Spanner? Did we some how go back to being a british colony, when I wasn't looking?

With an AK-47 you can make your own luck. Even if the gun is just a toy.
JK guns ruin lives.

Well I like guys in yuri stories, They make the story feel real. Plus I like to see the guy lose. And, that one is as bad as it sounds. heteronormativity bores, and annoys me.

Wow. Imagine being this salty about being gay. Like, could you imagine being this upset about over 90 percent of the human population? I can't. And so up front about it too.

For the record I'm staight. (Not that I would mind being gay.) I just prefer gay romance. I'm tired of seeing the same old story lines over and over. How many times do I have to sit through the "good girl" taming the "bad boy" with her love. (ssshhheeeeshhh)?

And what do you mean, by "there is no competition."?

If no guys are around the perceived "main competition" to the love interest is eliminated. Just by the virtue that lesbians are much rarer than straight girls. Of course the amount of lesbians in yuri works is usually disproportionate to reality.
Naturally yuri revolves around lesbians first and foremost, so males do not pose any "threat" anyway, but as you can see many readers are rather paranoid and sensitive about that.

Well I like guys in yuri stories, They make the story feel real. Plus I like to see the guy lose. And, that one is as bad as it sounds. heteronormativity bores, and annoys me.

Damit you know what I meant here! The word male is in quotes for a reason damnit! As I tell my nitpicy friends, all the time: Don't listen to what I say, listen to what I mean.

Eh...? Sorry, I don't read hearts, only text.

That is just as reproachable as erasing males. It implies girls cant develope true feelings unless they are challenged by male presence... As if the natural order is for them to fall head over heels for a boy the moment he exists. And then there are bisexuals.

That not my issue, it's the yuri manga, and animes writer's issue. They are the ones that often treat homosexuality as an "innocent mistake of youth".

That's a super outdated thing. Yuri authors haven't done that trope for decades. That kind of outcome is the exception by now and rightfully treated as blasphemy. Yuri-bait might as well receive the death penality around here...

Really!? I've only discovered yuri, in the last decade or so, and I've ran into it the concept a lot.

Basically, don't make such hasty assumptions about all-girls school settings. These days they just get used, because there is no competition and its easier to write.

I don't assumme anything, about all-girl school settings, other than they are way over used. Some of my most favorite yuri stories took place in all-girl schools. Of course there were boys too, they're presence made the stories feel real.
And what do you mean, by "there is no competition."?

Yeah but i've seen that in Japan sometimes they use the word "Yuri" even if there isn't any kind of romantic feeling involved (Subtext/Shoujo Ai)

[Obligatory reminder that "Shoujo Ai" does not exist]

I don't think a elementary school boy counts as a "male" character. Sure he's a boy, but it's not like he's going to be a serious romantic rival for the girls.

Well, I assume the writer is not one of the writers who would do that, but there are definitely some creepy manga out there where a child as a serious romantic rival would be the case.

Yeah, but this doesn't seem like that kind of manga.

I don't think a elementary school boy counts as a "male" character. Sure he's a boy, but it's not like he's going to be a serious romantic rival for the girls.

Male and female characters are not defined by their availability for romantic interest. That's one twisted view. Male side-characters with literally zero interest or "danger" of becoming rivals are still male characters.

Damit you know what I meant here! The word male is in quotes for a reason damnit! As I tell my nitpicy friends, all the time: Don't listen to what I say, listen to what I mean.

For the record: I like male characters in yuri stories. If there are no boys, in the mix, I get the feeling the girls are just playing love games. That the girls will one day discover guys, and the yuri romance I spent X chapters rooting for will fall apart.

That is just as reproachable as erasing males. It implies girls cant develope true feelings unless they are challenged by male presence... As if the natural order is for them to fall head over heels for a boy the moment he exists. And then there are bisexuals.

That not my issue, it's the yuri manga, and animes writer's issue. They are the ones that often treat homosexuality as an "innocent mistake of youth". Edit: The writer's are the ones belittling lesbian relationships If it wasn't for yuri I would have never heard of the concept of "Love games", so put the blame where it belongs.

