Forum › Citrus + discussion
No hatred, no frustration, just my honest opinion. No need to agree and accept other persons thoughts. Everybody see it from different aspects.
This chapter finally gives us a glimpse about what Yuzu (and Mei) wants. "Newly Wed" is an "Excuse", what Yuzu does is to play "wife". More importantly, play "wife" with a busy workaholic spouse. This is her ideal future, so it is a dry run. This is the meaning of what they tell themselves, "My future is your future too". Mei is much more subtle. She being busy every day is going to be a regular thing once she takes over the school board. So what she does is "My future is your future too". Both of them act not just for themselves individually, but rather as a couple. Nothing says it more than the final panel of this chapter. This is the first time they sleep together as if being a couple, as opposed to 2 years of "I sleep this side, you sleep that side".
Sex...
Sex was never a "good" topic in this manga, that is because Mei is a survivor, and there is no sign of her improving of that front...or rather, in a snail pace". But the most important part is that, we the readers have outgrow the manga. 2013 to 2018...and then nobody, including the author, would thought that the manga was popular enough to warrant a sequel. This is not easy, because at the time, the original series has already give us the wedding epilogue, that means whatever happens between Mei and Yuzu. they will always resolve any conflict between themselves.
Right now is 2021, on its ninth year, the only Yuri that is older than Citrus is YuruYuri and then, Murciélago by a few months. . That means most of us are already in our 20s, and some of us definitely have reach the other demographics (josei). Either way we expect sex will be there in a Romantic Yuri. But the plot is still slow, Time wise we are barely finished 2 years of the manga time. (Yuzu transferred AFTER the semester has already started, and she has just turned 16). If you started reading this manga when you are 18 (or senior high 3 year), you will be 27 by now. As a 27 year old, you are reading a manga with characters still in their senior high school. Is it fair to add sex as a plot between 2 17 years old, or worse a 15 and an 18 years old (Matsuri and Harumin)? Assuming when you start to read the manga as the correct target audience (junior high), you cannot really draw for an audience of Junior High anymore anymore, because that audience would be 24 or 25 years old. Then we need to look at reality...how many 17 years old friends you have have gone all the way? and I do not mean fooling around. Sex is definitely not a topic in the beginning because Yuzu was 16, Mei was 15. Matsuri (the incarnation of sexual desire...coined by Harumin) was 14 or maybe 13.
So in the end it is not the author to be blamed. The entire plot is still about the two MC barely started out on their 3 year of senior high. There is just so much sex that you can draw. Given Mei is a sexual assault victim, I do not expect the two of them will have sex until much much later in life. Yuzu is not exactly crazy and desperate about sex in the first place. This make the two of them much more easier to be together.
last edited at Sep 22, 2021 10:19PM
So “Mei is a sexual assault survivor” is just a flat-out fact now, huh?
What we do know for sure is that Mei was once subjected to an unwelcome kiss by her then-fiancé.
By that standard, Yuzu is the victim of multiple sexual assaults, as is Matsuri, with Mei as the perpetrator in both cases.
(Yes, I know that in a real-life court of law unwelcome kissing is in fact a form of sexual assault. But if you’re going to use what we saw happen in the text of Citrus as an explanation for a fictional character’s psychology, you also need to take the entire text into account.)
Honestly, any assumption of Mei being a victim of anything more than unwelcome kisses, and even those likely would have been fine with her if she hadn't already known about his other woman, goes flat-out against the actual text with the guy specifically saying he'd "treat her nicely", and this not to someone he'd need to hide his true plans from but to his actual lover, not to mention that causing any such trouble could jeopardize his plans.
What we do know for sure is that Mei was once subjected to an unwelcome kiss by her then-fiancé.
Yes, that is sexual assault
By that standard, Yuzu is the victim of multiple sexual assaults, as is Matsuri, with Mei as the perpetrator in both cases.
Yes again.
Honestly, any assumption of Mei being a victim of anything more than unwelcome kisses, and even those likely would have been fine with her if she hadn't already known about his other woman, goes flat-out against the actual text with the guy specifically saying he'd "treat her nicely", and this not to someone he'd need to hide his true plans from but to his actual lover, not to mention that causing any such trouble could jeopardize his plans.
Thanks for the clarification, the way some were trying to make it worse to fit their theories was getting creepy
What we do know for sure is that Mei was once subjected to an unwelcome kiss by her then-fiancé.
