PS: The last man would not have had a lot of sex, because at that point they would already have come up with a way to reproduce among women.

Actually ch 1.1 is quite explicit that the breakthrough(s) allowing female-female reproduction postdated the death of the last known male H. sapiens sapiens. I elaborated a rough overall timeline of the whole business way back when, but short form here is that they must've been getting pretty desperate by that point as most of the female population would have been fast approaching (or was already past) menopause...

Here is the thing: I don't care about your timeline.

So anyway, the phrasing is a bit odd in those two pages. I don't necessarily think she meant that they developed that method after the last man died in 1920. The "after that" could also refer to the recognition of the virus' existence. Giving the author the benefit of the doubt here of course, because there is no way no research would have been done by the early symptoms of male population decreasing more and more for decades.

At least we agree that they must have been desperate. I don't even want to imagine that kind of pressure.

People take their species' fate strangely personally. I suppose I'm the weird one though.

PS: The last man would not have had a lot of sex, because at that point they would already have come up with a way to reproduce among women.

Actually ch 1.1 is quite explicit that the breakthrough(s) allowing female-female reproduction postdated the death of the last known male H. sapiens sapiens. I elaborated a rough overall timeline of the whole business way back when, but short form here is that they must've been getting pretty desperate by that point as most of the female population would have been fast approaching (or was already past) menopause...

Here is the thing: I don't care about your timeline.

Here is the thing: it computes and trying to discuss an alternate history without at least a basic timeline of events essentially amounts to randomly pulling shit out of your ass while groping blind. You're welcome to work out an alternative ofc but I can't really see it coming down to anything dramatically different, given it largely derives from the biological realities of human lifespan and reproductive fertility.

So anyway, the phrasing is a bit odd in those two pages. I don't necessarily think she meant that they developed that method after the last man died in 1920. The "after that" could also refer to the recognition of the virus' existence.

*le shrug* By far the single most obvious and natural interpretation of the teacher's lecture is taking it at a face value. I'm just going by what the author states in plain text about the setting, man.

Giving the author the benefit of the doubt here of course, because there is no way no research would have been done by the early symptoms of male population decreasing more and more for decades.

Of course they did, once people started noticing the phenomenom. But that'd have been circa mid-1800s or so when the relevant sciences were either at their infancy or didn't yet even exist and the kinds of tools needed to actually closely study, nevermind now manipulate, molecular biology were even worse off (or rather more specifically, over a century off in the future behind considerable advances in other fields). Throw in the diverse serious disturbances caused by the rapid aging and depletion of the suddenly unreplenishable male population (hithero the de facto ruling sex and more prosaically primary labour pool) and peoples' reactions to the whole business and we're talking about a truly daunting uphill struggle indeed.

At least we agree that they must have been desperate. I don't even want to imagine that kind of pressure.

As mentioned, "medical ethics" ought to have been out of the window a long time ago by that point. Probably safe to assume the tech got rushed out of the labs as soon as it was even vaguely functional and Devil take any side effects - they had survival of the species riding on restarting human reproduction ASAP after all. No doubt any number of medical horror stories occurred before the inevitable bugs were worked out by trial and error but eh, desperate times.

I also wonder about men in that universe's fiction. Other than older, pre-extinction works, would no one ever write a show, a novel, a movie, featuring the long lost men. We do, after all, write about that which no longer exists (dinosaurs, lost civilizations, famous dead people), doesn't exist (zombies, fantasy settings), or we aren't sure it exists (Atlantis, aliens, certain legends)

Oh well, as a general rule, I try not to think about something much harder than the original author did

Writing better manga than the mangaka has written is pretty prevalent in the Dynasty forum.

I mean, this one is decent enough doing what it does, but it’s clearly not interested in a lot of the aspects of the storyworld that seem to be fascinating to readers here.