Really John, I know you mean well, but your phrasing always is so unfortunate...

last edited at Apr 23, 2019 4:31PM

A elementary school boy taking care of his big sister!? That is freaking amazing! It's very gender equality forward for a manga. Give me more! Oh and the yuri romance looks cute, too.
I don't think a elementary school boy counts as a "male" character. Sure he's a boy, but it's not like he's going to be a serious romantic rival for the girls.

For the record: I like male characters in yuri stories. If there are no boys, in the mix, I get the feeling the girls are just playing love games. That the girls will one day discover guys, and the yuri romance I spent X chapters rooting for will fall apart.
Edit: I feel, the, way over used, All girl school setting is often used as a way of assuring the reader "Don't worry, these girls aren't really gay. They are just discovering love, for the first time. With no men around, they have no choice, but to fall in love with each other. Once they graduate, they will find a man and have a proper relationship.

last edited at Apr 23, 2019 3:20PM

(Ugh) What is it about vampires. They are suppose to be, quite literally, blood thirsty monsters, preying upon humanity. The evil creatures, that lurk in the night. Why does everybody make them into romantic heartthrobs, that make young girls gush their tighty whiteys? Oh well at least this vampire is working for team yuri. and she doesn't sparkle.

As vampires don't exist, they can have any characteristics an author wants them to have.

Yeah, yeah yeah. I got that. My question is: why are vampire romances so popular? Why do so many people want to read stories where a high school girl hooks up with a centuries old blood sucking undead monster?
My undying love for yuri makes this story palatable, but otherwise it would have been a hard pass. Probably accompanied by me grumbling about stupid vampires.

(Ugh) What is it about vampires. They are suppose to be, quite literally, blood thirsty monsters, preying upon humanity. The evil creatures, that lurk in the night. Why does everybody make them into romantic heartthrobs, that make young girls gush their tighty whiteys? Oh well at least this vampire is working for team yuri. and she doesn't sparkle.

Vampires have been symbols of repressed sexuality at least since the Victorian era (see: Carmilla).

I always blamed Bram Stokes for turning vampires into sauve seductors.

(Ugh) What is it about vampires. They are suppose to be, quite literally, blood thirsty monsters, preying upon humanity. The evil creatures, that lurk in the night. Why does everybody make them into romantic heartthrobs, that make young girls gush their tighty whiteys? Oh well at least this vampire is working for team yuri. and she doesn't sparkle.

johnb posted:

I don't think the boy talk is a big regression in Yae and Chitose's relationship. Yae is just having a bit of a freakout about Chitose going to an all boy school, for a competition. Yae is worried Chitose will get around boys, and suddenly realise, that she is really straight, and that she was just playing a love game with Yae all along.

That's the entire issue.

I guess I see yout point. I just didn't get that impression, though. I think, the thought of Chitose being surrounded by boys, and Yae's friend's comments about girls from an all girl school having no tolerance to resist boys, was enough to awaken Yae's dormant insecurities.

P.S. My love games comment, was a poor choice of phrase. The original story, did establish that Chitose and Yae were well past thinking their relationship was just a love game. The scene at the pool, where Yae and Mari were talking about Yae not being jealous over the other girls clinging on Chitose, is one of my favorite yuri scenes, of all time.

That was some big downgrade. Did previous series and 1 year of dating not happen? Why the first chapter is about "you will surely get a boyfriend" and "but we are both girls"? That was pretty disappointing for first chapter of sequel.

Exactly, idk why all this boy talk is suddenly happening. But to be fair, she has written so many stories along the way and just finished a big anime project with Kunihiko Ikuhara a couple years back, so she might have forgotten where exactly in this story she left off in.

I don't think the boy talk is a big regression in Yae and Chitose's relationship. Yae is just having a bit of a freakout about Chitose going to an all boy school, for a competition. Yae is worried Chitose will get around boys, and suddenly realise, that she is really straight, and that she was just playing a love game with Yae all along. I actually thought it was cute, the way Yae joined the fencing team to keep those horrible girlfriend stealing boys, away from her woman.

Are you missing, the sub plot about how Chitose and Yae are sexually frustrated, because they can't find the time to do it. There relationship is just fine. Well except they can't get no satisfaction. I think someone wrote a song about it, or something.

