As others have said, the couples dynamic in the two stories is basically parallel, with one very avid partner paired with a willing but sweetly naive one. The major difference is that this story is more of an over-the-top goofy farce as opposed to the gentler comedy of the other one, with an accompanying difference in focus and tone.

One entirely practical difference in-universe(s) is also that Tadokoro gave Nikaidou a reasonably explicit greenlight back in the infirmary and only the nurse's surprising but inevitable return stopped them from doing the deed right then and there, so they both know the other is very much up to it if the mood is right.
That's not going to help Nikaidou's mind stay outta the gutter one bit...

Poor Kase is meanwhile still getting epically blueballed by Yamada who being part of the plant kingdom seems to be only very vaguely aware of carnal relationships even being a thing, in theory.

Even though it's more subtly shown, I'm convinced that Kase-san is as much of a horn-dog than Nikaidou.

Well count me unconvinced then. There is a very obvious gap in desire between those two characters. Of course it's played up for comedy here, but that in itself is already proof enough that it's beyond the normal spectrum. Kase-san is a hormone filled teenager, but she can actually think of other things while her girlfriend is with her and doesn't interpret any action as a sexual advance.

The fact that her life doesn't happen in the confines of circa four pages per chapter might of be relevant. Nikaidou is, by necessity of the medium, much more condensed.
Hell.
The entire story is.

MUH TAGWARS

^^ Classic reticent Yuri tbh. That girl makes Tomoko look gregarious and outgoing.

Define good'un

Think about why Eiko decided to go to the kebab place

Blind guess would be "background Enami-sensei spotted" but that's pure stab in the dark due to the faithful rendition of the QUALITY Traditional Ichinose-ryu Photography. There could be a damn elephant there and you'd have to know to see it.

I think the author really just wanted to draw butts.

I'm okay with that.

Is My Hobby Weird?

I guess our school system just totally burned me for any interpretations etc. of literature/poetry, using general symbols and meanings, because all I was ever taught was that there is no room for interpretation. Author always means it only 1 way and any other interpretation is wrong. Even if author themselves disagree with what our teachers think the interpretation of their work is. Also you need to follow the right steps in interpreting their works. After all there is only 1 proper way to arrive at the conclusions you will arrive, because there is no other conclusions to arrive at other than the right ones.

Wow, that is a truly terrible theory of interpretation to teach people. If it were true, that would make most art and literature a mere parlor game, where the audience was supposed to guess the one true meaning, or a form of perverse communication, where the artist had one thing to say but buried it under a bunch of coded symbols so people would know they were supposed to receive a message but rarely if ever understand what the message was.

I'd say that's rather less teaching a theory than indoctrinating a dogma; "one true meaning" is the principle of religion, not science - as well as ideologies bastardized into secular religions by totalitarian regimes (which are unfailingly and universally insecure about their legitimacy). Anyone teaching like that is quite missing the point and either blatantly attempting to push a specific agenda or (in the spirit of "never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence") grossly half-assing it, likely because they're in the wrong job altogether or at least covering the wrong subject and CBA to go to the trouble of teaching the whole complex topic to a bunch of kids most of whom probably aren't terribly interested anyway.
I've had teachers like that.
Thankfully those were back in Elementary and the ones covering the same subjects at the higher grades were far more on the ball with their jobs.

last edited at Feb 9, 2019 9:29PM

Even without reading this just the cover image alone tells me this is going to be the best doujin to be uploaded to this site

what the hell is this lmaoooooo was about my first reaction too. Rather reminds me of "I've laid waste to the original settings left and right" :3

^IIRC she's still about the same size as on first appearance. CBA to go through the old chapters to check tho so take that with due caveats.

Kozue the serial flirt strikes again lmao

Not pictured: Kuroki Tomoko, Miss Manners 2019, being ronery. (She kinda deserved it as usual.)

Sometimes I worry if Shion's brain is getting enough oxygen, what with all the circulation diverted into her shions... :c

Of course it could. Even the infamously grim Warhammer 40,000 setting sometimes gets in its head to try and get even moar GRIMDARK than it already is - only that just tends to come across as unintentionally comical tryharding and typically gets sarcastically termed "grimderp" by the fans...

But "well the author could do X" is basically just woolly platitudes on the level of "well they could also be wearing red flannel socks while drawing" - particularly meaningless idle speculation and certainly no basis for credible assumptions.

^ Shipping is Serious Business, yo.

But here it’s not a reveal, it’s given as initial exposition. The companion trope to the above is that the young person is not simply disgusted with the mom on moral or aesthetic grounds, but that one or more of the transient “boyfriends/uncles, etc.” has at least tried something with the young person.

