But the attempt to portray the author, and readers who do not share your outrage at this "unacceptable" trope, as being guilty of some kind of ethical lapse is entirely unconvincing, as is the implication that portraying any kind of behavior in a fantasy story featuring anthropomorphic animals constitutes an endorsement of that behavior in real life.

The theme here is a woman being forced to marry a man and pro create with him with no option to say no. Anyone who is not opposed to that idea does have a lapse in ethical judgment, period.

As with the original poster, by using the slipshod phrase “opposed to the idea,” this assertion conflates the use of the trope with approval of the behavior depicted.

It’s quite possible to feel sympathy for the queen as a character and still not regard the use of the trope as the “indefensible” ethical transgression of an author “slapping readers in the face.”

I agree. I guess I misunderstood your original assertion. However I do believe that showing there being zero consequences to such a thing as forced marriage would equate to approval, or at least dismissal.

Once again, “arranged marriage,” even when one or both parties initially enter into it with some trepidation (as people in all kinds of marriages routinely do) is not the same as “ forced marriage,” where one or more of the parties are coerced into the marriage against their will, and the fact that this discussion has routinely conflated the two has rendered the moralizing arguments extremely tendentious. The subtext to these arguments is “the queen is being raped,” which is entirely a projection onto the text.

Did it look to you as though the queen wanted to marry the deer man?

Maybe she didn't outwardly protest the marriage, but due to her circumstances she felt as though she couldn't, meaning she was forced into it. Maybe she didn't actively protest having sex with the deer man, but did she feel as though she had the opportunity to say no?

But the attempt to portray the author, and readers who do not share your outrage at this "unacceptable" trope, as being guilty of some kind of ethical lapse is entirely unconvincing, as is the implication that portraying any kind of behavior in a fantasy story featuring anthropomorphic animals constitutes an endorsement of that behavior in real life.

The theme here is a woman being forced to marry a man and pro create with him with no option to say no. Anyone who is not opposed to that idea does have a lapse in ethical judgment, period.

As with the original poster, by using the slipshod phrase “opposed to the idea,” this assertion conflates the use of the trope with approval of the behavior depicted.

It’s quite possible to feel sympathy for the queen as a character and still not regard the use of the trope as the “indefensible” ethical transgression of an author “slapping readers in the face.”

I agree. I guess I misunderstood your original assertion. However I do believe that showing there being zero consequences to such a thing as forced marriage would equate to approval, or at least dismissal.

Once again, “arranged marriage,” even when one or both parties initially enter into it with some trepidation (as people in all kinds of marriages routinely do) is not the same as “ forced marriage,” where one or more of the parties are coerced into the marriage against their will, and the fact that this discussion has routinely conflated the two has rendered the moralizing arguments extremely tendentious. The subtext to these arguments is “the queen is being raped,” which is entirely a projection onto the text.

Did it look to you as though the queen wanted to marry the deer man?

Maybe she didn't outwardly protest the marriage, but due to her circumstances she felt as though she couldn't, meaning she was forced into it. Maybe she didn't actively protest having sex with the deer man, but did she feel as though she had the opportunity to say no?

.... Holy jesus you need to take off your pink colour glasses, you really sound like you have never sacrificed something for a greater good... Even on a daily basis for any type of couple yeah even Hetero for your information ending your "first love" or "long lasted relationship" bc of situations beyond your power is absolutely common and shit sucks but its not the end of the world and sometimes it even means a greater future... Oh but this is a Yuri story so everything should be perfect and everyone should only love one person in their life and only get together wuth that person and never ever love anyone else... Bc thats how you think it works isnt it?

last edited at Jan 29, 2023 1:05AM

But the attempt to portray the author, and readers who do not share your outrage at this "unacceptable" trope, as being guilty of some kind of ethical lapse is entirely unconvincing, as is the implication that portraying any kind of behavior in a fantasy story featuring anthropomorphic animals constitutes an endorsement of that behavior in real life.

The theme here is a woman being forced to marry a man and pro create with him with no option to say no. Anyone who is not opposed to that idea does have a lapse in ethical judgment, period.

As with the original poster, by using the slipshod phrase “opposed to the idea,” this assertion conflates the use of the trope with approval of the behavior depicted.