I still think for the mangaka it’s basically, “yadda yadda something something—no men. Now yuri.”

last edited at Apr 15, 2019 7:35AM

Here is the thing: it computes and trying to discuss an alternate history without at least a basic timeline of events essentially amounts to randomly pulling shit out of your ass while groping blind. You're welcome to work out an alternative ofc but I can't really see it coming down to anything dramatically different, given it largely derives from the biological realities of human lifespan and reproductive fertility.

No, you misunderstand. I do not care about your timeline. Not every timeline. Just yours.
Everything you wrote in that timeline is to paraphrase you "randomly pulled out of your ass". Based on your assumptions. Mine are different. That's all there is to it.

So anyway, the phrasing is a bit odd in those two pages. I don't necessarily think she meant that they developed that method after the last man died in 1920. The "after that" could also refer to the recognition of the virus' existence.

*le shrug* By far the single most obvious and natural interpretation of the teacher's lecture is taking it at a face value. I'm just going by what the author states in plain text about the setting, man.

Have you read the original Japanese version? Because all you are taking at face value is the translation. And even then, everyone is guilty of bad phrasing or coordination sometimes. Heck, some people like to go on and on about off-topic stuff. Can you imagine?

Of course they did, once people started noticing the phenomenom. But that'd have been circa mid-1800s or so when the relevant sciences were either at their infancy or didn't yet even exist and the kinds of tools needed to actually closely study, nevermind now manipulate, molecular biology were even worse off (or rather more specifically, over a century off in the future behind considerable advances in other fields). Throw in the diverse serious disturbances caused by the rapid aging and depletion of the suddenly unreplenishable male population (hithero the de facto ruling sex and more prosaically primary labour pool) and peoples' reactions to the whole business and we're talking about a truly daunting uphill struggle indeed.

1. There is no indication that this world's history was the same before the virus. Rather broad assumption there. Who knows how advanced technology was? You sure don't.
2. If you agree with me here (and I have to assume this when I cut down the fat), why are you opposed to my interpretation that they were well on their way for a breakthrough before the last man died? For someone who is obsessed with timelines, that is the much more likely timeframe, no?

As mentioned, "medical ethics" ought to have been out of the window a long time ago by that point. Probably safe to assume the tech got rushed out of the labs as soon as it was even vaguely functional and Devil take any side effects - they had survival of the species riding on restarting human reproduction ASAP after all. No doubt any number of medical horror stories occurred before the inevitable bugs were worked out by trial and error but eh, desperate times.

Thanks for the repeat. Really needed that. A simple "Yes, we agree" would have sufficed.

last edited at Apr 15, 2019 8:43AM

No, you misunderstand. I do not care about your timeline. Not every timeline. Just yours.
Everything you wrote in that timeline is to paraphrase you "randomly pulled out of your ass". Based on your assumptions. Mine are different. That's all there is to it.

You're welcome to present your version. Until then argue in detail or shut up about it because flatly declaring "I disagree with you, that's all there is to it" is about as conversationally productive and behaviourally mature as putting fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you".

Have you read the original Japanese version? Because all you are taking at face value is the translation. And even then, everyone is guilty of bad phrasing or coordination sometimes. Heck, some people like to go on and on about off-topic stuff. Can you imagine?

That's some woolly and arbitrary assumptions indeed to base an argument on. I have to ask - why are you giving the fictional people only vaguely sketched out in the narrative greater benefit of the doubt than the actual translators...?

1. There is no indication that this world's history was the same before the virus. Rather borad assumption there. Who knows how advanced technology was? You sure don't.

Ahem. I do know because it's right there in plain text. Now I went over before why the plague and its various side effects would have made for a very different "Long Nineteenth Century" than in our history, making Lily's claim rather ridiculous, but there is no indication nor reason to assume any meaningful differences before the divergence point around the beginning of the 19th century and the effects of the plague starting to show.

1. If you agree with me here (and I have to assume this when I cut down the fat), why are you opposed to my interpretation that they were well on their way for a breakthrough before the last man died? For someone who is obsessed with timelines, that is the much more likely timeframe, no?

