https://dynasty-scans.com/forum/topics/12835-1-x-discussion?page=49#forum_post_483112

sigh

Oh please, opening your post with that? You should have done that in the first place and saved us some time even bothering to discuss this if you're going to act like some exasperated teacher trying to correct a student. I would have just left your post be for the sake of ending this, but now I feel compelled to say something!

I'm exasperated alright. Don't take it too personally.

It's incest. Something whose negative effects we can perceive with relative ease and basic observation.

Says the person who literally just said they can't get realistic figures on consensual incestuous relationships a few posts before...? Now you're telling me that measuring the psychological aspects of consensual incestuous relationships can be done with relative ease?

Unrelated.

Of course the genetics side of it is measurable, but if you're going to harp on that point further I'd have to assume you uh, didn't read anything I've been saying in regards to that. It can be mitigated, just as much as those with genetic disorders have their conditions mitigated. And even those with little to no risk at all like cousins don't exactly get a free pass, even in states where it's legal, it's still looked up on with a great deal of stigma. Nor does it address the stigmatization of homosexual incest, etc.

The rest of your post is mostly irrelevant to the main discussion so I'm not going to argue about the fallibility of modern science for the sake of brevity.

Cultural issues aren't scientific issues. Science can tell you that something is harmless as much as it wants with all the data you want, but if the culture is against it, then it doesn't matter. That's your cousins and homosexual siblings issue.
The rest is objectively harmful. Mitigation or not. That's all there is to it. I already said I'm for equality here, both sides should be stopped. I have the exact opposite idea of equality from you it seems. That doesn't make your solution the more sensible one though.

You... you brought up the failability of modern science... Why do you think I was exasperated in the first place? Are you perhaps tired? 'cause I sure start to feel it.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:52PM

Well that is a relief. Although I guess we can still continue this here https://dynasty-scans.com/forum/topics/10103-dynasty-cafe-a-home-for-off-topic-discussion-where-everyone-s-welcome?page=335
I'll at least try to give my final reply there.

sigh

Scratch that, I do want to say one thing though.

And I just literally told you modern science, which has accepted Homosexuality as normal, still considers incest bad to a certain degree. Because of facts, not ideology.

If you think modern science is completely unblemished by political and social biases, well... you sweet summer child. I'm not even talking about incest in this case. To be honest, I hesitate to say it's even gotten better at all. Nevermind something as nebulous as defining whether something is a mental illness or not, even things you'd think are hard facts and numbers are often "interpreted" to a certain end, to put it softly.

Of course it isn't. That's why the scientific consensus exists across the globe. Even if a certain faction lets their biases flood in, other scientists have different viewpoints. They all have to agree based on the data, however. Numbers are universal and because scientists with thousands of viewpoints all look at the same data, only what is actually objective can find any consensus.
Look... we aren't talking about a hypothesis here. Not about some nebulous concept like string "theory". Not about some complicated mental illness. It's incest. Something whose negative effects we can perceive with relative ease and basic observation.

Science always continues to improve and change, but there are some things that are more or less a given at some point, like the theory of evolution or gravity. Sure, psychological consequences are more vague, because psychology is a disgustingly vague "science", but we gotta work with what we have. The results are there, even if the deductions based on them aren't perfect. Pattern recognition is still a thing.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:24PM

if a child was adopted as a baby, do you think they'd be more destroyed by their birth mother that they never knew abusing them, or their adopted mother? Of course it'd be the latter. It's a matter of influence and proximity, not % of genes shared.

If we had the exact same cases between birth mother and step-mother, birth mother always wins out in damage. The only explanation is that one is real incest and that has inherent psychological extra issues.

By that reasoning, it's not incest that causes problems, it's genetic disorders!

Yes. That is the main issue with it. Everything else is additional baggage.

Furthermore, you were the one talking about detriments, which naturally lends to a discussion about perceived benefits for allowing certain relationships from forming as opposed to their detriments.

No that is what you want to argue. It has nothing to do with my argument.

This is hardly absolute. The social climate in regards to this was different and you don't have to go even 50 years back when many scientists "declared" the same about homosexuality, citing it as a mental illness.

