#boston x top | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

wen-kexing-apologist · 8 months

Text

Only Friends, Boston, and Queer Culture

I wanted to talk a little bit about an observation that I made about Boston and how he acquires sex partners (i.e. who he picks up, how he picks them up, where he picks them up, and where he chooses to have sex). Now, again, we are only two episodes in so I will not presume to make a pattern of anything quite yet, and I am looking forward to seeing how my current observations shift in light of any new information coming out of future episodes. But, it was notable to me that the only times Boston has been seen actively pursuing a second sexual encounter with someone is either in public spaces or after he has had sex with them in public.

Because Boston is very sexual, we actually have a lot of data points on him already, (and will likely get many more, seeing as Boston has been in 5 out of 7 of the heavy makeout/sex scenes in the show so far). What we have seen so far is a one night stand with Drake’s character after Boston is picked up at a bar and brought back to unnamed-Drake-character’s apartment; Boston returning for a second and third sexual encounter with Nick after he and Nick fuck for the first time in the cellphone repair shop; and Boston openly flirting with and trying to tempt Top in to sex in exclusively public spaces.

Cruising

What is Cruising and Why is it Important?

Photograph by Steven Barker

I realize that there are many people here who may be unfamiliar with the term/concept of ‘cruising’. As a self-defined “baby gay” there are many terms that came out of the past decades’ queer culture that I was and am personally unfamiliar with. As such, I wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page with the terminology. “Cruising” is a code-word/gay slang that refers to an individual or individuals ‘walking or driving around a locality, called a cruising ground, in search of a sex partner, usually of the anonymous, casual, one time variety’ (Wikipedia).

In her essay Respectable promiscuity: Digital cruising in an era of queer liberalism, Jody Ahlm (then PhD candidate, now Dr.) states the following: “Cruising traditionally occurs in bars, clubs, or public spaces such as parks and public restrooms where men generally signal sexual interest in another man through established non-verbal signals (Be ́rube ́, 1996; Delany, 1999; Humphreys and Rainwater, 1975; Tewksbury, 2002).”

For the sake of simplicity, cruising is a term applied to the action of (usually, but not exclusively) gay men seeking out casual sex in public spaces.

Cruising is and was an important aspect of queer culture, for a number of different reasons. “Tearooms” or private public spaces that were adapted to accommodate gay sex (public bathrooms, for example). While a benefit of tearooms was instantaneous sex, a much more important and notable aspect of tearooms was who in the queer community was frequenting these cruising locations

Of the bar crowd in gay (homosexual) society, only a small percentage would be found in park restrooms. But this more overt, gay bar clientele constitutes a minor part of those in any American city who follow a predominantly homosexual pattern. The so-called closet queens and other types of covert deviants make up the vast majority of those who engage in homosexual acts- and these are the persons most attracted to tearoom encounters…It may be more surprising for the outside to discover that most of these [tearoom participants] are married. Indeed, 54 percent of my research subjects are married and living with their wives. (Tearoom Trade, Laud Humphreys, 1970)

In short, cruising and cruising locations are important to ensuring that men who have sex with men (MSM) who are closeted, married, or do not frequent bars, have an opportunity to engage in sex with other men. (Tradition of sex cruising at Aquatic Park to end. John Geluardi, 2001)

How Cruising has Changed Over Time

Overall, cruising is a lot less popular now than it was in the 1960s and 1980s, in part due to the AIDs epidemic and concerns of HIV transmission (Ahlm, 2017). Ahlm’s essay argues that the AIDS epidemic “initiated a trend toward monogamy among gay men” and that apps like Grindr have shifted the landscape of sexual interest and politics towards a “contested cultural space where publicness and privateness co-exist, creating tensions for self-presentation that are structured by contemporary sexual politics.”