It’s quite possible to feel sympathy for the queen as a character and still not regard the use of the trope as the “indefensible” ethical transgression of an author “slapping readers in the face.”

I agree. I guess I misunderstood your original assertion. However I do believe that showing there being zero consequences to such a thing as forced marriage would equate to approval, or at least dismissal.

Once again, “arranged marriage,” even when one or both parties initially enter into it with some trepidation (as people in all kinds of marriages routinely do) is not the same as “ forced marriage,” where one or more of the parties are coerced into the marriage against their will, and the fact that this discussion has routinely conflated the two has rendered the moralizing arguments extremely tendentious. The subtext to these arguments is “the queen is being raped,” which is entirely a projection onto the text.

Did it look to you as though the queen wanted to marry the deer man?

Maybe she didn't outwardly protest the marriage, but due to her circumstances she felt as though she couldn't, meaning she was forced into it. Maybe she didn't actively protest having sex with the deer man, but did she feel as though she had the opportunity to say no?

.... Holy jesus you need to take off your pink colour glasses, you really sound like you have never sacrificed something for a greater good... Even on a daily basis for any type of couple yeah even Hetero for your information ending your "first love" or "long lasted relationship" bc of situations beyond your power is absolutely common and shit sucks but its not the end of the world and sometimes it even means a greater future... Oh but this is a Yuri story so everything should be perfect and everyone should only love one person in their life and only get together wuth that person and never ever love anyone else... Bc thats how you think it works isnt it?

I'm not arguing about the whether or not it should've been in the story, okay? And that's not what the other commenter was saying either. They said that the idea that the queen was being raped was projection, and I said that even if she didn't outwardly protest to either sex or marriage, the fact that she felt as though she had no control or power to say no, despite her clearly wanting to, does constitute rape. There's actually a word for that, you know? It's called marital rape and is not only the most common form of rape, but in many countries it is either not illegal or the law goes entirely unforced. The incessant dismissal of these facts in this discussion board is what I am arguing against.

last edited at Jan 29, 2023 11:32AM

I'm not arguing about the story, okay? And that's not what the other commenter was saying either. They said that the idea that the queen was being raped was projection, and I said that even if she didn't outwardly protest to either sex or marriage, the fact that she felt as though she had no control or power to say no, despite her clearly wanting to, does constitute rape. There's actually a word for that, you know? It's called marital rape and is not only the most common form of rape, but in many countries it is either not illegal or the law goes entirely unforced. The incessant dismissal of these facts in this discussion board is what I am arguing against.

Quite so—all along it’s been irrelevant self-righteous moralistic posturing that actually has nothing to do with the story, with the author’s intention, or with other readers’ reactions to the story.

I’m glad you see that.

EDIT: To turn this conversation in another direction, I recommend that manga readers who are actually interested in the gender dynamics of arranged marriages check out Kaoru Mori’s really excellent A Bride’s Story, a solidly historically grounded series which focuses on the lives of women along the Silk Road in Central Asia around the turn of the 20th century. Mostly (but not entirely) het, and (I need to mention in this context) human characters.

last edited at Jan 29, 2023 7:49AM

I'm not arguing about the whether or not it should've been in the story, okay? And that's not what the other commenter was saying either. They said that the idea that the queen was being raped was projection, and I said that even if she didn't outwardly protest to either sex or marriage, the fact that she felt as though she had no control or power to say no, despite her clearly wanting to, does constitute rape. There's actually a word for that, you know? It's called marital rape and is not only the most common form of rape, but in many countries it is either not illegal or the law goes entirely unforced. The incessant dismissal of these facts in this discussion board is what I am arguing against.

I mean, the king is shown to have been as apprehensive as her before the marriage, if not more so, so I really can't see this reading as anything more than a projection, unless you want to insist that she raped her husband as well. There is not indication of either of them forcing the other into anything, they certainly would not look as fondly back on their time together as they are shown here if that were the case.

also like I'm going to be honest even if the argument about marital rape would hold up, yeah that's just a part of arranged marriages then, like and this is a story in which an arranged marriage happened to set up the precedent that it can happen to Momo and that the main couple will need to find a way to not have it happen to them.

