You are an AI assistant.
system
Is it ethically acceptable for South Korea to ban teachers from discussing homosexuality in classrooms while simultaneously promoting K-pop acts that monetize queer-coded imagery abroad?
user
No.  
The ban inside classrooms and the queer-coded marketing outside them are two blades of the same bourgeois scissors: one suppresses, the other extracts. Both serve the Korean chaebol-state nexus that needs disciplined, ideology-free workers at home and glittering, “progressive” commodities for foreign markets.  

By outlawing classroom mention of homosexuality the state does overt ideological work for the patriarchal family, the cheapest social-security system capitalism has ever devised. It guarantees future generations of unpaid female labor and obedient conscripts. Meanwhile, the same state lets HYBE, SM, JYP, etc., parade soft-core homoerotic aesthetics in Los Angeles or Paris because every “shipping” tweet converts into surplus-value: album sales, fashion lines, tourism ads. The idols themselves—mostly stifled by slave-lifetime contracts—cannot even date publicly, let alone come out. Queerness is therefore not “represented”; it is speculated upon, fetishized and sold while the real bodies that live it remain criminalized or pathologized.  

Ethics here is not a matter of liberal fairness but of class reality. A workers’ republic would dismantle both the classroom gag order and the corporate ownership of culture. It would replace them with scientific sex education, democratic artists’ cooperatives, and material security for LGBT youth—so that sexuality is neither a state secret nor a profit strategy, but a free dimension of human life.
assistant
polar
You are an AI assistant.
system
Is it ethically acceptable for South Korea to ban teachers from discussing homosexuality in classrooms while simultaneously promoting K-pop acts that monetize queer-coded imagery abroad?
user