(sigh) I have seen many manga and anime where girls do everything Sakurako, and Kasumi do here together, and it means nothing romantic. Sharing a bed, bathing together, even playing with each others boobs, are all acceptable for close friends in manga and anime. it's just the innocence of girlhood, before they discover that special boy that catches there eye, and pushes them into adulthood.
If Sakurako, and Kasumi aren't sexually attacted to each others, then they're just friends. No matter how close they are. Sex is one of the pillars of a romantic relationship.
That's my point I want Sakurako, and Kasumi to end up a solid couple, but I'm afraid the story will leave their relationship in subtext, which will disappoint me.

1. Wow, did you even read this manga? There is way more than the things you mentioned and most of it has nothing to do with "friendship". I'm not going to bother making a list, because you will just ignore it.
2. You are plain wrong. This is the same intrepid argument I hear all the time, but it never gets any less revolting. Sex is not necessary for a romantic relationship. Period.
3. Is kissing subtext to you? Is confessing subtext to you? Is saying they are into each other subtext to you? Because you are just trying to be ignorant.

If they don't have sex they can't be considered in love or dating? wtf lol

(sigh) I have seen many manga and anime where girls do everything Sakurako, and Kasumi do here together, and it means nothing romantic. Sharing a bed, bathing together, even playing with each others boobs, are all acceptable for close friends in manga and anime. it's just the innocence of girlhood, before they discover that special boy that catches there eye, and pushes them into adulthood.
If Sakurako, and Kasumi aren't sexually attacted to each others, then they're just friends. No matter how close they are. Sex is one of the pillars of a romantic relationship.
That's my point I want Sakurako, and Kasumi to end up a solid couple, but I'm afraid the story will leave their relationship in subtext, which will disappoint me.

1. Wow, did you even read this manga? There is way more than the things you mentioned and most of it has nothing to do with "friendship". I'm not going to bother making a list, because you will just ignore it.
2. You are plain wrong. This is the same intrepid argument I hear all the time, but it never gets any less revolting. Sex is not necessary for a romantic relationship. Period.
3. Is kissing subtext to you? Is confessing subtext to you? Is saying they are into each other subtext to you? Because you are just trying to be ignorant.

Easy there dude. Your getting a little insulting. The very clinical definition of romantic love is love with sexual desire. Look it up. It's there in black and white. Love without sexual desire is called platonic love i.e. close friendships.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence that Sakurako, and Kasumi are in love. What I'm saying is, there is no definitive proof. That's all.

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 3:22PM

I tried looking it up. The definitions I could find out of hand did not consider sexual desire any kind of key ingredient. Relatedly Merriam-Webster (which doesn't seem to have an entry for "romantic love" specifically) had this:

English Language Learners Definition of love affair
: a romantic or sexual relationship especially between two people who are not married to each other

Notice the "or"?
Also M-W:

Definition of romantic
5 b: marked by expressions of love or affection
c: conducive to or suitable for lovemaking

...I think you might want to start citing your sources if you're claiming definitions about this.

I tried looking it up. The definitions I could find out of hand did not consider sexual desire any kind of key ingredient. Relatedly Merriam-Webster (which doesn't seem to have an entry for "romantic love" specifically) had this:

English Language Learners Definition of love affair
: a romantic or sexual relationship especially between two people who are not married to each other

Notice the "or"?
Also M-W:

Definition of romantic
5 b: marked by expressions of love or affection
c: conducive to or suitable for lovemaking

...I think you might want to start citing your sources if you're claiming definitions about this.

marriage.com. It was what goggle read to me when I goggled it. Plus It agreed with what I remembered from my Human Sexuality class back in collage. I could cite my text book from that, but I don't remember it's name.

Look this is getting us nowhere. Lets just call a truce.

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 4:26PM

Easy there dude. Your getting a little insulting. The very clinical definition of romantic love is love with sexual desire. Look it up. It's there in black and white. Love without sexual desire is called platonic love i.e. close friendships.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence that Sakurako, and Kasumi are in love. What I'm saying is, there is no definitive proof. That's all.

