Let's just go with this one, then.

It doesn't count because she was hungry of course

Let's just go with this one, then.

I'll preemptively rule this one out. I think it's obvious what the opposition will say. "It doesn't count, because Kasumi just wanted the candy." And I would even be inclined to agree. While Kasumi shows off that she loves Sakurako a lot, this wasn't one of those moments. Though it does show that she has zero inhibitions around her.

Well, true enough, but on the other hand, still proof of deep tongue action, if only to switch the candy. :D

https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/a_room_for_two_ch53#10
Not offended, just exasperated.

This is on the cheek, like i said..

It's not. That's just how Yukiko-sensei draws kisses sometimes. There are several examples of this in the manga. It was clearly intended to be a real kiss. A kiss on the cheek would be strongly telegraphed. If this was actually the way it is drawn, it would not be on the cheek, but the edge of her mouth, which is obviously wrong, so with all this info I think we can put 2 & 2 together.

It's almost like you want it to be platonic love and are really forcing it.

No, it isn't. -https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/a_room_for_two_ch51#12, she would do it like this.
No i don't want it to be platonic love.
And also, i don't say that's it not possible that Kasumi loves Sakurako romantically, but just that it is also possible that they're just veeeeeeeeeeeeery close friends like the author refers them herself. I just say, it could be both!
As example, Kasumi said: "Oh well. Now that i'm with you, it's like i've got a younger sister the same age as me. It's fun." - it could also be that she sees Sakurako as something like a Sister. Or another thing, if you are queer (i don't know if you're), would you think something like this: "I got a lot from younger girls, too... Why don't they give them to guys?" a quote by Kasumi after she got a lot Valentine's Chocolate... Why would she think something like this?

So, I think it's wrong to say that anyone who thinks that it could be platonic love is wrong, though nobody knows what's the true.. (sry for my english)

No, it isn't. -https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/a_room_for_two_ch51#12, she would do it like this.
No i don't want it to be platonic love.
And also, i don't say that's it not possible that Kasumi loves Sakurako romantically, but just that it is also possible that they're just veeeeeeeeeeeeery close friends like the author refers them herself. I just say, it could be both!
As example, Kasumi said: "Oh well. Now that i'm with you, it's like i've got a younger sister the same age as me. It's fun." - it could also be that she sees Sakurako as something like a Sister. Or another thing, if you are queer (i don't know if you're), would you think something like this: "I got a lot from younger girls, too... Why don't they give them to guys?" a quote by Kasumi after she got a lot Valentine's Chocolate... Why would she think something like this?

So, I think it's wrong to say that anyone who thinks that it could be platonic love is wrong, though nobody knows what's the true.. (sry for my english)

EDIT: This is not a personal attack by the way. I'm just making a general statement on the topic of platonic love and the reason you might be misinterpreting it.

Ugh... I really didn't want to do this, so I hope you won't make me...
Yukiko-sensei doesn't like drawing kisses. I don't know why, but she simply doesn't. Whenever an on-screen kiss happens, she hides the lips touching behind a head, hair or by not finishing the motion. The closest example is this:
https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/a_room_for_two_ch42_5#15
This is exactly the same kiss Kasumi gave Sakurako from a different angle. Please don't make me post every single kiss in the manga to prove my point. You will find that there is not a single one that shows everything. This is just another example of that.

Seriously, you have to straight up want to see it as a platonic kiss to somehow twist it that way... I guarantee you, not a single person who read that chapter thought it was a kiss on the cheek.

As for your... argument... It took Kasumi a long time to figure out her feelings for Sakurako. She has never shown any interest in romance before this. Giving chocolates to guys is normal for girls, so at that point she had no reason to think differently.
But we know that her thinking has changed... You really should have read the posts that collected evidence. I don't want to regurgitate all of that, but...
https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/a_room_for_two_ch51#5
If you cannot see what this chapter and this page in particular (as well as the one where Kasumi kissed Sakurako) means, then perhaps you simply can't read the mood. Yes, her reaction to Sakurako's pushing is to somewhat exaggerate and then treat it like its silly, but what Kasumi says first "Is there really a need to put it into words?" is exactly the same as confirming it. She means "I love you, but I don't feel a need to say it all the time."

I am saying this with absolute certainty, something I don't do often (when I am serious anyway): There is no room for interpretation. Everyone that claims this is platonic love is surely, utterly and indubitably wrong. This is not subtext anymore. At some point even the greatest pessimist or contrarian must bow to evidence.

last edited at May 6, 2019 3:36PM

^ The last sentence truly depends on issue at hand. Hopefully, this one will go the way I hope it will, not the way I think it will.

I think convincing the skeptics at this point is a lost cause. What’s still somewhat interesting to me is their motivation.

I’ve tried to imagine every plausible hypothesis for why anyone would be interested in mincing definitions so mind-boggling fine as hold the position I used think I was parodying by calling it “They’re married but not dating” but now I think is just descriptive, and I’ve pretty much come up empty.