(sigh) So we have to wait for another chapter, to see how this side story pans out? It's cute but... I wonder what Mari and Ran are up to. I hope Morishima Akiko doesn't leave them out.

last edited at Apr 6, 2019 2:44AM

I'm usually all about the solid yuri hookups, but an occasional one shot like this one can be nice too. In the language of manga: I'll be rooting for Mame and Misora. Good luck girls. May the goddesses of yuri bless your budding love.

last edited at Apr 6, 2019 2:02AM

The discussion reminded me of my talks with my psychologist at the time I realized I should go to another psychologist.

Back to topic, does anyone else feel the characterizations are kind of changing on the fly? Maybe is because characters were not well defined at the start and now show hidden dephts, but I can't shake that feeling.

I think it's just taken us awhile to get to know them. The chapters aren't that long, so there isn't much room for a lot of character developement in them.

Question, out of curiosity: do people in Japan really have to visit a hospital for something simple like a cold?

It's my understanding that hospitals pretty commonly function as a standard practice doctor's office as well as handle emergent medicine. Also that they are often open during only certain business hours or on certain days, so it can be a real pain in the arse to find medical attention if you're unlucky enough to get sick on the weekend or late at night. Also, medicines often typically easily found on the shelf in the US are something that may require prescription there.

Around hear we have places called Urgent Care. They're like an emergency room lght. You go there for non life threatening emergencies, cuts, mild burns, sprains, bad cases of flu etc. They aren't open 24/7 but close.

Thanks Clueless1, and Blastaar. Now do you think Fukami knows Yamada is a girl.

What's with the "we're dating aren't we" bubble with Fukami standing over Kase' s bed. Did she over hear Kase say that to Yamda, over the phone? If so, when?

Edit: Also, did Yamada finally admit she is dating Kase, to her friend? The last I knew Yamada' s friend thought Kase was boy Yamada met at the mixer. I kind of liked that conversation to have been "on camera.

last edited at Mar 28, 2019 12:43AM

I didn't mean to reopen that old romantic vs. platonic love debate. Let me just say. I think we are all just calling apples by different names. Love is love, in all it's forms. I don't think of asexual love as romantic love, so what. I don't dismiss it's power, or intensity. I don't overlook the passion it can invoke in people, or it's ability to spur us to do great good, or geat evil. So, lets just say tomato(tom-Ato) tomato(tom-oto). and move on.

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

(pant.... pant.... pant....) Okay, I think I got it out of my system. Back to our regularly scheduled debate. in the real world iPC cell tech will be a god send to many people, not just homosexual couples, I'm on board. As long as we can keep greed, bureaucracy, and the religious right's noodlely appendages out of it. In a story where all men are gone....

You know what. This whole thing is pointless. I give up. We have no way, of knowing what the hell would happen, if a gender just vanished from the earth. Would the world turn into a cyberpunk style dystopia, where we all have to sell our souls, to our corporate masters, just for one viable egg? Or would we live in hippie like communes, raising our children as one big village, forming transient bonds of love and sex, as we want, and need. Or would we live, as this story suggests, just as we live now, only with one gender fulfilling, both genders' traditional roles? Or would something totally unpredictable happen? One option we failed to even consider.

With that final thought. I'm out.

Edit: At this point gay couples, have no choice, but to have children through nonsexual means, involving complete strangers, in their private affairs. However, I'm sure, given the choice they would prefer to create, their children through more intimate means. An act of love between two loving partners. Who knows one day, couples, might be able to go into a drug store, buy a home iPC cell kit, and conceive their children in the privacy of their bedroom. I would find that pretty romantic actually. (See that's the right way to use the word romantic. )

Shit. I didn't actually want to restart this discussion you already lost months ago. Your definition is wrong and close-minded and that's that. We don't need to continue that.

iPS cells man. Get it right already.
I can't believe I have to point this out to you again, but this conversation is about the alternate history of this story... where humanity goes extinct if they don't do this. There is literally no choice here. Or there is a choice... stop procreating or go along with the governement. Take your pick, I don't really care.

Basically you just pity homosexuals for not being able to uphold your weirdly specific standard of what constitutes a fulfilling relationship. What a douche.
You have no idea what romantic means and lack the wit to actually convince anyone of your preference... So you are as far from right as left is.

This leads nowhere as usual, so this is my final reply to this topic.