Sociologists have identified a shifting in cruising culture from public, in-person spaces to private, online spaces. In her research, Ahlm noted that none of her subjects who used Grinder reported engaging in public or semi-public sex or being asked to engage in public or semi-public sex by another person. So we are seeing the landscape of where and how gay men engage in sex shift ever increasingly towards private spaces. We can ask ourselves why that may be:

Dalton (black/mixed,5 28) says,”People like to maintain a certain image of themselves, and everybody wants to appear chaste but desirable at the same time, and whatever. People will say ‘‘Oh you’re going on there and you’re trying to do that [find sex], I just talk to people and I never do anything.’’ I’m like ‘‘Sure, right’’ [sarcastic tone].” The multiplicity of intentions on Grindr allows for plausible denial of promiscuity, while the app’s reputation requires constant management of the stigma in order for that denial to be plausible. Like the majority of users, Dalton’s profile says he is on the app for ‘‘Friends, Chat, Networking.’’ However, sexual interaction is the goal of his in-person meetings, and he only chats with people he finds attractive and would potentially like to have sex with. This contradiction between stated intentions and actual use is not unique to Dalton’s Grindr use, it is the rule rather than the exception (Ahlm, 2017)

While privacy can be a valued aspect of people’s personal life experiences, shifting cruising culture to major online spaces designed specifically for gay people, and having sex with people who connect across mobile apps, is contributing to respectability politics:

Shifting cruising to private spaces—both actual sex acts and the practices associated with finding a sexual partner in a public space, furthers the sanitation of gay physical spaces. Users can meet sexual partners without ever leaving home, and public gay spaces become sites for platonic socializing. Gay men go to the bars with their friends to hang out, not to cruise…The performance of cruising is desexualized by the plausible deniability of using a phone app and the plausible deniability of Grindr itself, as discussed earlier. It is not just public sex that is disappearing, so too is the public pursuit of sex. This is not to say that gay bars have been completely desexualized…However, as Orne (2016) shows in his ethnography of Chicago’s Boystown, they are the cultural markers that make the neighborhood a popular place for bachelorette parties ‘‘on safari’’. They are not the same as a visible collective practice of searching for and choosing a sexual partner for the night, regardless of where the sex occurs later. (Ahlm, 2017)

TL;DR: The act of looking for sex partners and engaging in public or semi-public sex as a result (“cruising”) has been steadily phasing out as a practice in gay culture, heading towards more private sexual encounters with sex partners who meet on mobile apps, ultimately resulting in a sanitized image and partial desexualization of gay spaces/bars.

Boston’s Cruising Habits

When I was reading that Ahlm piece, I could not help but think about our very first introduction to the characters of Only Friends in Episode 1. The show opens at a gay bar, we go around listening to Mew’s descriptions of what archetypes his friends fit in to, at which point we learn that everyone in attendance at the bar that particular evening are wearing wristbands indicating their availability to be hit on. Which is making me feel like Jojo and co. (Ninew, Den, the rest of the writing crew) are placing their characters in a past gay culture, giving them an opportunity to return to roots of public cruising. Not every character will engage in such activities, but we know for a fact that Boston and Top are cruising in some capacity from the outset of the show (Boston trying to talk his way into a threesome with Bar Stranger #1, Boston getting picked up by Bar Stranger #2 [aka unnamed-Drake-character], Top striking up conversation with Mew after Mew bumps into him), and with the direct references Jojo and co. are making to Queer As Folk (UK) (1999) if the goal of Only Friends is to highlight queer culture, I would not be surprised.

While we are only two episodes in at the time I am writing this, it was intriguing to me that Boston appears to be one of the few characters engaging in more traditional cruising culture. It is clear that most of the main characters frequent Yo’s bar, though it appears the friend group uses the space more as a place to hang out with one another, rather than a space to cruise. All except for “The Hunter”, Boston, who is seen constantly attempting to pick up, or being picked up by other queer men in a bar setting. We know that Top also frequents the bar, and we have not as of yet seen him with any other friends, so we can presume that Top spends his time at Yo’s bar cruising as well (based on the fact that he has slept with Boston and he did hit on Mew at the bar, but we don’t have any definitive evidence of that yet because we don’t know how Top and Boston met, and Top has only actively been pursuing Mew thus far).

A trend I saw in the first two episodes when it comes to Boston that I find particularly noteworthy (aka, is a trend I want to track as the show progresses to see if that trend continues), is that Boston is only ever repeating sex with people who engaged in public sex with him in the first place. From flashbacks we see Top and Boston making out in a photobooth, an implication there that Top and Boston then fucked in the photobooth since “once was enough” for Top and Boston. The first time that Boston and Nick fuck, they do so in the aisle of the cellphone repair shop. Nick may turn off the lights, but that does not negate the fact that there is a chance that Boston and Nick may be walked in on and caught by an unassuming customer. When Boston hits on Top, it is in a public space: the bathrooms of Yo’s bar, when Boston attempts to initiate a second sexual encounter with Top, it again is in a public space: the locker room/showers at the wakeboarding place.