Yes, that is sexual assault
By that standard, Yuzu is the victim of multiple sexual assaults, as is Matsuri, with Mei as the perpetrator in both cases.
Yes again.
So what? We’re supposed to believe that Mei becomes a “broken bird” because of an incident that is never mentioned or alluded to again, while the same violation pushes Yuzu’s “I must be a lesbian!” button and sparks Matsuri’s “Aha, a foe worthy of my steel” reaction?
I’ve previously made the case that Saburouta is a lazy and sloppy writer, but you “sexual assault” people have outdone me exponentially.
last edited at Sep 23, 2021 8:34AM
That's not how newlyweds are supposed to end the day!
I concluded Mei is a sex assault victim not because of a kiss. But rather the time when she offered sex to Yuzu and told her she will be gentle. That means she has experience in sex, not just fooling around. There is also the fact that she considered sex as some sort of reward for whoever she offer, or a business transaction. This is abnormal. Anyone who has been sexually assaulted (I mean rape, not kissing and groping, there is no "be gentle" kiss or grope) as a teen will immediately recognize that...you do not even need to be a therapist to know that vibe. I myself am a victim, without telling the more personal stuff, I have behavior that resembled Mei's. So did many of my female friends and a very small number of male friends.
The irony is of course, Amamiya did NOT break any law. Japanese become adults at age 20. So if there is any sexual relationship between someone who is 14 and another who is 39, it is totally legal as long as both persons plan to get married. Amamiya is a fiance that was most likely chosen by gramps. So being a fiance it is totally legal to have sex with a 14 years old. Also, the double irony: If Harumin reach 20, and Matsuri is still 17, it can be considered a crime since there is no homosexual marriage in Japan, even though the country does have a partnership system.
Of course my assumption and conclusion can be all wrong, but then again I would not suggest you to experienced being raped (male or female) to understand the mentality. Most of you are in your late teens to early 30s anyway. Being sexually assaulted as an adult (say, mid 30s) is totally different when it comes to psychological trauma. I know, because....
last edited at Sep 23, 2021 10:17AM
I concluded Mei is a sex assault victim not because of a kiss. But rather the time when she offered sex to Yuzu and told her she will be gentle. That means she has experience in sex, not just fooling around.
A totally unwarranted assumption--it proves nothing of the sort. Mei has obviously read books and watched TV, where that trope is as common as dirt.
People really need to stop projecting onto the text--if the author wanted to depict Mei as psychologically broken because of a previous rape, they had copious amounts of space in which to do it, but nothing remotely like that has been presented.
People really need to stop projecting onto the text
Why? It does zero harm, can make engaging with the work more entertaining, and can lead to interesting interpretations that one wouldn't think of without it
last edited at Sep 23, 2021 10:35AM
People really need to stop projecting onto the text
Why? It does zero harm, can make engaging with the work more entertaining, and can lead to interesting interpretations that one wouldn't think of without it
I just don't want to think or imagine Mei being rapped if it wasn't the author's intention, saying it's harmless in this case is bizzarre, the whole manga would need a warning for readers if that was the case.
thomasina said that she could be wrong too, it is an interpretation after all and that's okay, and if she's right then there's a lot of text that needs to be changed in the manga, but we really need to be careful with such delicate subjects and don't burden the characters like that if we're not sure.
last edited at Sep 23, 2021 11:39AM
People really need to stop projecting onto the text
Why? It does zero harm, can make engaging with the work more entertaining, and can lead to interesting interpretations that one wouldn't think of without it
I just don't want to think or imagine Mei being rapped if it wasn't the author's intention, saying it's harmless in this case is bizzarre, the whole manga would need a warning for readers if that was the case.
thomasina said that she could be wrong too, it is an interpretation after all and that's okay, and if she's right then there's a lot of text that needs to be changed in the manga, but we really need to be careful with such delicate subjects and don't burden the characters like that if we're not sure.
Wasn't talking about sexual assault there. Only that projecting is not a bad thing
People really need to stop projecting onto the text
Why? It does zero harm, can make engaging with the work more entertaining, and can lead to interesting interpretations that one wouldn't think of without it
Because it's a form of reader fantasizing that takes us away from the text itself. Of course, anybody is welcome to do that for themselves as much as they want. But these assertions are presented as interpretative arguments about how other readers are supposed to understand the text.
Hypothetically, it might give me pleasure to imagine that Mei now acts the way she does because she feels guilty about secretly engaging as a sex worker doing compensated dating, and I could even argue that such a reading is based on her accepting Matsuri's blackmail challenge back in Chapter 12.
