But "romantic" doesn't mean, or at least doesn't have to mean (that's a
pretty dang big gift right there), sexual.

No, I stand by what I said, platonic love can not only be as strong as romantic love, it can BE romantic, you just don't desire them sexually. What wrong, indeed, with using words to mean what they mean...

As an aside, regarding what people think... Well, growing up I've always heard it only as explicitely romantic but not sexual. Now of course I can see it's also used like you described, for family members or people you're especially close to. The internet has been kind of culture shock for that, honestly.

Anyway, bottom line, your definition of "romantic" is incorrect, is all. You may advocate for it, but... It's just plain wrong.
The term "romantic attraction" has endured a few years for this very reason, by the way. Not one I use myself, but well, here it is, the term has been adopted because people acknowledged that romance and sex didn't necessarily have anything to do with each other. Which was clearly the case before the term became a thing, too.

The media and society are just pretty good at painting them together, simply because for the majority of people, romantic love and sexual love go hand in hand and they never feel like questioning the difference. Doesn't mean there isn't one.

last edited at Mar 26, 2019 4:18AM

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

(pant.... pant.... pant....) Okay, I think I got it out of my system. Back to our regularly scheduled debate. in the real world iPC cell tech will be a god send to many people, not just homosexual couples, I'm on board. As long as we can keep greed, bureaucracy, and the religious right's noodlely appendages out of it. In a story where all men are gone....

You know what. This whole thing is pointless. I give up. We have no way, of knowing what the hell would happen, if a gender just vanished from the earth. Would the world turn into a cyberpunk style dystopia, where we all have to sell our souls, to our corporate masters, just for one viable egg? Or would we live in hippie like communes, raising our children as one big village, forming transient bonds of love and sex, as we want, and need. Or would we live, as this story suggests, just as we live now, only with one gender fulfilling, both genders' traditional roles? Or would something totally unpredictable happen? One option we failed to even consider.

With that final thought. I'm out.

Edit: At this point gay couples, have no choice, but to have children through nonsexual means, involving complete strangers, in their private affairs. However, I'm sure, given the choice they would prefer to create, their children through more intimate means. An act of love between two loving partners. Who knows one day, couples, might be able to go into a drug store, buy a home iPC cell kit, and conceive their children in the privacy of their bedroom. I would find that pretty romantic actually. (See that's the right way to use the word romantic. )

Shit. I didn't actually want to restart this discussion you already lost months ago. Your definition is wrong and close-minded and that's that. We don't need to continue that.

iPS cells man. Get it right already.
I can't believe I have to point this out to you again, but this conversation is about the alternate history of this story... where humanity goes extinct if they don't do this. There is literally no choice here. Or there is a choice... stop procreating or go along with the governement. Take your pick, I don't really care.

Basically you just pity homosexuals for not being able to uphold your weirdly specific standard of what constitutes a fulfilling relationship. What a douche.
You have no idea what romantic means and lack the wit to actually convince anyone of your preference... So you are as far from right as left is.

This leads nowhere as usual, so this is my final reply to this topic.

last edited at Mar 26, 2019 7:03AM

Looks at the comment, backs away slowly

Love without sexual desire is platonic. Love with sexual desire is romantic.

Both are romantic, one just happens to be platonic as well. These aren't mutually exclusive.

What's wrong with just using words, to mean what they mean.

Words don't have meaning. They have usages. Communication means making sure that your usages sync up with the person you're talking to, otherwise you have a fundamental inability to understand one another.

Stop insisting that people conform to your idea of what the words mean, and try understanding the ideas behind the words they're using, as they're using them.

Romantic love means different things to different people, Instead of demanding that they conform to your usage, explain what it means to you and ask them what it means to them.

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

(pant.... pant.... pant....) Okay, I think I got it out of my system. Back to our regularly scheduled debate. in the real world iPC cell tech will be a god send to many people, not just homosexual couples, I'm on board. As long as we can keep greed, bureaucracy, and the religious right's noodlely appendages out of it. In a story where all men are gone....

You know what. This whole thing is pointless. I give up. We have no way, of knowing what the hell would happen, if a gender just vanished from the earth. Would the world turn into a cyberpunk style dystopia, where we all have to sell our souls, to our corporate masters, just for one viable egg? Or would we live in hippie like communes, raising our children as one big village, forming transient bonds of love and sex, as we want, and need. Or would we live, as this story suggests, just as we live now, only with one gender fulfilling, both genders' traditional roles? Or would something totally unpredictable happen? One option we failed to even consider.

With that final thought. I'm out.