Public Sex, Photography, and Brewing Thoughts about Boston

Image by @nongnaopat

While I was reading up on cruising, I came across a couple articles with quotes and observations that immediately made me think of Boston, and a question started brewing in my mind:

Is Boston a physical manifestation of the queer hookup cultures 60s-80s?

Boston’s Personality v. Public Sex

Again, we have only seen two episodes of Only Friends so I am not yet secure in my own interpretations of Boston. However, I was thinking about the conversations that occurred the other day about how Boston must exert control over others (@respectthepetty), and how he is ready and willing to meddle in Mew’s life by trying to seduce Top, but that there is noticeable fear and slight panic at the thought that Mew might catch him and Top together in the shower (@stuffnonsenseandotherthings).

There was something that just spoke to me so strongly about Boston’s character archetypes in relation to the conversations brought up in Chapter 6: Tearoom Trade: Tales of Public Sex of the book Marginal People in Deviant Places: Ethnography, Difference, and the Challenge to Scientific Racism by Janice M. Irvine.

In this chapter, Irvine discusses the essay Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Spaces written by Laud Humphreys. Within this chapter, Irvine states “Humphreys argued that tearoom participants varied in vulnerability to risk of exposure. He noted that married men and men who did not have career autonomy were highly vulnerable to negative consequences if discovered in the tearooms.” (Note: my understanding of “tearooms” from this reading is that they are public restrooms that have been transformed to better support instant sex, i.e. a broken window for a lookout, glory holes, walls removed between stalls, etc.) While an assumption could be made that vulnerable men would not engage in public sex, that assumption does not carry through to reality. Humphreys further claims that highly vulnerable men did still engage in public sex via tearoom visits, but they employed protective strategies to mitigate any suspicion of their queerness, often a hypermoral one.

I know “hypermoral” is not a term that anyone who has observed Boston for more than twenty seconds would really attribute to his character, but what did speak to me is what Humphreys says about the strategies employed by the highly vulnerable:

The secret offender may well believe he is more righteous than the next man—hence his shock and outrage, his disbelieving indignation, when he is discovered and discredited…Subjected to harsh social condemnation and legal penalties, the tearoom participant was likely to turn his anger and hatred on himself or others in his group. “Worse yet,” Humphreys argued, “he may justify himself by degrading others, displacing his hostility onto outgroups in the manner of the authoritarian personality.” (Irvine, 2022)

Now which Only Friend character are we thinking of based on the quote above?

“Hence his shock…when he is discovered…”

“The tearoom participant was likely to turn his anger and hatred on himself or others in his group”

“He may justify himself by degrading others”

One thing we do know about Boston is that he currently does not have career autonomy. He wants to be a photographer, but he is studying business because he may have to take over his father’s company (YouTube: Only Friends, Episode 2, Part 2/4, timestamp: 2:27). How much that pressure is really on him and how highly vulnerable Boston may be if caught engaging in gay, public sex remains to be seen, but to me it is worth noting. A research question to be asked: Why does Boston act the way he does? Is he vulnerable in some way and trying to compensate for it, or is just genuinely an asshole? Not sure, but I look forward to finding out.

An additional similarity that immediately came to mind in my readings and their relation to Boston was a reference to Rechy and his writings about male hustlers:

Rechy wrote about how male hustlers selling sex navigated the toilets. He cited the norms of the sexual marketplace with sociological precision: “Stand at the urinal long after youre [sic] through pissing. At the slightest indication of interest from someone in one of the cubicles, go up to him quickly before he gets any free ideas and say: ‘I’ll make it with you for twenty.’ (Irvine, 2022)

Boston is not a sex worker, he is not asking to be paid for his time, but the way he approaches Top in the bar bathroom to try to prompt a second sexual encounter does allude to the hustler culture. Top is standing at the urinal when Boston approaches

He strikes up conversation with Top who only really seems to be partially engaged, Top walks away from the urinal to wash his hands, Boston follows, placing his hands around Top’s, trying to proposition sex, appealing to their supposedly similar approaches to sex.