That doesn’t mean it’s an inevitable development, but it’s certainly a possible move on the board.

So far there's no obvious reason to assume such though; and Chika's home environment is quite amply screwed up enough to deeply and negatively affect someone up to and including for life as is without recourse to such lurid dramatic devices.

Laying the basic situation bare to the audience right in the opening strikes me as a very deliberate narrative choice - instead of being left in as much of the dark as a single specific viewpoint character and given the reveal "in real time" as they (more or less gradually) learn about it in-universe, we're instead told it right out of that gate from the PoV of the character in question. Or to put it differently and more concisely, the goal is not the audience uncovering a "mystery" alongside the cast but rather watching the cast discover things - in this case about each other - in-universe that the audience is already privy to.

Contrariwise if you took out the frequent flips to Chika's PoV we'd have a fairly classic (if not outright cliché) setup of Usa trying to figure out why her totally-not-crush-honest is such a tightly-wound unsociable curmudgeon.

Maybe it's just that the opening scene sets up a feeling that "sex is a problem for this girl."

No duh, but that's because it's wound up with Hoshihara's badly strained relationship with her mother. Near as I can tell having had to listen her mom fuck her boyfriends (all of whom and which she detests) in the next room has led her to similarly loathe her own sex drive by association - no wonder she's all wound up and cranky.

Which is a pretty far cry from a "rapey backstory vibe".

last edited at Feb 8, 2019 8:34AM

Exposed to sex too young, frustrated, alone, and then puberty... I guess it's a way to relieve herself, it could've been darker.

It still could get darker. Some manga just give off that rapey backstory vibe, and this one’s doing exactly that.

where tho ' -')

A Bisexual Girl Wanders Into A Lesbian Mixer and finds out she isn't nearly as straight as she thought. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I can't tell if the face she's making with Nemo is meant to be hehehe now watch this or o shit I'm gonna get raped...

Reminds me of the yuri danshi's conversation in the restaurant, with the "purityfag".

Also relevant.

That's is some Grade A bizarro moralising right there.

That doesn't mean that other animals are missing that crucial bit needed for "intelligence". Since we really don't have a good idea of the mechanical functions underpinning human intelligence, in other words how the brain works, we can't confidently rule out whether we really have something extra or we just got there first.

Well some of them pretty definitely are missing it, what with being quite literally brainless. Quite a few more very clearly plain don't have enough between the proverbial ears for more than the basic routines of feed-survive-multiply - "intelligence" in any meaningful sense requires quite a bit of neural infrastructure which is a considerable investement of metabolic resources and energy. (The human brain is a horrendous energy sink.) And seeing how young mammals in general are in evolutionary terms, nevermind now hominids, if "we got there first" despite the few-hundred-million-year head start any number of other animal groups had on us then I daresay it isn't unfair to conclude they probably never were going to. Not like they didn't have ample time to.

Exempli gratia, cephalopods. Bunch of very clever buggers and old as dirt (bustin' straight outta Cambrian, yo) - and literally kill themselves as matter of course procreating after swimming around for a few years. That rather of puts a hard brake on how far their intellect can go and basically nixes any form of culture (as defined earlier) before it can even try getting started...

Our material civilization is really just the result of our evolution having, a very long time ago, taken a turn to adaptation through tool use, diverging from the otherwise-universal paradigm of adaptation through physical change. Cultural evolution, as it turns out, is orders of magnitude faster than biological evolution all the more so in creatures with as lengthy generational cycle as ours.

Bees, for example, clearly have a form of what could be called civilisation, and yet we do not recognise it as such because it's not human civilisation, and we therefore take it to be inferior to ours.

Except they don't. You're confusing society with culture which are not the same thing at all. Neurologically simple animals like bees are effectively biological robots; their biological "decision tree" programming may be remarkably complex but that's really just the result of millions of years of harshly eliminatory trial-and-error refining and - this is kinda important - they cannot deviate from it. If they run into a crisis their genetically hardwired set of solutions can't cope with they're pretty much screwed because they can't adjust their responses to match. Or in other words - they can't think and engage in dynamic problem-solving.
This is why the Asian giant hornet is such bloody murder on imported European honeybees which, unlike their local relatives, haven't evolved effective countermeasures against such a formidable predator, for example.