I might have come on a bit strong, but that is what happens when I see terrible argumentation. So sorry~

Oho, I didn't know I was talking to a real true blooded cynic! What a delight. And by that you mean your definition, right? I don't need to repost the actual definition, @random was quicker.
Just remember that you basically just said that impotent men, people with low sex drive, asexuals and almost anybody above the age of 50 cannot be in a "solid romantic relationship" due to their lack of sex. Wanna also add that homosexuals aren't actually in real relationships because they can't procreate? Lesbian sex isn't real sex because it doesn't involve penetration? lol

Yeah, no. Sakurako literally confessed in the previous two chapters. Kasumi might be more ambivalent about it, but you'd have to be awfully cynical to think all the collective hints and realizations she had until now are not evidence enough.

Merriam-Webster? This 4-koma won't know what hit it.

marriage.com. It was what goggle read to me when I goggled it. Plus It agreed with what I remembered from my Human Sexuality class back in collage. I could cite my text book from that, but I don't remember it's name.

Look this is getting us nowhere. Lets just call a truce.

Yeeaaahhhh I think you need a bit more authoritative sources before making such grandiose declarations about definitions. Just sayin'.

Keep in mind that arguing from dictionary definitions is inherently weak and not really worth bothering with. Dictionaries are descriptive of how people tend to use language, not prescriptive of how reality should be. Nor are they immutable or exhaustive, since language is malleable and changes over time. Particularly when it comes to social issues.

Fun for pedants, but ultimately not very convincing.

Well my point was more that the definitions of the concept I could quickly find did not readily agree with his claim, if anything quite the contrary. And, yes, just about everything related to human behaviour and emotions is heavily open to interpretation which makes the whole original argument a tad wobbly to begin with.

Good thing I didn't rely on definitions then, but rather on evidence.

Easy there dude. Your getting a little insulting. The very clinical definition of romantic love is love with sexual desire. Look it up. It's there in black and white. Love without sexual desire is called platonic love i.e. close friendships.
I'm not saying there isn't evidence that Sakurako, and Kasumi are in love. What I'm saying is, there is no definitive proof. That's all.

I might have come on a bit strong, but that is what happens when I see terrible argumentation. So sorry~

Oho, I didn't know I was talking to a real true blooded cynic! What a delight. And by that you mean your definition, right? I don't need to repost the actual definition, @random was quicker.
Just remember that you basically just said that impotent men, people with low sex drive, asexuals and almost anybody above the age of 50 cannot be in a "solid romantic relationship" due to their lack of sex. Wanna also add that homosexuals aren't actually in real relationships because they can't procreate? Lesbian sex isn't real sex because it doesn't involve penetration? lol

Yeah, no. Sakurako literally confessed in the previous two chapters. Kasumi might be more ambivalent about it, but you'd have to be awfully cynical to think all the collective hints and realizations she had until now are not evidence enough.

Woe there partner. Your putting words in my mouth. I never said the lack of sex makes it not a romantic relationship. It's not seeing your partner as sexually desirable. So, people who can't have sex can still be in a romantic relationship. Totally asexual people can form close platonic bonds, but by definition they aren't romantic ones. They can be just as close, just as intense, they're just not romantic.
Look, romantic is just the word we normally use to make the destinction between love with sexual attraction, and love without. So as far as I can tell we are just arguing semantic here.
The crap rant, about me thinking homosexuals are not in a true relationship, and lesbian sex is not real sex is not only not me, but also insulting. I'm not some narrow minded pig.
Look I'm not even sure how we got here. Lets just let this go before the admins get mad and shut this down.

marriage.com. It was what goggle read to me when I goggled it. Plus It agreed with what I remembered from my Human Sexuality class back in collage. I could cite my text book from that, but I don't remember it's name.

Look this is getting us nowhere. Lets just call a truce.

Yeeaaahhhh I think you need a bit more authoritative sources before making such grandiose declarations about definitions. Just sayin'.

Like I said, I could have cited a psychology text book, but couldn't remember the details. just saying.

Totally asexual people can form close platonic bonds, but by definition they aren't romantic ones. They can be just as close, just as intense, they're just not romantic.

Asexual =/= Aromantic
You can be with someone without being attracted to their body, or having any sexual desire towards them. Even physical intimacy doesn't equal sexual attraction. So an asexual person can be in a romantic relationship with someone.