And I just literally told you modern science, which has accepted Homosexuality as normal, still considers incest bad to a certain degree. Because of facts, not ideology.

I do agree that it will happen anyway, which in that sense, is it better not to accept and educate them to mitigate risks, instead of shun and spit on them?

Crimes happen anyway, but we don't legalize them. We still shun them. You can educate people without allowing them to do something. Incest is not inherent like sexuality, you can get over it and find a new partner. Your rethoric falls flat.

I'm saying the people reason don't like incest has very little to do with procreation - it's a post-hoc justification, which, well, nothing you're saying here really denies that.

People hate incest regardless of whether or not procreation is possible. Incestuous homosexuals are not accepted. Incestuous sterile couples aren't given a pass. Viability has little to do with people's perceptions beyond giving them a scientific reason to justify their gut rejection of it.

It's good to know that you can read people's minds now. Well claim whatever you want lol
Genetic and psychological reasons are more than enough justification, no matter if some people merely use them as excuses.

On the contrary, I fundamentally disagree with you on many things. But you're welcome to end it here and I'll stop replying to whatever you post to this, if you do.

Well that's your problem then, I feel this is just repetitive now.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 12:05PM

Eugenics is controlled breeding, not necessarily genocide and gassing. Ensuring that those with "inferior" genes such as individuals with genetic defects is in fact a form of it, not a slippery slope at all. Quite literally the definition:
If it's uncomfortable it's because it does leads to a slippery slope of other shit, because people start deciding this and that is also inferior genes and then we get into really nasty territory.

I was refering to my own statement here... I know that what I'm suggesting leads to slippery slope territory.
Again if we get to the designer baby future, this topic will become more relevant again.

Only in the sense that the parent has even greater authority because they're more likely to have consistently been in the child's life from the start as an authority figure. Again, this has little to do with blood relation and everything to do with being in a position of authority and abusing it. Yes, a blood related parent would often be closer with the child and exercise greater authority compared to an adopted one, but correlation and not causation and all that jazz.

Psychologically speaking the birth mother always has a greater impact than a step-mother, even if you were raised by the step-mother from the start. No matter how much one tries to deny it, there is inherently a stronger bond to the birth mother by default. And such a bond has greater repercussions in incest cases.

Straight couples are statistically more in danger? I have no idea what you mean by that.
https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/data-and-trends/statistics
Homosexual men make up over half of the new cases yearly. Obviously I wasn't speaking of lesbians in this case when I mention anal sex.
There is no direct benefit to homosexuality either. It's not a matter of being a benefit or a detriment, it's a matter of allowing the individual in question to freely choose who they wish to love and not using science to justify stripping rights away when there's steps that can be taken to alleviate the issues in question.

Not more in danger, they get it more often percentage wise worldwide. Have you ever looked at African statistics?

Who was talking about benefits? I'm saying incest has only inherent detriments. By itself, without HIV or any other outside force used as a lynchpin, incest is simply bad. Therefore your HIV analogy fails. You don't let a person self-mutilate, just because they really enjoy it. Doctors and authority figures would step in.
It's not a stretch to call incest self-harm or abuse in many cases, because that is quite literally what it is treated as legally and in medical terms. Science is on the same level of knowledge with incest and homosexuality, but only one of them has been declared harmless and acceptable.

So again: No fearmongering needed.

Well for starters, that isn't exactly what I was talking about, and Los Angeles/Alaska is hardly a southern state. We were talking about long term genetic effects on the supposedly "turn a blind eye to incest inbreeding backwards south" stereotype, no?

Oh you didnt mean I should explain America's issue with incest....

Funnily enough, hiding behind child victims as a means to justify the withholding of rights for consenting adults is exactly what they tried to do with homosexuals too.

I'm not hiding behind anything. I was telling you why it is hard to get statistics on consensual incest relationships. It's like trying to get a realistic figures on gay couples in the 50s.
However, you will find that incest is most often the non-consensual kind, while homosexuality is not. This isn't about child victims either. Sexual harrassment and rape happen across all age groups.