This is not a direct comparison to be sure, but I just wanted to mention it because it felt similar enough to be a reference. This reminded me too of the nod Jojo and Ninew had to gay male sexual culture in The Warp Effect when Alex has his shoulders massaged by a random patron propositioning sex at Jedi’s bar while he is standing at the urinals. Or to the more direct reference to cruising that Jojo and Aof put in to the character of Arm in Gay OK Bangkok, or Army in The Warp Effect (two pieces which I will continue to say are required viewings before [or at this point in conjunction with] Only Friends).

Boston’s Interest in Photography v. Public Sex Debates

Another aspect of Boston’s character that feels relevant to previous queer culture is his interest in photography itself, because photography has its own ties to tearooms and public sex.

In 1964, The Florida Legislative Investigative Committee “published a pamphlet that featured an explicit photograph of a man engaged in a sex act in a public restroom. The report, dubbed “the purple pamphlet,” was intended to shock readers and mobilize antigay repression.” (Irvine, 2022).

As a warning I am about to cite a pretty big chunk of text, but it is important information:

Photography became one of several technologies police and moral entrepreneurs used to observe and produce evidence of sexual deviance. Yet photographic surveillance could also be subverted. After the tearoom photograph was published in the 1964 Homosexuality and Citizenship brochure, conservatives attacked it as pornographic. The committee quickly removed it from the report, but the photograph was reprinted and vigorously marketed by Guild Press, a publisher of homoerotic materials. Gay pulp publishing was growing by 1964, and Guild Press, established in 1962, was no doubt gleeful to find and market this photograph. The Guild advertisement pointed out that this was the only “action photo” of a glory hole scene that had ever been in print, and as historian Thomas Waugh noted, “the glory hole photo became famous.”23 The “purple pamphlet” and its widespread dissemination was an early case of how social and religious conservatives played a significant role in making visible the sexual representation that they condemned. (Irvine, 2022)

Thinking about Boston and his interest in photography, we can notice another potential link to queer culture. Going in to Boston’s darkroom, we see a number of photographs on his wall of hot men in various stages of undress. With the preceding scene of Boston taking a photo of Nick after they fuck establishing some context, we can make some quick assumptions about who those men are to Boston and what was occurring prior to the photo being taken.

Even within two episodes of Only Friends the camera has almost served as an additional character, bringing us in to the private-public spaces we aren’t supposed to witness. In a conversation I was having with @waitmyturtles, she made the absolutely brilliant point: “the camera of the show is messing around with what we perceive as privacy”.

Sure Boston is making sexual advances on Top in the showers of a public locker room, but no one is supposed to know that, at least no one who could be actually, emotionally impacted by catching Top and Boston together. We see it, but we aren’t supposed to.

But I want to move beyond the show’s actual camera to briefly touch upon the other cameras we have seen alluded to on screen so far. Kudos to whoever it was on tumblr that took the screen shots of the hook up between Neo and Drake and pointed out the web camera that was sitting at the top of the computer monitor. Now, we have absolutely no idea if that is relevant at all to future plot lines, if the web cam was on, or if any part of that sexual encounter will come back to haunt Boston. But I think it is worth mentioning the very real and easy possibility that the web cam could have been recording the room (whether it actually was or not). In this way, Boston is playing with fire around what aspects of himself and his sexuality are captured on a screen.

When Boston and Nick hook up for the first time in the cellphone repair shop, Boston stops the make out session long enough to look around. No, not around, up. Up to the ceilings as if he is scanning the room for possible cameras. Again, we don’t know for sure if a) there are cameras there, b) if that is relevant at all to future plot lines or c) if that really was what Boston was doing. But either way, Nick catches on to Boston’s scanning of the room, and turns off the light so that they can’t be seen.

In both of these cases, whether the cameras exist, are on, recording, or saving any information is not fully the point. The point I am trying to make here is that there are constantly opportunities to have gay sex be captured, and whether or not it is comes down sometimes to shit dumb luck.

Conclusion

gif by @maxescheibechlinichacheli

I am so fascinated by Boston’s character, just thinking about the ways he does and does not fit in to the archetypes of a highly vulnerable tearoom participant: in his interest being in photography, capturing the images of queer men post-coitus, in the way he approaches Top at the urinal trying to entice him in to sex, in the ways he engages with and thinks of other people, and I am very much looking forward to seeing if this trend continues or diverges. For instance, will we see a drastically different side of Boston if we see more of how he interacts with professors in school considering that the one time that he was really quiet and reserved was during the presentation in front of the entire class? Will Boston fall in to the “public saint/private sinner” dynamic that would root him firmly in behaviors of a highly vulnerable queer man engaging in public sex? Or will he drift away from that alignment?

