What I dont get is how and why Sayaka married him in the first place if he was always like that- she's smart.

They married 16 years ago, yukki os 15 years old, No way sumika is in her Forties

Pretty self explanatory

Nice, with the risk of NTR out of the way the author can really make some progress now lol

Nice, with the risk of NTR out of the way the author can really make some progress now lol

This is a flashback chapter. Sayaka was already divorced from this dude since the beginning.

What I dont get is how and why Sayaka married him in the first place if he was always like that- she's smart.

They married 16 years ago, yukki os 15 years old, No way sumika is in her Forties

Pretty self explanatory

Not sure I get what you are saying in relation to Sumika (who is 57 btw). If they married 16 years ago and yukki is 15 that just means she got pregnant in her first year of marriage- which is pretty common i'd think.

Are you guessing she got knocked up first? Even if so I cant imagine Sumika forcing her to marry- nor does it follow she would think she had to just because of that- especially if he was obviously trash even back then.

My guess is she was less smart and more gulible - and he was less obviously trash back then.

last edited at Oct 10, 2020 11:29AM

Husband on pg.2 be like "Uh-oh, I don't feel so good"

What I dont get is how and why Sayaka married him in the first place if he was always like that- she's smart.

They married 16 years ago, yukki os 15 years old, No way Sumika is in her Forties

Pretty self explanatory

Not sure I get what you are saying in relation to Sumika (who is 57 btw). If they married 16 years ago and yukki is 15 that just means she got pregnant in her first year of marriage- which is pretty common i'd think.

Are you guessing she got knocked up first? Even if so I cant imagine Sumika forcing her to marry- nor does it follow she would think she had to just because of that- especially if he was obviously trash even back then.

My guess is she was less smart and more gulible - and he was less obviously trash back then.

I think they were trying to say she was very young when she married him, possibly only 16, but that would have to be with parental approval. I doubt Sumika allowed her to get married right at the minimum age, so she was probably at least 20. But I'm confused as to the "no way Sumika is in her forties" comment. She most definitely could be in her forties, or she could be much older.

^Yeah i didnt really understand what they meant. BTW Sumika is 57- it says so on the page she is introduced- so there is more wiggle room on Sayak's age. She could of been as old as 25 when she had Yuuki if her mom had HER when she was young- tho that would make Sayaka 40 and she doesnt look it.

If we guess Sayaka is 35 then she had her daughter when she was 20- I guess it was about then. might of been a year or 2 to either side. So yes she was fairly young- but not like 16- and I doubt she would have felt the need to marry even at 16- not for financial reasons anyway given her family.

last edited at Oct 10, 2020 4:18PM

Sayaka is 36, her character profile's at the end of the Staying at Home chapter. Taiyaki tends to write them for even minor characters, they're just difficult to find at times (either from being volume extras for 1 1/2, or in this case because most of the extras are posted separately on Twitter and folded in with the most recently released chapter here).

^Thanks for the info- i guessed it was about that- but you can never be sure with manga.

Could be that this was to put the point across that Sayaka stayed with Yuuki's father for Yuuki's sake, however ill advised that was in retrospect.
But I really do see this as Twitter mentality infecting a good artist. There's no real reason to go into this background other than to contrast all the beautiful, innocent (cough-incest) yuri with a character that was already established as a distant dirtbag as necessary. Just seems this was opportunistic expression of some new disposition of Taiyaki's.

^Well, to be fair- even if that is true, artists should not be only creating for their audience. Nothing wrong with them adding stuff because its stuff they personally want to explore, even if the story doesn't need it.

last edited at Oct 10, 2020 9:49PM

F*ck you for cheating mr ex-Husband, you deserve no pardon. Now to wait until this precious love blooms gorgeously

She's better off without him anyway.

Now she can have sex with her daughter without having to cheat on anyone herself. :P

Out of context this is so wrong (I do agree though, Sue me.)

in context it's wrong lol

the very point is the casual immorality

last edited at Oct 11, 2020 5:19PM

She's better off without him anyway.

Now she can have sex with her daughter without having to cheat on anyone herself. :P

Out of context this is so wrong (I do agree though, Sue me.)

in context it's wrong lol

the very point is the casual immorality

Morality is completely subjective. Yuuki doesn't think it's immoral, and Sayaka doesn't truly believe it either, so why should anyone else's sense of morality be of any consequence? Millions of people think homosexuality is immoral, and they can all go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.

Husband on pg.2 be like "Uh-oh, I don't feel so good"

he deserves it

Lots of this series. None of taiyaki's other series... that she said she would get working on and she needs to redraw and rework... Le SIGH

@Throbelisk actually its objective for every given situation. But everyones BELIEF in what is moral is usually subjective- so it ammounts to the same thing - even though it shouldnt. Otherwise I agree with the point :) They would be harming nobody if they both wanted it- so why should anyone else care?

And I dont wanna get into THAT can of worms here lol- its not the place for a long debate on objective morality and wellbeing etc :)

last edited at Oct 12, 2020 9:24AM

...you probably shouldn't be invoking the idea of objective morality as an argument in the first place then. Because that's as contentious a concept as they come.

^Not really, since i made it clear even if someone started raising points, i had no intention of responding. And I agreed with them despite that.

Also I dont think its that contentious- compared to say politics or religion etc etc. But I'll leave it there since its totally off topic lol.

last edited at Oct 12, 2020 6:20PM

Also I dont think its that contious- compared to say politics or religion etc etc. But I'll leave it there since its totally off topic lol.

Might I just point out that the second you claim an objective morality exist the question of who gets to define what that specifically is automatically follows...?

Religions pretty specifically claim that power, by virtue of putative divine provenance, which by itself should tell you exactly what kind of minefield that topic is.

last edited at Oct 12, 2020 2:01PM

I am of the opinion that objective morality isn't really a thing, but most human brains are wired in such a way that most people's or societies' subjective moralities have an overlap. Most anything beyond that overlap would be considered as differences in politics, ideology, religion, mental health, etc.

"Objective" means derived by fact, irrespective of opinion. Ie. you lay out the foundations of mathematics, then argue 1 + 1 = 2. Objectively true.

There's no objective truth in "killing is bad" (killing Hitler clearly isn't) or any other morale statement. Objective morale philosophies (Kant, utilitarism, etc) to my knowledge are all contentious and competing which as far as I'm concerned just shows that they aren't objective.

It's fundamentally a question of who gets to define good and evil - and, thus, how people should behave - if such are assumed to exist as objective moral absolutes.

If you can think of a more intensely political (in all senses of the term) and historically fought-over question I'm all ears.

If you can think of a more intensely political (in all senses of the term) and historically fought-over question I'm all ears.

"So, who gets this shitty strip of land, the descendants of Isaac's first son or the descendants of Isaac's first legitimate son?"

Like inheritance rules didn't routinely get coded into and legitimized by exactly such communal moral frameworks...

When such matters get disputed by force, though, moral theory gets benched and to the victor go the spoils; the pious justifications for the fait accompli of arms can then be worked out as needed.

Yeah, I screwed up on that one and forgot it was Abraham. Also, defining good and evil has been around a lot longer that that conflict, that's why I deleted the post.