Well this is kinda missing the point though. Even consensual incest is not a good thing as I already elaborated in spades. At best it does little harm. And whether it's legal or not, it will happen anyway.

I wish I could say that the people who I'm talking about just hate homosexuality in general, but they're 100% all for yuri but take up a crusade against the one yuri incest couple. (and are VERY vocal about it, since it's the most popular pairing in Japan) Believe me, it has nothing to do with a bias against homosexuality, they love homosexuality. It's just that they perpetually need to complain about the incest pairing and how horrible everyone who likes it is. Pleasant bunch, really.

Uh... ok? I said incest is first and foremost an issue because of procreation. You said then homosexual incest must be accepted. I said that's not true, because in the first place homosexuality isn't widely accepted. These are two "abnormal" things and that only mulitplies people's rejection of it. Incest isn't any less gross to people just because they like homosexuality. I'm just saying that on average you will hardly find people who will support homosexual incest, because that requires getting over yourself twice instead of once.

PS: I think we're starting to reach the convergence point here. The topic's a bit overdone now. I don't fundamentally disagree with you after all, so unless you got some important things to add, we could end it here.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 11:08AM

If that's the case, then let me ask this instead:

https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/luminousblue_ch03#18

Amane went to talk with Hayama when she Nene asked her out, talked her about her happiness and then finally also about breaking up.

There's no way Hayama hasn't seen the happy, lovey dovey face of Amane when she was gushing about Nene to her. She's been shown to be extremely emotive and not being able to hold back very well.

At this point I feel you're getting awfully pedantic, but fine let me play along.
There is a stark difference between gushing about someone and actually spending time with them.

You're welcome to actually give an alternative interpretation to her words, but "yearning" doesn't count, 'cause that obviously would also have happened during those conversations you just mentioned.

Whoa—I had to go to the emergency room for a neck brace from the forum whiplash.
So whatever happened to the kind, thoughtful Nene who was just trying to be nice to Amane, her psycho, sexual-harassing ex?
You remember, the Nene who couldn’t possibly have been being cruel with that, “You can kiss me but I’ll hate you” offer.
I know, I should have been wearing my seat belt, but still . . .

Seriously, people are getting fooled so easily! They all fell for Amane's evil act of pretending to put on a brave face in front of Nene's kind way to end those annoying pesky lingering feelings for good.

If only Amane wasn't so selfish, Kou could full-heartedly rush headlong into a relationship with her angelic Nene, who obviously just wants to make her happy (as long as she doesn't dare talk to her friends or aim that camera anywhere but her perfect face).

That's the evidence we have so far. Do you really think pre-school/young elementary school age Amane who is smiling with a flower crown on her head is ACTING happy in that picture?

I'm saying she hasn't seen her truly happy since childhood. I don't see the contradiction here...

Senpai took another photo of Amane in pain... and she said that the photo Kou showed her was something she had never seen from Amane before. This just tells me that she never saw her truly happy ever since childhood.

Dunno, there's a really sweet and happy picture of Amane as a kid on that very same page (page 5, upper right corner). I think she's referring to Amane's loving/yearning face there.

Is it though? Smiling doesn't really mean truly happy. And senpai doesn't seem to prefer taking pictures of it either.

After finishing the anime, I rushed here to finally catch up with the manga like I wanted to do ages ago.
It's just as good as expected.

Now as far as subtext goes, I think there really isn't any more defined than

these two lesbian parents.

Bocchi isn't easy to see in a relationship, so I'm fine with her getting lots of friend-ship for now~
I also really hope the manga will continue into high-school, so we can see Bocchi and Kai reunite!

Outlawing it is eugenics, which we do not practice with the genetically defect. That's consistent with my statement and exactly my point. We let those with genetic defects procreate, which means it's hypocrisy to outlaw even childless romance for siblings. There's nothing stopping people from enacting the same exact procedures already in place for the genetically defect, who have a higher rate of risk in the first place.

Well, we will see how those cases will be treated in the future. If a doctor thinks it's a bad idea, I certainly would agree with that assessment. You're justifying one probematic thing with a loophole in another questionable situation here. I find it a bit crass to equate caring for the future child's health to eugenics. But slippery slope argument and all that stuff....