I am not opposed to that interpretation at all, but it isn't what you originally argued. Direct quote:

PS: The last man would not have had a lot of sex, because at that point they would already have come up with a way to reproduce among women.

So, yeah. The text of the narrative explicitly contradicts your original claim; revising your position in light of evidence is perfectly fine but please don't try to pretend you didn't do it.

Thanks for the repeat. Really needed that. A simple "Yes, we agree" would have sufficed.

I also write for the benefit of the audience that can be excused for not remembering or never having read in the first place a mini-essay nine pages back.

last edited at Apr 15, 2019 9:17AM

You're welcome to present your version. Until then argue in detail or shut up about it because flatly declaring "I disagree with you, that's all there is to it" is about as conversationally productive and behaviourally mature as putting fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you".

But I can't hear you! This is text!

To make it short, I have no interest in creating a timeline with so little information. It's asinine. Discussing just one aspect of this grand tapestry seems to cause enough lit fuses for several paragraphs from you. I do not need to see the full salvo, thank you very much.

That's some woolly and arbitrary assumptions indeed to base an argument on. I have to ask - why are you giving the fictional people only vaguely sketched out in the narrative greater benefit of the doubt than the actual translators...?

I was actually refering to the author, not the teacher in the story.

Ahem. I do know because it's right there in plain text.

Oh you mean the vague "Yeah I guess its mostly the same even though I dont understand your history well enough"? From a high-school history textbook? Cute.

I am not opposed to that interpretation at all, but it isn't what you originally argued.

PS: The last man would not have had a lot of sex, because at that point they would already have come up with a way to reproduce among women.

So, yeah. The text of the narrative explicitly contradicts your original claim; revising your position in light of evidence is perfectly fine but please don't try to pretend you didn't do it.

Hence why I established that the text is not necessarily contradicting my statment at all, but it's okay. You can ignore my arguments, that's your right Mr. Gentleman.

Whether the solution was on the cusp of being realized or already being realized before the last man died is basically a miniscule difference, but I guess if you want to see it like that, I'll go back to my original assumption. They already found it. Satisfied? No, you never are.

I also write for the benefit of the audience that can be excused for not remembering or never having read in the first place a mini-essay nine pages back.

I sure hope there is no audience for this exchange. My sympathies to those who do read it.
Next time just post the link.

last edited at Apr 15, 2019 9:32AM

You're welcome to present your version. Until then argue in detail or shut up about it because flatly declaring "I disagree with you, that's all there is to it" is about as conversationally productive and behaviourally mature as putting fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you".

But I can't hear you! This is text!

To make it short, I have no interest in creating a timeline with so little information. It's asinine. Discussing just one aspect of this grand tapestry seems to cause enough lit fuses for several paragraphs from you. I do not need to see the full salvo, thank you very much.

In other words you arbitrarily wholly disagree with it without even looking at it solely based on the author, and airily pooh-pooh any elaborations derived from available information - while making vague claims of working off an approximate timeline of events of your own (possibly also featuring blackjack and hookers).
Thank you for this frank admission of not even pretending to be arguing in good faith.

And have I mentioned this petty grudge of yours is right tiresome?

That's some woolly and arbitrary assumptions indeed to base an argument on. I have to ask - why are you giving the fictional people only vaguely sketched out in the narrative greater benefit of the doubt than the actual translators...?

I was actually refering to the author, not the teacher in the story.

The relevant lines are on separate pages with no realistic possibility of confusion of order, as might be the case with 'creatively' placed frames and/or speech bubbles on a single page. Trying to argue authorial mix-up here is beyond ridiculous whatever one now might think of the overall quality of their worldbuilding.

Ahem. I do know because it's right there in plain text.

Oh you mean the vague "Yeah I guess its mostly the same even though I dont understand your history well enough"? From a high-school history textbook? Cute.

That's already considerably more concrete scaffolding that you have propping up your increasingly far-fetched premises though. Glass houses, living in, throwing rocks...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hence why I established that the text is not necessarily contradicting my statment at all, but it's okay. You can ignore my arguments, that's your right Mr. Gentleman.