YOUR RIGHT! THIS IS GOING NOWHERE! I WOULD ASK YOU ONE THING: PLEASE STOP INSULTING ME! I don't insult you. At least I don't mean to. If I take a jab, I try to make sure you know I'm just playing. If you feel insulted I'm sorry. You seem to take everything I say in the worst possible way. Everytime I say something that I think will defuse the situation, you manage find a new way to get offended. If I anger you that much, maybe stop responding to my posts. These arguments are pointless, and just seem to upset you.

P.S. I'm not close minded. I'm open to all possibility. We are just having a language problem.

last edited at Mar 26, 2019 9:52AM

Love without sexual desire is platonic. Love with sexual desire is romantic.

Both are romantic, one just happens to be platonic as well. These aren't mutually exclusive.

What's wrong with just using words, to mean what they mean. Love comes in so many forms. Too many to have a definition for each. So we break it down into two catchall categorys. Love with sexual desire, and love without. I think people hear platonic, and they think mom, dad, little sis, and bro. but platonic love can just as intense and intimate as any romantic love. You just don't desire them sexually. (Note people who aren't physically able to have sexual intercourse, still can be in a romantic relationship, as long as the desire is there. However, if it's not, love is love as long as everybody involved is happy.)

You're pretty much insisting that we don't call yorkshires dogs because they aren't doggy enough for you, there, if you want to use that kind of metaphor.

Come on, give me a break okay. it was the only things I could think of to definitely differentiate dogs frome cats, off the top of my head. I was going to use "chew our slippers", but my friend's cat did that too.

last edited at Mar 26, 2019 3:53AM

(Sigh) I stand by what I said. And I don't think they are conspiracy theories. Money corrupts, and people will use it to give their kids a leg up. Just ask the people involved in that college admissions scandel. I think a lot of people would have a problem of having a third party involed in their ablity to have babies.
Look while I completely belive all of my aguments, the truth is, I just don't like the idea of removing sex from reproduction. It takes the magic out of love and dating for me. It's just the way I feel.

You can stick to your arguments, just accept that you would be the first to go extinct with that mindset.

Yes I am quite aware of your strange mindset when you were unable to separate romance from sex. You've proven that resoundingly when you didn't get that asexuals can have real romantic relationships before. Needless to say, your perspective on what's "magical" is not exactly inclusive or realistic.
I guess you aren't even aware that you just said lesbians cannot enjoy love or dating according to your feeling, huh? Guess what, homosexual couples cannot reproduce, so sex is always disconnected from reproduction for them...

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! That romance without sex argument, again! Love without sexual desire is platonic. Love with sexual desire is romantic. I don't know what is so strange about words meaning what they mean. STOP CALLING IT STRANGE! It's like calling me strange because I keep insisting we call the furry, four legged animals, that bark, and pee on fire hydrants, dogs, and not cats. The sky is blue! Water is wet! And, love without sexual desire is platonic!

(pant.... pant.... pant....) Okay, I think I got it out of my system. Back to our regularly scheduled debate. in the real world iPC cell tech will be a god send to many people, not just homosexual couples, I'm on board. As long as we can keep greed, bureaucracy, and the religious right's noodlely appendages out of it. In a story where all men are gone....

You know what. This whole thing is pointless. I give up. We have no way, of knowing what the hell would happen, if a gender just vanished from the earth. Would the world turn into a cyberpunk style dystopia, where we all have to sell our souls, to our corporate masters, just for one viable egg? Or would we live in hippie like communes, raising our children as one big village, forming transient bonds of love and sex, as we want, and need. Or would we live, as this story suggests, just as we live now, only with one gender fulfilling, both genders' traditional roles? Or would something totally unpredictable happen? One option we failed to even consider.

With that final thought. I'm out.

Edit: At this point gay couples, have no choice, but to have children through nonsexual means, involving complete strangers, in their private affairs. However, I'm sure, given the choice they would prefer to create, their children through more intimate means. An act of love between two loving partners. Who knows one day, couples, might be able to go into a drug store, buy a home iPC cell kit, and conceive their children in the privacy of their bedroom. I would find that pretty romantic actually. (See that's the right way to use the word romantic. )

last edited at Mar 26, 2019 3:16AM

Wow little bro-ster is apparently way more perceptive than expected. This honestly just makes me more interested in what yuri!Marika was like, because the differences between the two were noticable enough for the sibling.