No, because an adoptive or foster parent that has no genetic relation to the child in question would in my eyes be just as bad as a genetic parent. A parent has a position of greater authority and influence over a child than pretty much anyone else, blood relation or not. Incest factors nothing into this, at least in my eyes.

Pseudo-incest does have similar psychological consequences to standard incest sometimes, sure. But on the other hand knowing that you come from that person (additionally with the genetic issues) has a profound psychological effect.

I'll be honest with you, that a lot of vague words there. Well, if you admit that it's more of society's effects on the couple rather than the actual interaction of the couple itself, I'll let it be.

It's a complicated issue that I'm not able to concisely convey here. Psychology is anything but clear-cut most of the time.

It's a scientific fact that anal sex has a significantly higher infection rate for HIV. Facts, scientific or otherwise, are not neutral things that exist in their own vacuum, they can be weaponized against people. It's hardly false equivalency, its the same slippery shit slope of mass hysteria about how "consequences will never be the same!" if you let people do it.

But HIV is transfered by straight couples too (in fact statistically more so) and lesbians have almost zero chance of ever getting it through intercourse. Therefore, it's scientifically proven that it has no profounder consequences in homosexuals.
Incest on the other hand is scientifically proven to be only detrimental. At best it creates few issues, at worst it has great ones. The inherent act itself is the problem, not some outside force like HIV.
That is the false euquivalence.

If your only point is that anything can be used for fearmongering... sure. But I'm not. These are facts and they are more justified than empty contrarianism to homosexuality.

I mean, I hate to ask this, but citations please? I've never seen this supposed effect outside of fiction where it's treated as the joke it is so I'm gonna call bullshit on that.

From all the reasearch I did on America in particular the statistics vary wildly, mostly because obviously consensual incest will never be reported (as it is illegal) and everything else that appears is sexual abuse and rape by family members. Many statistics are around the ballpark of 10-30 million incest victims across the country. One article in partiular mention Los Angeles as a particularily bad place. Alaska has some of the highest rape rates in the country and incest is part of that. Therefore states with higher rape rates have higher official incest rates.
Honestly, it's annoying to pin such things down, but it's undeniable that this is a big issue.

Oh really now? So you're telling me nobody looks down on brother/brother and sister/sister couples and just consider it, you know, a weird quirk! Because they can't procreate, so everyone's totally cool with it. Please. I regularly see people trash on yuri sister incest couples (see my icon) acting like it's an affront to humanity itself.

What...? I didn't say that. There is still a huuuge bias against homosexuality as is, adding incest to it doesn't help. That's combining two minorities that are observed critically, so it's inherently a losing battle.

For what it's worth... incest between sisters is probably the least "problematic" option, aside from cousins.

"Borderline" is still distorting it. It's not an appreciable difference, this is something stated repeatedly by scientists. And "gross" is a subjective judgment.

Hence why I separated my subjective view of it being gross from my objective view that it has consequences, however small they may be. I also find yaoi gross, but I won't stop anyone from drawing or liking it. Heck I even read some mild BL myself. In the end I base my true judgement of something on facts, not emotion. That should have become abundantly clear by now, considering I haven't made a single derogatory remark towards incest beyond agreeing with the statement that it's gross to me.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 6:24AM

And yet it's still not outlawed, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. You're saying that with incest, you have a lesser chance, so it's... worse? It's not like anything is stopping a doctor from "dissuading" or "highly recommending not to have a child" a brother and sister couple

Well you equated it to eugenics, but medically speaking no doctor would agree with that kind of thing. With siblings this can have completely unpredictable effects, which makes it worse. It's always better to be able to prepare for the consequences of a bad decision.
Actually a lot of people are advocating that having children despite hereditary genetic defects is child abuse... but that's just an aside. As you said, it's not outlawed.

I've always found the "power dynamics!" approach to arguing against incest as incredibly weak, outside of parent/child cases which I'm hardly advocating for in most cases. Except in this manga, Asuka x Ayako the best. But in reality, nah, of course parent/child isn't okay and it's not because it's incest, it's pretty much bad for the same reason an actual teacher/student relationship would be bad. And yes, that would be grossly imbalanced power dynamics, only even worse because a parent is even more significant and in an even greater position of authority.