“But I don’t think they’re romantic” is about all I’ve heard so far.

@Bugdevil,

I can read the mood in ch51#5, but like i said, where is the evidence that she meant it romantically?
You also say "I love you" when it's platonic, so i don't know how you can 100% sure, that the "i love you" is romantic. That's just the way you want to see it.

^ Just so you know, the only two reasons I remained silent is because I'm too lazy to browse through the manga again and because (most of the time) I'm not good with arguments, so I basically just let BugDevil do the talking.

@Bugdevil,

I can read the mood in ch51#5, but like i said, where is the evidence that she meant it romantically?
You also say "I love you" when it's platonic, so i don't know how you can 100% sure, that the "i love you" is romantic. That's just the way you want to see it.

......what?

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Apparently you can't read the mood.

I am so sorry for you.

That's all.

I will just quote myself from a few page back:

At this point if someone believe it's still subtext or that the mains relationship is one sided, I will just question their reading comprehension and move on. Why have this kind of argument for the hundred time when we can all talk about how many child Sakurako want to have

Nice try BugDevil, but sometime, there is just no point having a discussion, and this is clearly one of these time

@Bugdevil,

I can read the mood in ch51#5, but like i said, where is the evidence that she meant it romantically?
You also say "I love you" when it's platonic, so i don't know how you can 100% sure, that the "i love you" is romantic. That's just the way you want to see it.

......what?

Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?

Apparently you can't read the mood.

I am so sorry for you.

That's all.

Yeah, you're right, that's all! And i am so sorry for you too.
You're don't able to understand because you're soo stubborn, so it's meaningless!
I don't know what's wrong with seeing that it could be platonic, it doesn't change anything, and as long Sakurako is happy with this, i can't see any problem there.
Just stay small-minded, it's okay.

last edited at May 6, 2019 5:00PM

I think convincing the skeptics at this point is a lost cause. What’s still somewhat interesting to me is their motivation.

I’ve tried to imagine every plausible hypothesis for why anyone would be interested in mincing definitions so mind-boggling fine as hold the position I used think I was parodying by calling it “They’re married but not dating” but now I think is just descriptive, and I’ve pretty much come up empty.

You do realize, of course, that these are the kind of people I was talking about in my post three weeks ago?

https://dynasty-scans.com/forum/topics/6441-a-room-for-two-discussion?page=71#forum_post_462093

The people who, in your own words, seem to be devoted to what amounts to a contemporary version of medieval canon law—only the overt depiction of mutually administered orgasms can qualify as consummation of a relationship, [...] a modern version of a traditional “bedding ritual” that is required before these de facto spouses can be truly said to be “going out.” The people who are championed by Ms. Friedman. Who claim exclusive ownership of the words yuri and lesbian. Who refuse to acknowledge as yuri the vast majority of the yuri stories out there, on the grounds that the girls involved haven't gone through a complex Lesbian Initiatic ritual which includes steps such as: a declaration of lesbian faith; explicitly depicted lesbian sex; swearing off men forever; announcing publicly that they are "different" from every(het/bi/trans)one else; and, nonmandatory but recommended, cutting off ties with most of the people they used to know and, from then on, restricting their friendships to a small ghetto of fellow believers who share their faith.

The motivation of these commenters is a simple matter of proselytism. They see that we use the word yuri in a way of which they not approve (and that we cheer for two girls who are happily in love and living together but who have never declared their "difference" to the world) and they simply must show us the error of our ways. They are pushing their agenda, hoping to convert people to their beliefs, that's all.

They are pushing their agenda, hoping to convert people to their beliefs, that's all.

Well, the more I hear from them the less idea I have of what the f*ck they’re on about, so I’d say the outreach program still needs some tweaking.

In a slightly related matter, I think the author’s conception of the characters, especially Kasumi in relation to Sakurako, is really kind of brilliant—she’s very specific and individual but her deadpan affect also makes her something of a blank slate upon whom, as we have seen, even some quite outlandish notions can be projected.

As an example of her individuality, she’s very impatient and dismissive of people who fawn over her and pay her too much attention, except, for some strange and unfathomable reason, for Sakurako, who does those things more than anyone else in the entire universe.

Go figure.

I've been lurking and reading the discussions up till now, but there's one thing I just can't leave alone.

The issue is about meaning and wording. But things that can be ambiguous in English might be perfectly clear in Japanese.

I can read the mood in ch51#5, but like i said, where is the evidence that she meant it romantically?
You also say "I love you" when it's platonic, so i don't know how you can 100% sure, that the "i love you" is romantic. That's just the way you want to see it.

I looked up the page in question. The bubble says: 好き好き大好き愛してる

While 好き (suki) and 大好き (daisuki) can refer to platonic love, towards friends or family (or even liking ice cream), the last part, 愛してる (ai shiteru) cannot, it's only used romantically (with some very, very rare exceptions, which this isn't).