Like even if we were to take arranged marriages in the most negative light possible, the arc this is leading into is clearly about how the two main characters are going to do everything they can to avoid it happening. Even if the queen found her happiness by settling for the arranged marriage it is still at best being shown in a very grey light where it is eiher something to be avoided outright or something to be settled with because you have little other choice.

last edited at Jan 29, 2023 5:59PM

So... if we take that at face value, why put so much emphasis on the fact that it will definitely not happen to Momo ? She is also royalty, she is no more in love with Aki than the queen and Juju were. Their situations are pretty much identical. If the author (and defenders) state that being forced to marry a guy from another country is okay, and the characters will find happiness anyway, then shouldn't you also be content if the same happens to Momo ?

Because the fact this happened to the Queen, means she'll help Aki and Momo so it doesn't happen to them, she can sympathize because it happened to her, so this time it's different to her own case and won't happen to the main duo because they have support from someone that understands their situation. And the only way to achieve this was to have the previous generation be affected by it.

I mentioned my profile picture before, but seriously read Urara Meirochou, there is no better manga to portray the breaking of fate away from a tragic ending that the previous generation suffered, better than this one.

Historically what often happens is "I had to go through this for Reasons, so my kids do too". You get that even with women pushing female genital mutilation on their daughters, something I find an entirely pointless tradition, never mind with things with actual practical purpose like royal marriage alliances.

I mentioned my profile picture before, but seriously read Urara Meirochou, there is no better manga to portray the breaking of fate away from a tragic ending that the previous generation suffered, better than this one.

It depends on how the "tragic ending" is depicted. If it's something the characters struggled against, opposed, but failed to defeat - then that's interesting. However, if it's a tragic ending the characters accepted, tacitly approved, and the story goes on to show that they're still happy despite the tragedy and not trying to break free from it - then I'm not interested in that kind of story. What matters isn't that tragedy happens or doesn't happen, it's how the characters react to it, whether they are showed to oppose or accept it.

I guess Yuuki Yuuna wa Yuusha de Aru would be a pretty good example. The show has tragedy upon tragedy, often enough with permanent consequences, but the characters keep fighting against them, even when it means opposing the status quo and taking risks by shaking things.

I've only watched the anime, so I don't actually know which one the Urara Meirochou manga follows. I wouldn't read the manga without confirming that first, though, as I'd rather keep my happy memories of the story that was adapted in the anime.

Edit Maybe a more concise way to say it is : if a tragedy doesn't have negative consequences, all the characters accept it without a fight, and ends with everyone being happy, then is it really (depicted as) a tragedy ?

last edited at Jan 30, 2023 3:02AM

Edit Maybe a more concise way to say it is : if a tragedy doesn't have negative consequences, all the characters accept it without a fight, and ends with everyone being happy, then is it really (depicted as) a tragedy ?

No, it is not. The queen’s marriage is definitely not being depicted as a tragedy in this series, but as a life necessity with some unfortunate consequences (parting with her first love) and some positive ones (a stable kingdom and a lovely daughter, for example). This is very much in line with how people historically came to terms with royal arranged marriages, (and still do, where such things apply).

My question all along has been—so what?

It’s true that if you decontextualize the events from the story itself and from history and apply contemporary values, it’s possible to paraphrase them in a very negative and tendentious way—the queen is a rape victim, etc.

And so what is the purpose of going through such intellectual contortions? To cast aspersions on the author’s ethics? To demonstrate one’s moral superiority over readers who fail to read the story in such a decontextualized way by accusing them of believing that the rape projected onto the text “is OK”? To make the jejune and self-evident observation that if the actions being depicted as taking place in a fantasy storyworld based on the historical past were to actually take place in contemporary real life, their implications would be different?

To make the jejune and self-evident observation that if the actions being depicted as taking place in a fantasy storyworld based on the historical past were to actually take place in contemporary real life, their implications would be different?

Not even sure they would necessarily be all that different, as evidenced by Adachi and Shimamura.

considering Juju moved on and had a kid, and since it doesnt seem like theyve continued their thing into adulthood despite having plenty of opportunities, seems to me like the Queen always knew her thing with Juju was going to be short term

and just because it was an arranged marriage doesnt mean she had no choice, Momo has a stack of suitors as the third princess so Mari should have had other options, im betting that the two of them had a few dates and if they decided they didnt like each other it would be called off and a different suitor would appear

And so what is the purpose of going through such intellectual contortions?