Disclaimer: I want to acknowledge that I am a Westerner and I am engaging and interpreting this show and the gay culture in this show through my own Western lens as well as the Western Gay Culture lens. However, I feel comfortable using these lenses to discuss, analyze, and identify threads of interest to follow throughout the show because:

In 1984, the ‘Boston Bar Study’ conducted by Men of All Colors Together Boston (MACTB) cited numerous examples of widespread discrimination at gay bars in Boston against black men. Similar types of discrimination have also been cited in Los Angeles and New York (Wat, 2002). Even more troubling is that this type of behavior seems to be international as well*anywhere that gay white men come into contact with gay men of color (Ridge, Hee & Minichiello, 1999). One can only imagine how many others never make it into the new stories. Rather than isolated events attributable to racist owners of single bars, the attempt to patrol the borders of whiteness in gay-owned business establishments seems to be a systematic practice (They Don’t Want to Cruise Your Type: Gay Men of Color and Racial Politics of Exclusion, Chong-suk Han, 2007).

In short, cruising, and discriminatory cruising practices are seen worldwide, and therefore I argue that gay culture in Thailand, while likely not identical, is similar enough to Western gay culture to apply similar frameworks, especially considering the aspects of gay culture Jojo and his co-creators have placed in their past works.

Sources

Ahlm, Jody (2017) Respectable promiscuity: Digital cruising in an era of queer liberalism, Sexualities, DOI: 10.1177/1363460716665783

Chong-suk Han (2007) They Don't Want To Cruise Your Type: Gay

Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Exclusion, Social Identities, 13:1, 51-67, DOI:

10.1080/13504630601163379

Humphreys, Laud (1970) Tearoom Trade.

Irvine, Janice M. (2022) Tearoom Trade: Tales of Public Sex, Marginal People in Deviant Places, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.11519906.11

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank @bengiyo, @lurkingshan, @neuroticbookworm, @so-much-yet-to-learn, @waitmyturtles for their thought partnership, edits, and suggestions!

#only friends #only friends the series #ofts #neo trai #jojo tichakorn #ninew pinya #boston #boston x nick #boston x top #neomark #forceneo #wka long post #kicking off the (possible- not guaranteed) WKA Academic Papers on Sex in Only Friends Essay series #only friends meta #only friends analysis #only friends the series meta #only friends the series analysis #ofts meta

369 notes · View notes

syrena-del-mar · 8 months

Text

Boston, the Machiavellian Prince?

Okay, okay, this is definitely too early into the show to establish anything definite, but I wanted to write my thoughts of the first two episodes down to see if I still agree with my initial assumptions at the end. Boston, so far, has been as messy as I wanted him to be when I first saw the initial trailer all those months ago. What makes him interesting and so unlike the others, is that he's incredibly calculative, to the point that the show explicitly refers to him as 'The Hunter'. Personally, when I think of an individual being designated as 'The Hunter', I tend to correlate it with Machiavelli, so it's no surprise here that Boston reminded me of the his renown work, 'The Prince'.

If you know anything about Machiavelli, specifically in ‘The Prince’, he establishes that it's important for a Prince to hunt so that way he is actively learning more about his kingdom, in turn that knowledge maintains his power. Now a Machiavellian Personality is one of what is coined the "Dark Triad", which refers to the three personalities: Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. Essentially, while they are all distinct, they all fall under the callous-manipulative personality type. As @trilliastra pointed out, that deep red coloring with the soundtrack on Boston really mimics the type of portrayal that is typically seen in psychological horror films. Now bear with me, I don't necessarily think that if someone falls under this personality type it's an instant signifier of "evil" or such notions, but I do think that it takes a larger effort to be agreeable and overcome their more malevolent tendencies, but some don't. So it'll be interesting to see how Boston navigates this side of him that has been consistently show to us.

Now before really diving into the deep end, I'm first going to give a little more information regarding Machiavelli's The Prince and how this works itself into psychology, then I'll be breaking up my analysis into the typical Machiavellian Personality Traits with the correlating quotes from 'The Prince'.

What is a Machiavellian Prince?

