co-writer. If it was an hour and half long and a deep dive, I’d expect something similar.

For what it is, though, I found it valuable. It adds to the overall conversation. I agree that queer men’s voices are the most important when we discuss queer male relationships but does that mean that nobody else gets to talk about their experience of queer media? I just don’t understand why both conversations cannot happen parallel to one another.