A bit of all of what you said. But how I would phrase it myself is : the purpose of criticizing such plot development is to point out that positive portrayal of forced marriage, acceptance thereof, depicting the optimistic possible consequences of it while ignoring the pessimistic ones, and more generally spreading or defending such practices through the lens of characters being happy after having those forced on them is morally wrong, for both the writer and readers.

Being forced to break up with your lover to become the spouse and mate of some stranger without being given a chance to say no is a tragedy, and should be treated as such by both the author and the audience.

last edited at Jan 30, 2023 6:44AM

And so what is the purpose of going through such intellectual contortions?

A bit of all of what you said. But how I would phrase it myself is : the purpose of criticizing such plot development is to point out that positive portrayal of forced marriage, acceptance thereof, depicting the optimistic possible consequences of it while ignoring the pessimistic ones, and more generally spreading or defending such practices through the lens of characters being happy after having those forced on them is morally wrong, for both the writer and readers.

Being forced to break up with your lover to become the spouse and mate of some stranger without being given a chance to say no is a tragedy, and should be treated as such by both the author and the audience.

So pretty much as I said—decontextualized self-righteous moralizing.

Knock yourself out.

I initially wanted to add this to my previous comment, but I wasn't fast enough, and it feels dishonest to edit it in after the comment received a reply. So here's an addendum to what I was saying above.

Being forced to break up with your lover to become the spouse and mate of some stranger without being given a chance to say no is a tragedy, and should be treated as such by both the author and the audience.

This is both out of tact, and moral considerations : certain practices are now practically extinct and looked down upon or even forbidden (or at least theoretically are, as Red K.'s example pointed out). This is because, humanity having achieved a higher level of social and moral maturity, we now regard those practices as unethical and immoral. Those lessons are not something that should be forgotten or ignored, as they were before : a depiction of something that modern humans consider bad, should include the elements which have made us consider it bad in the first place.

A bit of all of what you said. But how I would phrase it myself is : the purpose of criticizing such plot development is to point out that positive portrayal of forced marriage, acceptance thereof, depicting the optimistic possible consequences of it while ignoring the pessimistic ones, and more generally spreading or defending such practices through the lens of characters being happy after having those forced on them is morally wrong, for both the writer and readers.

Pretty sure it's been already pointed out a few times before that arranged marriage is not the same as forced marriage.

A bit of all of what you said. But how I would phrase it myself is : the purpose of criticizing such plot development is to point out that positive portrayal of forced marriage, acceptance thereof, depicting the optimistic possible consequences of it while ignoring the pessimistic ones, and more generally spreading or defending such practices through the lens of characters being happy after having those forced on them is morally wrong, for both the writer and readers.

Pretty sure it's been already pointed out a few times before that arranged marriage is not the same as forced marriage.

That distinction is far too nuanced to be allowed into this discussion of absolute right and wrong.

I’m just a bit tickled to realize that the present king of England, prevented from initially marrying the love of his life because she was a divorcee, was a rape victim every time he had sex with Princess Diana.

last edited at Jan 30, 2023 7:29AM

Pretty sure it's been already pointed out a few times before that arranged marriage is not the same as forced marriage.

It has also been pointed out that this argument is unconvincing, considering that the queen didn't have a choice to say no. Or is anyone arguing that she could have done that ? I haven't seen it.

The best difference you can make, if you are an optimist and think that she was not forced (which require some assumption about what would have happened if she refused), is to consider that she was raised from birth to think she doesn't have a right to choose. Moving from rape territory to grooming territory isn't such a victory for that side of the argument - and either way, the phrasing "forced marriage" holds, since there is still no choice.

Arranged marriage, for its modern definition, in most parts of the modern world, does give the right to the people being married to refuse the partner chosen by their parents, as freedom to choose who (and whether) you marry is protected by law. Whether that actually holds in practice and whether such a choice is free when the people involved might be under pressure from their family isn't totally convincing, but there are many cases where people actually do refuse arranged marriages until they find the right partner.