If you're not familiar with Machiavelli's ‘The Prince’, let me give you a brief rundown. Essentially, ‘The Prince’ is a political treatise that was utilized to provide advice to rulers on how to gain and maintain power effectively, essentially throwing out morality altogether in order to reach their goals. The central theme really revolved around the idea that to be an efficient leader, one needs to ensure that they are both cunning and adaptable to allow their kingdom to survive in the struggles of power. Similarly, these concepts directly relate to the idea of personality psychology, specifically the Machiavellian personality.

A Machiavellian individual, or personality type, refers to one that exhibits traits that are outlined in ‘The Prince’, specifically the use of manipulation and the belief that the ends justify the means. When it comes to interpersonal relationships, a Machiavellian individual tends to their own interests, manipulates situations and exploits others to achieve their goals. They place an emphasis in having a strategic focus solely on their own self-interest, so as long as they reach their desired end-goal, they're satisfied (even if it means burning bridges).

Manipulation through Vulnerabilities to Establish Control

"At this point one may note that men must be either pampered or annihilated. They avenge light offenses; they cannot avenge severe ones; hence, the harm one does to a man must be such as to obviate any fear of revenge." -Chapter 3, The Prince

In this case, we see this blatantly in one specific scene with Nick and Boston, where Boston uses the knowledge that he acquires almost as a knife. Nick had come clean about his own insecurities and Boston is quick to use that as a 'pet name', completely disregarding that Nick didn't like to be called 'Kinky head'. He's using the one moment that Nick had become vulnerable with him in the guise of a friendly jab, but also an incredibly threat that he is more than aware of where to aim where it hurts for Nick if he crosses any line that Boston has already established.

Boston's camera is another way he exerts his control, which can specifically be seen in how he uses it to take pictures of Nick after his night, positioning him, controlling the development of said picture. Pictures capture moments in time, Boston posed and captured an intimate, exposed, moment for Nick. Boston controls the image while Nick is left vulnerable. That image is fully in Boston's control; to do and develop as how he sees fit.

Now I'm not applying the idea of 'fear' in the sense of physical injury or corporal punishment, but the punishment that Boston seems to hang over Nick is leaving him. Boston is more than aware of Nick's growing feelings for him and he uses that in his interest, because Nick is so willing and eager to let Boston to have his way with him. Now this hasn't even been touched upon in the show, but there is also an almost societal-instilled fear that photos can bring, specifically intimate ones. It doesn't have to be blatantly stated by Boston the amount of damage intimate photos may cause emotionally (even if it's not spread), so when things turn sour, that photo and any personal information that he shared with Boston may very well hang over Nick's head.

Calculating Approach and Exploitation of Emotions

"A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves." -Chapter 18, The Prince

Now, @respectthepetty really did a great job at breaking down why Boston is referred to as the Hunter, specifically in the way that he consistently corners people to get what he wants, so for this part I'm going to jump off their meta. He consistently puts all his 'conquests' in a position where they are unable to leave, he puts them in tight spaces, he pins them on walls, he wraps his hand around their neck (one of the most vulnerable parts to a human due to the lack of natural protection and easy accessibility). They're all calculated positions that he puts his hook-ups in to establish that only he can give them the out, he's the one that establishes boundaries. We see this literally when he corners Top in the shower, who is the first that we hear to dare tell him 'no, he's not interested.' Boston doesn't let that sway him, because that's not a boundary respects because he wasn't the one to set it.

He's called 'the Hunter' because he knows how to play the game, he excels at it. He can be both the fox, when he plays the interested fling to Nick and Mew's best friend, and the lion when he shows who he truly is with Top. When he tells Mew to be wary, since Top never has a relationship that lasts longer than 3 months and his interest is likely to see if he can sleep with Mew, this doesn't seem to be a touching moment where he cares for his friend but rather an attempt to get Mew to push Top away, because we have no idea if that's really what Top intends. His calculative nature is shown again when Boston tells Nick, "You should be glad that you're my favorite." Man the phrasing of that, at least in the translation, is so incredibly manipulative, it really sets the tone that their relationship is fully transactional, lacking any deeper emotions that are typically found between lovers. It's not a factual admittance that Boston is enjoying the sex with Nick, but rather blatant acknowledgement that Nick should be grateful that Boston even comes back to him for the sex. Not to mention that he rewards Nick every time he acquiesces with a kiss or peck on the cheek.