Since you've mentioned the mirror self-recognition test, which people generally take as an indicator of intelligence through self-awareness, I'd suggest that it's actually just as much an indicator of culture as it is intelligence. If we take a human from 300,000 years ago, is it a given that they would recognise themselves in the mirror? Human babies do not, so it seems very easy to suggest that it's a learned behaviour in humans as well.

Why the Hell are you assuming the first Homo sapiens had the brain developement of an infant (babies hit the "mirror stage" at about 18 months old) and why are you trying to pass that arbitrary asspull as some kind of credible argument seriously. Our chimpanzee cousins clear the mirror test fairly reliably with decidedly less brainpower.

In other words, I'm arguing that practically everything we recognise as human "intelligence" is actually just human "culture". Any species that passes its knowledge onto its young could theoretically create an advanced society given enough time; it may easily have been random chance that led humans to achieve a society of this kind first, because if it were simply a result of superior intelligence as is so often assumed, one would have expected it to take less than 345,000 years (and many more, counting predecessors to modern humans).

Emphasis very much on theoretically. There's a fair few critters around with the basic "tool kit" of dextrous manipulators and high intelligence (in terms of versatile and dynamic problem-solving ability) required for tool-using cultural evolution as we understand it. Birds would be the really big contender already for the sheer amount of time they've been around with very highly developed brains (going back to before the K-Pg extinction event) and excellent manipulators many of them boast.
The catch?
Only humans ever developed true tool-using material culture. A considerable number of animals make use of simple tools for various purposes, and some can actually fabricate them to a limited degree, but nothing like even the very earliest deliberately manufactured stone tools (going back a good 3.3 million years and actually predating the genus Homo by about 0.5 million; the makers are thought to have belonged to one of the Australopithecus species) is in evidence, to speak nothing of the mastery of fire and similar more complex technological skills.

I was replying to someone who was in fact talking about civilisation being the evidence that human intellect is somehow fundamentally different from the intellect of all other species, which is an extremely commonly-held belief. My reply was exactly about the fact that modern humans have, for 345k years, lacked the thing that people commonly use to delineate "human intelligence" as special, which means using that thing as an indicator for what makes human intelligence supposedly special is non-sensical.

While it is certainly true that their conflation of "civilization" with "intelligence" was quite erroneous - as I already pointed out earlier - your argument is no less so since it is based on the exact same faulty concepts. And what "people commonly" think about some complex matter or another is quite analytically irrelevant since that's generally plain wrong. Far more fruitful is to discuss the theories of actual scientists who actually have some idea what they're talking about; setting the record straight on relevant mistaken "commonplace" beliefs tends to be a natural byproduct of it anyway.

Also your timeline is flat-out wrong anyway; researchers peg behavioral modernity to 50-40kya.

By the way, androids are still humans. If it thinks like a human, acts like a human, looks like a human and considers itself to be a human, it is one. The only difference is that their ghost is piloting a robot made out of metal while we pilot a robot made out of meat.

That's some pretty bold claims to categorically make about questions heavily dependent on a number of highly complex and entirely unstated premises, not the least the technological assumptions behind the AI.

And how do you define or measure "thinking like a human" in the first place?

It's further compounded by how real-life scientists apparently keep moving the goalposts with every discovery that muddles the boundaries between "human intelligence" and "animal intelligence", precisely because nobody has a damn idea what is it exactly that makes human intelligence special even though the end result (i.e. very complex toolmaking, civilization, etc.) is blatantly obvious.

There's a point to be made that "human intelligence" doesn't actually mean what we assume it to mean, that is, it has nothing to do with humans. Anatomically modern humans have been around for 350,000 years, and yet what we recognise as "civilisation" is barely 5,000 years old. In other words, there's been a period of ~345,000 years where humans existed and yet did not possess human intelligence, if we apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to animals. No wonder it's impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from such an ill-conceived term!

Necessary reminder that last I checked no actual scientist used material civilization as any kind of criteria for intelligence for reason that really should be obvious. Culture - that is, the active transmission of skills and knowledge between generations - OTOH does have real traction, and eg. orcas (which teach their offspring specific and regionally distinct hunting techniques) qualify for that.

Intelligence takes many forms, and most of those do not as such particularly correlate with self-awareness anyway - there's hints that certain species of rays can recognize themselves in the mirror for example, unlike most primates.

I don’t know about the domestic violence part, was it supposed to be funny? It just left me feeling confused.

The fundamental running joke of the series is that people like Yurika and Akane can channel the corniest blatant bullshit from the cheesiest late-night dramas imaginable (and beyond, as with that glorious bear story Yurika told) and make it work by sheer audacity and charisma - often despite their targets full well realizing they're being manipulated.