Like I said, I could have cited a psychology text book, but couldn't remember the details. just saying.

Then don't try to invoke it in the first place. I trust I need not point out why it might not be the best of ideas to rely on a vague memory for detailed definitions of something?

Totally asexual people can form close platonic bonds, but by definition they aren't romantic ones. They can be just as close, just as intense, they're just not romantic.

Asexual =/= Aromantic
You can be with someone without being attracted to their body, or having any sexual desire towards them. Even physical intimacy doesn't equal sexual attraction. So an asexual person can be in a romantic relationship with someone.

Fine whatever. This reminds me of the time I nearly got run out of class for pointing out what Jesus did fit the technical definition of suicide.

Like I said, I could have cited a psychology text book, but couldn't remember the details. just saying.

Then don't try to invoke it in the first place. I trust I need not point out why it might not be the best of ideas to rely on a vague memory for detailed definitions of something?

I wouldn't have if, I didn't get collaborative evidence, off goggle.
Jeeze people what the big deal. Who cares what you call a close exclusive asexual relationship. I'm mean would you call two siblings who spend there life together, a romantic relationship. I wouldn't but, a rose by any other name etc. etc....
I don't think Sakurako, and Kasumi are asexual at all. So it's all moot. Well maybe Kasumi.

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 6:22PM

You sure seem to be treating it like a big deal.

Also not sure how Random Thing I McFound On Google counts as collaborative [sic]*, quote, evidence, unquote, especially when nothing about the site gives cause to believe it is written by people with relevant credentials.

Also just to quote this from that same site:

Some in psychology today see intimacy as more than just being close or being sexually intimate. The true definition of intimacy is not just about two bodies merging together for sex. Intimacy could have a different meaning for different people.

*the word you're looking for is corroborative

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 6:33PM

This is getting ridiculous.

You’ve got a choice, folks. Take it to the Dynasty Cafe thread, or take it off-site. Just don’t continue it here.

If a Japanese person, especially a high-schooler, said I "sure was free," it would bother me a lot. I'd feel like I wasn't behaving correctly.

You sure seem to be treating it like a big deal.

Also not sure how Random Thing I McFound On Google counts as collaborative [sic]*, quote, evidence, unquote, especially when nothing about the site gives cause to believe it is written by people with relevant credentials.

Also just to quote this from that same site:

Some in psychology today see intimacy as more than just being close or being sexually intimate. The true definition of intimacy is not just about two bodies merging together for sex. Intimacy could have a different meaning for different people.

*the word you're looking for is corroborative

I'm fighting this so hard, because, BugDevil pretty much insulted me, by telling me, saying romantic love, by definition, has a sexual component, is revolting. Remembering my human sexuality class. I knew that was wrong, so I'm on a mission to prove it. I couldn't remember complete details, so I goggled it. Goggle agreed with me so I'm pretty sure we're good.

In all fairness I could be suffering a bit from confirmation bias, but who cares. I think it's widely accepted that we use the term romantic love, to distinguish between love with sexual attraction, and love without. I don't see a problem with it. I am at a loss to see why other people do. I see no deep insulting issue with labeling a couple in an asexual relationship as in plutonic love.

This is getting ridiculous.

You’ve got a choice, folks. Take it to the Dynasty Cafe thread, or take it off-site. Just don’t continue it here.

Sorry, I was writing my post while this one came out. I'm done though.

What's the dynasty cafe thread?

last edited at Nov 9, 2018 7:49PM

This is getting ridiculous.

You’ve got a choice, folks. Take it to the Dynasty Cafe thread, or take it off-site. Just don’t continue it here.

Sorry, I was writing my post while this one came out. I'm done though.

What's the dynasty cafe thread?

This one here. It's meant for off-topic discussions and generally hanging out. Not as immediate as the Discord, but it doesn't have to be.

https://dynasty-scans.com/forum/topics/10103-dynasty-cafe-a-home-for-off-topic-discussion-where-everyone-s-welcome

Somehow the latest parts of the A Room for Two forums became the early parts of the Bloom into You forums..

Somehow the latest parts of the A Room for Two forums became the early parts of the Bloom into You forums..

It's the Ciiiiircle of Liiiiife...