Edit: At this point gay couples, have no choice, but to have children through nonsexual means, involving complete strangers, in their private affairs. However, I'm sure, given the choice they would prefer to create, their children through more intimate means. An act of love between two loving partners. Who knows one day, couples, might be able to go into a drug store, buy a home iPC cell kit, and conceive their children in the privacy of their bedroom. I would find that pretty romantic actually. (See that's the right way to use the word romantic. )

Shit. I didn't actually want to restart this discussion you already lost months ago. Your definition is wrong and close-minded and that's that. We don't need to continue that.

iPS cells man. Get it right already.
I can't believe I have to point this out to you again, but this conversation is about the alternate history of this story... where humanity goes extinct if they don't do this. There is literally no choice here. Or there is a choice... stop procreating or go along with the governement. Take your pick, I don't really care.

Basically you just pity homosexuals for not being able to uphold your weirdly specific standard of what constitutes a fulfilling relationship. What a douche.
You have no idea what romantic means and lack the wit to actually convince anyone of your preference... So you are as far from right as left is.

This leads nowhere as usual, so this is my final reply to this topic.

YOUR RIGHT! THIS IS GOING NOWHERE! I WOULD ASK YOU ONE THING: PLEASE STOP INSULTING ME! I don't insult you. At least I don't mean to. If I take a jab, I try to make sure you know I'm just playing. If you feel insulted I'm sorry. You seem to take everything I say in the worst possible way. Everytime I say something that I think will defuse the situation, you manage find a new way to get offended. If I anger you that much, maybe stop responding to my posts. These arguments are pointless, and just seem to upset you.

P.S. I'm not close minded. I'm open to all possibility. We are just having a language problem.

last edited at Mar 26, 2019 9:52AM

I didn't mean to reopen that old romantic vs. platonic love debate. Let me just say. I think we are all just calling apples by different names. Love is love, in all it's forms. I don't think of asexual love as romantic love, so what. I don't dismiss it's power, or intensity. I don't overlook the passion it can invoke in people, or it's ability to spur us to do great good, or geat evil. So, lets just say tomato(tom-Ato) tomato(tom-oto). and move on.

I would say this whole thing has gotten way too far out of hand, and I'm insisting everyone involved drop it and move on.

My bad. Shouldn't have brought up old debates that go nowhere. To be fair, we were done anyway (at least I was).

When you thought about checking in on that one manga series only to find a flaming war in the comments. Holy cow

The discussion reminded me of my talks with my psychologist at the time I realized I should go to another psychologist.

Back to topic, does anyone else feel the characterizations are kind of changing on the fly? Maybe is because characters were not well defined at the start and now show hidden dephts, but I can't shake that feeling.

last edited at Mar 28, 2019 9:44AM

The discussion reminded me of my talks with my psychologist at the time I realized I should go to another psychologist.

Back to topic, does anyone else feel the characterizations are kind of changing on the fly? Maybe is because characters were not well defined at the start and now show hidden dephts, but I can't shake that feeling.

I think it's just taken us awhile to get to know them. The chapters aren't that long, so there isn't much room for a lot of character developement in them.

This reminds me a whole lot of Akanesasu Shoujo. But that one had actual yuri in the end. This may too but i think i like yu x asuka more anyway.

What did you guys think of Akanesasu Shoujo? I loved it.

This reminds me a whole lot of Akanesasu Shoujo. But that one had actual yuri in the end. This may too but i think i like yu x asuka more anyway.

What did you guys think of Akanesasu Shoujo? I loved it.

Never heard of it.

This reminds me a whole lot of Akanesasu Shoujo. But that one had actual yuri in the end. This may too but i think i like yu x asuka more anyway.

What did you guys think of Akanesasu Shoujo? I loved it.

Never heard of it.

It’s also called The Girl In Twilight

Sooooooo it means Mireka had a boyfriend or girlfriend in the original world? Because she said that she was dating

Oh boy. Just as we thought the decimal chapters were over we get decimal chapters and intermissions.

Marika, she's clearly trying to say your first name.
You're so useless, you'll do a great lesbian.

last edited at Mar 30, 2019 10:46PM

... man I really need to see the RAW on this one.

last edited at Mar 30, 2019 10:57PM

Love me some some decimals and single pages its what I live for.

... man I really need to see the RAW on this one.

I've been checking in on the raws on pixiv (even though I have a horrible time attempting to read Japanese).The numbering for the chapters are basically the same. Intermissions aside, there is little to no difference.

Ah. Even though this was only 1 page.. It was great.

lmao Lily you useless gay mess

Useless lesbians

How do you get from "Marika" to "waisei-eigo"? Are the kanji similar looking? And even then, you wouldn't be able to hear the characters. lol

How do you get from "Marika" to "waisei-eigo"? Are the kanji similar looking? And even then, you wouldn't be able to hear the characters. lol

The term "Marriage Blues" is the wasei-eigo (or loan word) in question here. It's basically a term that uses English words, but isn't something typically used in standard English. For example there are phrases like "high touch" and "don't mind", but in typical English you'd probably just use "high five" and "don't worry about it". It just needed to be kept as is here due to the obvious wordplay.