Note that the king is also a victim here. Both of them were forced to share the bed of someone without being given a choice. Which is why I preferred to describe them as victim of forced marriage, so that none of them is pointed at as a "guilty party".

last edited at Jan 30, 2023 11:21AM

Pretty sure it's been already pointed out a few times before that arranged marriage is not the same as forced marriage.

It has also been pointed out that this argument is unconvincing, considering that the queen didn't have a choice to say no. Or is anyone arguing that she could have done that ? I haven't seen it.

We don't know exactly what the queen "could have done" since we only have the evidence of what she did do.

As always, it is theoretically plausible to force the relevant concepts, once sufficiently divorced from their actual textual and historical context, into the tendentious framing of "rape" and "grooming" required to feed your moral outrage.

You clearly find it unacceptable that in some historical times and places, including a number of places today, a person's choice of marriage partner can be restricted by societal and familial expectations, including expectations for generational succession by having children. And it's certainly true that an individual's defiance of those expectations can come with substantial consequences in terms of the loss of social status and familial support, such that a person might feel like they have "no choice" except to marry someone against their inclination.

The argument here, however, has always been that this mangaka had an ethical responsibility to only portray arranged royal marriage as your preferred rape scenario, and that readers have similar responsibility to accept it as such; otherwise (so the claim goes) the author is declaring that rape in real life is OK, and readers who fail to share your decontextualized reading are complicit in encouraging rape. That conclusion is, in my view, entirely specious.

One non-rapey enforcement could be "if you don't want to live by the rules of the royal family, you don't get its privileges. Enjoy earning your living as a commoner." Something like that happened with an English king in the 1900s; he wanted to marry a divorcee, which wasn't allowed, so he abjured the throne for himself and his heirs. And special laws were passed too.

Real world before that was probably more like locking someone up in a tower and not giving her the usual perks, but I'm hardly an expert on this aspect of history. There was also the "become a nun"/"take a vow of chastity" approach but I'm not sure how much royal or high noble women were allowed that.

It was common for all members of a family, male or female, to be seen as assets of the family 'firm' and used as such, though worse for the women. We're different now but that may be less due to any moral superiority and more to a different kind of economy and society that allows more individualism to be practical.

One non-rapey enforcement could be "if you don't want to live by the rules of the royal family, you don't get its privileges. Enjoy earning your living as a commoner." Something like that happened with an English king in the 1900s; he wanted to marry a divorcee, which wasn't allowed, so he abjured the throne for himself and his heirs. And special laws were passed too.

Real world before that was probably more like locking someone up in a tower and not giving her the usual perks, but I'm hardly an expert on this aspect of history. There was also the "become a nun"/"take a vow of chastity" approach but I'm not sure how much royal or high noble women were allowed that.

It was common for all members of a family, male or female, to be seen as assets of the family 'firm' and used as such, though worse for the women. We're different now but that may be less due to any moral superiority and more to a different kind of economy and society that allows more individualism to be practical.

And since we're talking about actual history here, it was extremely common for royals in arranged marriages to have what amounted to open marriages (often of the "don't ask, don't tell" variety). When the current king of England took the throne, I did a bit of a deep dive on the various generations of royals (at times the upper classes of all Europe were related to each other) a half dozen generations or so back, and and it was extremely common for men and women to have more-or-less "acknowledged" lovers, often of both sexes. Things were worse in general for women, no doubt, but in certain social classes one's "marriage" and one's "private (sexual) life" could be two very different things.

It has also been pointed out that this argument is unconvincing, considering that the queen didn't have a choice to say no. Or is anyone arguing that she could have done that ? I haven't seen it.

Momo is clearly going to, at no point does mary even say that she wants to try and contest it after all

its never mentioned at all in fact, whether she could or couldnt is a detail thats omitted and purely an opinion of the readers

even if her choice would have been ignored, she could have still tried instead she immediately accepts that her and Juju are over

last edited at Jan 30, 2023 8:55PM

Things were worse in general for women, no doubt, but in certain social classes one's "marriage" and one's "private (sexual) life" could be two very different things.

I'd mentioned that earlier, but yeah.

Probably more leeway for a queen or noblewoman after popping out a sufficient number of unchallenged heirs. Or of course if she had a female lover, no threat to the lines of paternity.

Cute. ^_^

The manga will end in 2 chapters

Well that's quite a bombshell to drop at the end of an extra lol