A complex Lesbian Initiatic ritual which includes steps such as: a declaration of lesbian faith; explicitly depicted lesbian sex; swearing off men forever; announcing publicly that they are "different" from every(het/bi/trans)one else; and, nonmandatory but recommended, cutting off ties with most of the people they used to know and, from then on, restricting their friendships to a small ghetto of fellow believers who share their faith.

You forgot: Pain and suffering! GL girls must be hated by their friends, rejected by their families, lose their jobs, be expelled from school, etc. etc. It's not the real Lesbian Experience (tm) if it's not a huge ordeal!

I've been lurking and reading the discussions up till now, but there's one thing I just can't leave alone.

The issue is about meaning and wording. But things that can be ambiguous in English might be perfectly clear in Japanese.

I can read the mood in ch51#5, but like i said, where is the evidence that she meant it romantically?
You also say "I love you" when it's platonic, so i don't know how you can 100% sure, that the "i love you" is romantic. That's just the way you want to see it.

I looked up the page in question. The bubble says: 好き好き大好き愛してる

While 好き (suki) and 大好き (daisuki) can refer to platonic love, towards friends or family (or even liking ice cream), the last part, 愛してる (ai shiteru) cannot, it's only used romantically (with some very, very rare exceptions, which this isn't).

Thank you for the information! I haven't actually read A Room For Two in Japanese (most of us haven't, I guess) therefore your contribution is very helpful!
So, what Kasumi said was: "Suki. Suki. Daisuki. Aishiteru." Whoaaa. I must say, a lot was lost in translation... I have watched enough anime in my life (subtitled anime, with the original Japanese soundtrack) to understand the weight of such a declaration. A girl doesn't say "Aishiteru!" to somebody, boy or girl, unless she really is serious.

And, so, we carry the original Japanese version of that scene as the torch of victory (despite some (maybe even most) of us, myself included, being unable to read Japanese).

the last part, 愛してる (ai shiteru) cannot, it's only used romantically (with some very, very rare exceptions, which this isn't).

This is a common misconception that gets spread around. In a context where 好き is ambiguous, then 愛してる isn't any more specifically romantic.

And, so, we carry the original Japanese version of that scene as the torch of victory (despite some (maybe even most) of us, myself included, being unable to read Japanese).

I’m not even sure that “victory” is the right rubric here as much as just dispositive evidence to put the matter to rest—if not this, then what? (Short of that hypothetical fisting scene I alluded to, of course).

But then, I answered that question previously—nothing. (After Chapter 53, I can only assume we’d get the “platonic fisting” argument should it ever be required.)

^ TBH, I didn't intend to actually write victory, but I couldn't (and still can't) remember what I originally wanted to put after "torch of", and the only two words that fell on my mind (I translated that phrasaelogism way too literally) were "victory" and "triumph", so I just settled for the one that I found to be a bit less arrogant than the other.

the last part, 愛してる (ai shiteru) cannot, it's only used romantically (with some very, very rare exceptions, which this isn't).

This is a common misconception that gets spread around. In a context where 好き is ambiguous, then 愛してる isn't any more specifically romantic.

Could you explain this a bit more? Because every discussion I’ve seen of the terms treats them as distinct in that regard. What would be the rationale for using both in this context?

(In essence this has been a version of the conversation we used to have back in grade school: did you just “like” someone or did you “LIKE like” them? Aka “have feelings” for them. By those criteria, this one would not be a hard case.)

If you really try you can twist any romantic action into a platonic one, by virtue that both are very similar with the only true difference being the emotion behind it. Which you can usually not tell unless the character states it externally or internally. You can in fact go completely off the rails and claim a kiss on the mouth or any other sign of physical affection are platonic. Just an expression of appreciaton. Saying "I love you" doesn't mean romantically. Aromantic people may do these things sometimes. Therefore we can never be sure, right?

If someone is stubborn and ignorant enough not to read between the lines, not to understand the mood or narrative theme of what Kasumi's feelings are about... then they truly can only be satisfied with sexual themes being introduced. That is the only conclusion one can take. Sexual interest is not platonic, so it would be the unavoidable confirmation of romantic interest too, right?

Except it isn't! Might as well go fully mentally challenged! Because people can be aromantic, but still have sexual desire! Then everything is quite clear, isn't it? If Kasumi ever shows a hint of sexual attraction to Sakurako, she is still aro and has only platonic feelings for her. If Kasumi shows romantic affection, it is simply pretending or the flipped version of a platonic/familial love. If Kasumi shows platonic love that just confirms what is inevitable already.

Completely logical. Superbly reasonable. Kasumi MUST BE aromantic. It is the only way. Because no matter what evidence is given, unless she says with her own mouth and the straightest of faces "I , Kasumi, have romantic feelings for Sakurako Kawawa of which I am absolutely sure and which I will express to her firmly without a hint of dishonesty or humor." there can never be certainty.

goes to drink self into a coma

Well, my non-romantic friends and I cuddle half-naked all the time as a form of bodily temperature control.

Like Lizards.