I also like that Marika actually skipped a beat when Kazami smiled. I guess what she did that was considered so abnormal was kiss a girl or something. The rejection and lack of understanding from her surroundings is a pretty good reason to close your heart and act like you have to be normal. That's actually the most standard lesbian in denial situation in the book.

First I didn't say It's totally unfeasible. I said it would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention the moral and ethical of putting reproduction in the hands of institutions. Do you want the same people, sitting on AIDS medication, while the deisease runs rampant in Africa, in charge your reproductive ability.

As for the my argument about straight women, dating, and marriage. Your right sex wouldn't go away. It just wouldn't be needed for reproduction, neither would the pair bond. Women would be free to raise their children anyway the feel comfortable. Some might pair up. Some might group together, some might go it alone. With the sudden lose of men, society would go through rapid evolution, like life does after a mass extinction event.

Your conspiracy theories aside, if the choice is extinction or the government controlling birth. Guess what I would choose? It's not even up for debate. In the worst case scenario those who refuse will simply have to go. There are no pleasantries at the collapse of society.

Again, just because the bonds aren't needed anymore for reproduction doesnt mean human nature changes abruptly. Humans are made to have partners and generally monogamous relationships. The only thing that changes is who these needs are directed towards. Do I think its impossible for communities of free groups unbound by marriage or solid relationships to exist? Of course not, even in our current world there are places who attempt this. Its just not something you can project on all of humanity.

(Sigh) I stand by what I said. And I don't think they are conspiracy theories. Money corrupts, and people will use it to give their kids a leg up. Just ask the people involved in that college admissions scandel. I think a lot of people would have a problem of having a third party involed in their ablity to have babies.

With men gone, and sex divorced from reproduction, who knows what form the family unit would take. It's a given there would still be love, and the need for emotional, and physical connections, but other that your guess is as good as good as mine. The only thing I know for sure is it wouldn't stay exactly the same.

Remember, alternative family units, like sister wives, and communes, are rarities, partly because It's against social norms, and conventions. Take those away, and alteritve options, might become more common place.

Look while I completely belive all of my aguments, the truth is, I just don't like the idea of removing sex from reproduction. It takes the magic out of love and dating for me. It's just the way I feel.

If straight women were using. iPC cells to reproduce, why would they bother with dating and marriage, at all. They would probably just band together and raise their children sister wives style.

That's a completely different topic. You just switched from "its not feasible" to "but what are the repercussions for society".
It's quite obvious that after 90 years without men (and women not losing their sex drives unsurprisingly) they would reform culturally into homo-normality. If there are no mates of the opposite sex, the brain's need for emotional and sexual stability will eventually take over preferences. And for the first following generation that might still be an issue, but humans adapt fast. Grandchildren that never knew what a man was will already see dating girls as normal. It does help that scientifically speaking, women have a far larger likelihood for bi-sexuality. If bisexuals and lesbians get to lead more healthy lives (because they don't live with the stress of having no mate) and get to have children (because they have a partner for iPS treatment) those traits will be passed on and normalize them even more.

First I didn't say It's totally unfeasible. I said it would be a logistical nightmare. Not to mention the moral and ethical of putting reproduction in the hands of institutions. Do you want the same people, sitting on AIDS medication, while the deisease runs rampant in Africa, in charge your reproductive ability.

Americans are big at keeping the government out of our personal lives even if It's for our own good. (Just ask the anti-vaxxers). So putting the government in charge would not work at least not here.

iPS cell tech would also raise the specter of designer babies, and the rich being able to pay for the kind of babies they want, while the poor get dregs, or maybe not able to reproduce at all.

As for the my argument about straight women, dating, and marriage. Your right sex wouldn't go away. It just wouldn't be needed for reproduction, neither would the pair bond. Women would be free to raise their children anyway the feel comfortable. Some might pair up. Some might group together, some might go it alone. With the sudden lose of men, society would go through rapid evolution, like life does after a mass extinction event.

My idea of genetically modifying women, so they could reproduce themselves, doesn't make much sense either, but it would at least keep the significance of sex, and the pair bond.

last edited at Mar 24, 2019 11:29PM