But that would be utterly incommensurate not only with the tone of the work but with the totality of the evidence we have been given, and to make a claim that Mei is "really" highly sexually experienced and duplicitous toward Yuzu simply would be to muddy the waters for people trying to understand the actual work. As we have seen, there are now a number of readers who take it on faith that "Mei's actions must be understood as those of a survivor of sexual violence."
It's clear that the Citrus series started out being considerably edgier about sexuality but soon ratcheted things back a lot --the nerfing of Matsuri from a borderline yandere psychopath into a cuddly wingwoman is just one example of how this series fairly quickly went from spiky to fluffy.
So go ahead and pretend that Mei is autistic, or a rape survivor, or a killer robot, or is coldly using Yuzu for affection, or is secretly pledged to a nunnery, or whatever you want--reading is for pleasure, after all. But don't pretend that's the Citrus we're all reading.
last edited at Sep 23, 2021 12:22PM
People really need to stop projecting onto the text
Why? It does zero harm, can make engaging with the work more entertaining, and can lead to interesting interpretations that one wouldn't think of without it
Because it's a form of reader fantasizing that takes us away from the text itself. Of course, anybody is welcome to do that for themselves as much as they want. But these assertions are presented as interpretative arguments about how other readers are supposed to understand the text.
No it doesn't. Projection is a way to analyse the text. No text stands on it's own, everything is built on unsaid premises. Some are clearer than others but every text that exists does this. Projection then is a way to emphasise with the characters and to search for those unsaid premises by comparing them to real life.
There's no singular correct way to read any given story. Every interpretation that can be drawn from the text is valid, some more than others but all are still valid. The only problem is when people try to argue that only their own reading is correct and everything else is wrong. I've yet to see anyone here doing that
I'm just reiterating the same point I've already made though so I'm just gonna give up now
Every interpretation that can be drawn from the text is valid, some more than others but all are still valid.
In literary interpretation, fantasy projection onto texts is the opposite of a valid interpretation. If you think those preposterous scenarios I listed (I could come up with many more "based" in the text) are examples of "valid" interpretations, we have no shared basis for further discussion.
last edited at Sep 23, 2021 12:47PM
This is fiction. A work of fantasy. A lot of absurd things happen in Citrus and + but it was entertaining because while the plot certainly was not rooted in reality, the characters (or rather their emotions) were. The confusion of a first love, first kiss, a sexual awakening, those were all rooted to reality that was heightened due to character's circumstances. Projection is unavoidable and should not be unwelcome as long as it's healthily discussed.
I know there's another discussion where headcanon completely took over but in the case of Citrus and Citrus+ people are not re-writing or purposely omitting the actual text to fit their desired outcome. They are merely reading the text in a way that helps them understand character motivations. If it helps them love the story and the characters more, then what's the actual harm? Does it damage the text if people find a way to further explain Mei's behavior? Does seeing Mei as a victim of sexual assault lessen the story which is essentially about two very different step sisters who are in love with each other?
It's completely human to want to connect and if that's the way a person reads, then why the need to condemn them for how they enjoy the works just because it's not a method some might prefer?
last edited at Sep 23, 2021 1:39PM
It's completely human to want to connect and if that's the way a person reads, then why the need to condemn them for how they enjoy the works just because it's not a method some might prefer?
We're talking past each other at this point--I'm saying that people are making up a different story based on the barest shreds of evidence in the text, and in contradiction of the evidence of the overall text as a whole. As I've said again and again, if people want to use a story as the basis to conjure up further fantasies of their own, they're certainly welcome to do that.
Mistaking those imaginative rewritings of the text for the actual text is, of course, a mistake, albeit, as several people have pointed out, a relatively harmless one, until others pick up that mistake and start passing it off as a widely accepted reading of the text.
We're talking past each other at this point--I'm saying that people are making up a different story based on the barest shreds of evidence in the text, and in contradiction of the evidence of the overall text as a whole. As I've said again and again, if people want to use a story as the basis to conjure up further fantasies of their own, they're certainly welcome to do that.
But as I previously stated, seeing Mei as a sexual assault victim does not actually change any thing in the text? It's merely explaining her behavior. It doesn't change what or who she is (a deeply troubled individual who repressed her feelings to the point that they are disjointed for her and she does not know how to process them) which essentially does not take away from the story. Sure it adds something but it does not detract from the coming of age love story that Citrus is supposed to be.