In Spanish, there's a saying/insult that goes 'te va poner los cuernos', which literally translates to 'They're going to put the horns on you', but really signifies that they're going to cheat on you. That's why I couldn't help but find the irony when when Boston backed Nick into the horn/antler frame on the wall. And while here, Boston and Nick are in no set closed-relationship and they're both aware of that, Boston purposefully strings Nick along, dropping little personal information about his own life that will entice Nick and keep him present in their situationship.

Boston is willing to gamble with his intimate relationships and friendships, because he believes that he has the eagle eye's view on this playing field. He is willing to sacrifice anyone and everyone if it means that he is the one in control, he is the one people worship and claw their way to. To him it's only natural, because he has that sex appeal and he has never met anyone he couldn't triumph. Every one he sleeps with is a conquest. In his viewpoint, he is the kingpin, even in his group of friends, because he believes that he's the one that controls how his friends move since he knows how Mew is developing feelings for Top and is aware of Ray's feelings for Mew. This is a game to him and he believes that he's smart enough to come out the winner.

Power Struggles

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”

-Chapter 27, The Prince

In this case, for Boston what P'Jojo tweeted rings in my head. While he stated it in a more literary way, essentially Boston has an ego. He likes having first pickings and this shows with how he's reacting to the fact that Top is willing to chase Mew, but doesn't necessarily want to have a second round with him. His hubris is his achilleas heel.

Now we haven't seen much of the conflict that is going to arise between Mew, Boston and Top, but we are seeing much of Boston's reactions to what is going on between the two. Boston uses that using Mew's virginity is a weapon, he's the one that is the first to throw it in Mew's face. Boston sees virginity as a detriment, as a stain, a symbol of not being wanted, because he finds his power behind being lusted for. @athousandbyeol, prior to the show even airing, brought up the point that Nick became his favorite because of his availability, Boston objectifies Nick. Nick serves a purpose, an outlet to get rid of the frustration that Boston finds himself accumulating with this pseudo power struggle that he has with both Mew and Top.

He has no consistent leverage over Mew or Top, because Mew doesn't care about his virginity (not in the way that Boston does) and Top does not actively chose nor chase after him, instead Boston is the one that has to be one that corners Top. It's why it drives him a tad nuts that Top is seemingly taking the idea of a relationship with Mew seriously, because it was never part of his plan for Top to actually get interested. That's an ego blow, but there is one person that he consistently has power of: Nick. Even though Boston is aware that he's seeking more, what's to define their relationship, he only gives him two options: Fuck Buddy or Friends with Benefit. And though neither are what Nick truly wants, he still chooses one, because that keeps Boston around and Boston knows this, he counts on this power he holds over Nick. For every damage he takes to his ego with MewTop, it gets soothed and stroked by Nick, literally.

Final Thoughts

“A man who is used to acting in one way never changes; he must come to ruin when the times, in changing, no longer are in harmony with his ways.” - Chapter 25, The Prince

Now, the labeling of Boston as a potential Machiavellian Prince (personality), does not dictate that he is inherently evil and that he will always be, or is, the villain. It's true that he manipulates and is merely interested in pursuits that are personally beneficial, which in turn may hurt others. Yet, the concepts of "evil" and "good" are incredibly binary. So far, we have no idea as to why he behaves as he does or whether he had past-experiences or personal insecurities that shaped him. It doesn’t mean that the pain he inflicts on others will be okay as long as there is a reason or sob story, but it will give us more insight into why he is the way he is.

Machiavellianism is typically easily written off as an evil form of being but arguably, it's just another behavioral guide on how to respond to challenging circumstances. There's a lot of labels that we can so far apply to Boston, narcissist is one that I see floating around a lot as well. Yet, narcissists typically lack self-confidence and overcompensate, Machiavellians typically believe that they are the best and as such do whatever they can to achieve their personal goals that they believe that they deserve. Personally, with what I've seen so far, Boston falls under the latter rather than the former.

I think simply writing Boston off as the "villain" or "evil" is simply disregarding the potential nuance that his character may bring. This show does a great job at showing how messy Boston is and even the different types of messy that they all are. It's important to keep in mind the broader context in which Boston is acting in to fully be able to understand who he is an individual and the consequences that his action may bring. It'll be interesting to see if he comes out of this a changed man or more set in his ways.

206 notes · View notes