The text only fails to contradict it by way of comically tortuous mental gymnastics and even more arbitrary assumptions.

Whether the solution was on the cusp of being realized or already being realized before the last man died is basically a miniscule difference, but I guess if you want to see it like that, I'll go back to my original assumption. They already found it. Satisfied? No, you never are.

There is a pretty fundamental difference between "already existed at the time" (as you claimed) and "invented sometime later" (as the narrative quite clearly states) actually, irrespective of how soon that "later" was. It's okay, I never expected you would deign to admit to simply being wrong or at least having misphrased the case anyway.

I also write for the benefit of the audience that can be excused for not remembering or never having read in the first place a mini-essay nine pages back.

I sure hope there is no audience for this exchange. My sympathies to those who do read it.
Next time just post the link.

And here I thought you had no interest in it a priori. Decide already.

last edited at Apr 15, 2019 11:24AM

Maybe both of you just walk away from this because it's clearly fruitless.

Works for me.

No men lol, sounds like a dream come true.

And have I mentioned this petty grudge of yours is right tiresome?

I'm getting tired of your insistence that you are in any way special to me. I argue the same with you as I do with anyone else.

The relevant lines are on separate pages with no realistic possibility of confusion of order, as might be the case with 'creatively' placed frames and/or speech bubbles on a single page. Trying to argue authorial mix-up here is beyond ridiculous whatever one now might think of the overall quality of their worldbuilding.

Yeah yeah, except it isn't. Phrasing can very well be awkward or lead to misunderstandings, especially when you don't know the translation's accuracy. Even you should comprehend that the subject of the "after that" could be anything from the previous page. Now you are just stretching to be contrarian.

That's already considerably more concrete scaffolding that you have propping up your increasingly far-fetched premises though. Glass houses, living in, throwing rocks...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not viable proof is no better than no proof, sorry.

The text only fails to contradict it by way of comically tortuous mental gymnastics and even more arbitrary assumptions.

Pot meet kettle.

There is a pretty fundamental difference between "already existed at the time" (as you claimed) and "invented sometime later" (as the narrative quite clearly states) actually, irrespective of how soon that "later" was. It's okay, I never expected you would deign to admit to simply being wrong or at least having misphrased the case anyway.

Why did I expect you to understand such simple context? In context, the difference is not relevant.

And here I thought you had no interest in it a priori. Decide already.

I already read your silly guesswork timeline before we even started this conversation.

Are you using words you don't understand again? Oh wait, you just alter the meaning of what I say to suit your persecution complex. Me saying that you should just link it to shorten the torture of your repetitive paragraphs does not mean I need that link myself or want to read it again.
You insist on keeping a non-existent audience up to date, so I gave you advice.

Isn't it ironic that you misunderstood a phrase I used, even though to me it was really obvious? That kinda proves how phrasing and intent can easily alter context.

EDIT: Yeah I think we are done with your stretching now. Nezchan is right.

last edited at Apr 15, 2019 3:33PM

Well I certainly want to see Lily and Marika getting a happy end together. I'd be satisfied with the Lily from our world, if she doesn't stay with yuritopia!Lily. Hopefully there will also be some closure for yuritopia!Marika.
To give credit where credit is due, the story so far has thrown unexpected developments at us a few times. So yeah indeed, there is a great many ways this could go down. I must say, I'm pretty excited for all that.

For instance, will Marika's original world play a big role in the story, or is it just a plot device? I think that's what I'm wondering the most

last edited at Apr 15, 2019 6:25PM

https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/all_of_humanity_is_yuri_except_for_me_ch4_2#12
There's an empty speech bubble

I am actually a classicist and I had to look up the Lex Licinia Sextia, what kind of bizarro world is this?

I am actually a classicist and I had to look up the Lex Licinia Sextia, what kind of bizarro world is this?