Mistaking those imaginative rewritings of the text for the actual text is, of course, a mistake, albeit, as several people have pointed out, a relatively harmless one, until others pick up that mistake and start passing it off as a widely accepted reading of the text.
It's an explanation of character motivation not a rewrite of the story. What people are doing here is not a rewrite. Mei is still the stoic individual she has been written (regardless of whether or not people believe she is a victim of sexual assault) and she is still going to end up with Yuzu.
It's an explanation of character motivation not a rewrite of the story. What people are doing here is not a rewrite. Mei is still the stoic individual she has been written (regardless of whether or not people believe she is a victim of sexual assault) and she is still going to end up with Yuzu.
Thanks for clarifying the issue here. I would submit that making up a character motivation very nearly out of whole cloth absolutely is simply rewriting the story in order to suit a reader’s personal preference or to fit their preconceived notions. It involves conjuring up past events for which there is no evidence in the text (that Asshole Fiancé repeatedly molested Mei, that multiple adults raped her, etc.). It also entails ignoring or downplaying the in-text explanations for the character’s behavior (Mei’s rigid traditional upbringing, her disproportionate sense of responsibility because of the trauma of her father’s leaving the family, etc.).
This conversation has probably dragged on long enough, sparked as it was by readers arguing “You all are too hard on poor Mei, since she’s a rape survivor.” Until the author supplies material to support that reading (as potentially could happen), I continue to assert: “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
Thanks for clarifying the issue here. I would submit that making up a character motivation very nearly out of whole cloth absolutely is simply rewriting the story in order to suit a reader’s personal preference or to fit their preconceived notions. It involves conjuring up past events for which there is no evidence in the text (that Asshole Fiancé repeatedly molested Mei, that multiple adults raped her, etc.). It also entails ignoring or downplaying the in-text explanations for the character’s behavior (Mei’s rigid traditional upbringing, her disproportionate sense of responsibility because of the trauma of her father’s leaving the family, etc.).
Can’t speak for all but explaining Mei as a sexual assault victim does not diminish from her textual experiences. I certainly have not discounted or forgotten what she’s gone through with her family. The assault thing is additive for sure but not subtractive.
Her experiences with her family make her an easy prey for a sexual predator. Assault does not explain everything.
This conversation has probably dragged on long enough, sparked as it was by readers arguing “You all are too hard on poor Mei, since she’s a rape survivor.” Until the author supplies material to support that reading (as potentially could happen), I continue to assert: “Assumes facts not in evidence.”
The assault background is not my means to explain her slow pace progress. I’m on the boat where her upbringing and lack of parental guidance and affection coupled with her heiress duties made her detached, cold, and passive. It’s years of that coupled with sexual assault that did nothing but mold her into Turtle Mei. Not just whether or not she was repeatedly assaulted by her first fiancé.
It’s years of that coupled with sexual assault that did nothing but mold her into Turtle Mei.
To me this has precisely the same status as saying, “It’s years of that coupled with the fact that Mei’s mother was an ice demon that did nothing but mold her into Turtle Mei.”
Nothing in the text contradicts my statement, it is congruent with Mei’s behavior in the story, and there’s no less evidence in the text for my statement than there is for yours.
To me this has precisely the same status as saying, “It’s years of that coupled with the fact that Mei’s mother was an ice demon that did nothing but mold her into Turtle Mei.”
Nothing in the text contradicts my statement, it is congruent with Mei’s behavior in the story, and there’s no less evidence in the text for my statement than there is for yours.
Lack of maternal affection during formative years can certainly cause someone one to be emotionally stunted so it could definitely be a contributing factor to what makes Mei who she is.
To me this has precisely the same status as saying, “It’s years of that coupled with the fact that Mei’s mother was an ice demon that did nothing but mold her into Turtle Mei.”
Nothing in the text contradicts my statement, it is congruent with Mei’s behavior in the story, and there’s no less evidence in the text for my statement than there is for yours.
Lack of maternal affection during formative years can certainly cause someone one to be emotionally stunted so it could definitely be a contributing factor to what makes Mei who she is.
LOL. That would mean that Mei is half-yokai, which certainly would explain a great deal . . .
LOL. That would mean that Mei is half-yokai, which certainly would explain a great deal . . .
Apologies. I thought you were writing metaphorically. Like calling her mother an “icy b*tch” for ignoring her daughter this whole time. Sarcasm doesn’t read well for me because of lack of intonation.
last edited at Sep 23, 2021 6:13PM