It's the natural and logical outcome of a yuri planet. Just think of what Harry Potter would have been like if all the main characters were Hermione!
;)

On Edit: I think it's a bit ominous, no? At least little sister and whoever told them to focus on their studies know something they're not saying. It almost feels like Donnie Darko: Yuri Edition.

last edited at Apr 19, 2019 5:03PM

... okay, the author has bad reputation about yuri to me because the yuri ship sink on Idol Pretender, but... anyway. Is it really appropriate to have comedy tag? The recent chapters doesn't seem very comedic to me.

If the many-worlds-theory holds true then a universe were history diverged massively in one aspect but otherwise stayed remarkably similar isn't a huge coincidence, it's a given, as all possible universes exist. In fact there'd be an infinite amount of them so-close-but-not-quite-our universe ... ^^

If the many-worlds-theory holds true then a universe were history diverged massively in one aspect but otherwise stayed remarkably similar isn't a huge coincidence, it's a given, as all possible universes exist. In fact there'd be an infinite amount of them so-close-but-not-quite-our universe ... ^^

No, that is a huge coincidence. Yes, all possible universes exist, so there would be an infinite number of them, but the odds of randomly ending up in one, if it were random, are infinitesimal. (For that matter, I'd question whether it is even -possible- for 1920s humanity to solve single-gender reproduction AND to rebound in just three generations to a world almost identical to ours.) The fact that the author points this out is important. It suggests that the move to this universe in particular is deliberate.

I'm betting, with the talk about fitting in and being normal, Marika is actually gay,and in the closet, and her counterpart in the other world is heterosexual and has no possible outlet for it. The title is talking about -her-, not the MC. And so she turned to magic to transport herself to a world that has boys, and in so-doing, swapped places with the her of that world.

last edited at Apr 19, 2019 6:49PM

I'm placing my bets right now:
Our-world protagonist is secretly a lesbian and has been in denial about it, even dating a guy she didn't like. Yuri-world protagonist was straight and couldn't accept a world where she couldn't date men. Yuri-world-protagonist found this alternate world where a lesbian version of herself was acting straight purely to stay "normal" and realized she could take her place, freeing Our-world-protagonist from feeling persecuted for loving women by giving her a reality where that is considered normal, while also instantly landing herself in an already-established relationship with a guy. Win/win. I also predict 1 of 3 endings:
1) Our-world-protagonist will find a way to get back to Our world, realize her boyfriend was happier with alternate her, realize alternate her was miserable in Yuri world, and realize she was happier in Yuri world than Our world, then swap back and just let their swapping-of-places last forever.
2) She'll swap their places back, which can't be undone, and she'll finally accept her lesbian-ness, stop worrying about being perceived as "normal," and respectfully break up with the boyfriend to date women in Our world, while the author will just gloss over the fact that Yuri-world her is stuck being miserable again.
3) She'll wake up and it will all be a dream or coma, wherein she discovered her "true feelings," freeing her to finally be herself in our world.

Also, Lily was totally into Marika before the switch, but I think we already kinda knew that. Reading about parallel worlds, purely by coincidence? Either she was trying to find something to get close to her, and saw she was interested in such things, or...

Hmm...

i'm wondering if Lily might know more about all this than she's let on?

How did she not already find and read the diary

Also, Lily was totally into Marika before the switch, but I think we already kinda knew that. Reading about parallel worlds, purely by coincidence? Either she was trying to find something to get close to her, and saw she was interested in such things, or...

Hmm...

i'm wondering if Lily might know more about all this than she's let on?

That's ... actually a really good catch. I forgot about that little detail since it was so early in the story.

last edited at Apr 19, 2019 7:41PM

How did she not already find and read the diary

Because is the kind of things you keep hidden? It's already stated that they both don't think the same way, and have way different IQs, so she wouldn't know for a fact where her other self would hide things.

How did she not already find and read the diary

Marika is an airhead, or so we're told.

That, or OG Marika doesn't really use a diary, meaning she wouldn't really know to look for one.