Well so in the end it's becaue of incest after all. Age gap relationships of that kind are dangerous enough, but with a parent it is indeed worse.

But in regards to others like brother/sister or cousins, the reason becomes much weaker. That level of "imbalanced power dynamics" is something that can exist in nearly every relationship you can think of, whether it be born out of differences in money (rich and poor), age (older and younger), social status (senpai and kouhai), gender (the role expected to play by one's gender), among other factors. One can hardly argue that "being siblings" is a greater factor to contribute to an intrinsically imbalanced power dynamic than the aforementioned factors in every, or even most situations, and yet we hardly ban relationships from forming on the basis of those other factors - in fact, some are even idolized and romanticized.

I'm not excactly refering to power dynamics here.... it has a lot to do with the psychological background of the siblings. Aside from the fact that to the human mind incest is innately wrong, to be in a sexual relationship with someone brought up as family always takes a psychological toll. This issue would completely disappear if they were estranged siblings that were brought up separately and don't know they are related or cases like that.
This one definitely has a lot more pressure from society involved in the equation too, admittedly.

The same kind of arguments were used against homosexuality. Let the homosexuals go about their way and it only will spread AIDS! was one of the latest of the tripe they had to justify it. I mean except for the part where they actually do say it will tear down society. Still, it amounts to little more than fearmongering. The southerner incest thing is a literal fucking meme, I hope you realize. It's a stereotype based on the fact that many communities were isolated before the invention of faster modes of transportation. The stereotype has some basis in truth for a small number of particularly isolated communities back a century ago when there were were little other options for them, but you're making it sound like there's mutant incest babies walking around all over the place there.

Uninformed misconceptions cannot compare to actual scientific facts... please don't use false equivalencies.

You can claim it's a meme, but it's also based on a lot of real situations. Please don't disregard reality just because its used for jokes. Incest is way more common in the country-side and small communities (for obvious reasons).
I'm not putting up some signs of "Incest paradise Alabama" here, I'm merely saying that the rate of genetic defects in places with lots of past incest are still visible in such areas today.

Certainly, that is a possibility, and I can't prove or disprove it otherwise. But even assuming that the ban is born solely out of "wanting to better our collective gene pool," should we really be limiting personal rights between consenting adult individuals for a reason that pretty much amounts to "it's not good for the state"?

The main issue anyone takes with incest is procreation. Get rid of that problem and "consenting adults" can do whatever messed up things they want as long as nobody else gets harmed. That's how society already works. Giving them the right to marry or be open about such relationships will only bring to light what is already there anyway. We already discussed the issues above, so everything else is just a matter of defining the laws.

I edited it to say "almost 0 disadvantage" instead precisely because i saw this coming.
It's not significant enough to really warrant discouraging.
https://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/us/few-risks-seen-to-the-children-of-1st-cousins.html
Even if you tell people this, they'll still go "its weird and gross still!" so yeah. I stand by my statement.

Well it certainly is gross, but I'm looking at this objectively. Again, borderline for the reason that it is that low.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 5:18AM

Look, I'm not a biologist (more into Chemistry). When studies show that genetic defects and inbreeding lead to an ever increasing rate of genetic failures, I believe them. We had very famous examples of that in royal families across Europe for centuries. The first generation might not be as affected by it, but if you simply make incest something acceptable, the chances only unecessarily rise.

Letting people with genetic disorders breed also raises the chances of genetic defects in a population but telling them they can't breed gets uncomfortably close to eugenics now, doesn't it?

And yet (depending on the genetic disorder) a doctor in most cases would recommend not to have a child to such a person or at least dissuade them from doing it. Preparing them for the consequences. Someone who has a genetic bone disease is basically dooming their future child to have the same. That is not good family planning.
With incest, you don't even have a guarantee for anything. It could turn out any way, so it's like the lottery.

I'm not particularly in the mood to debate the ethics surrounding incest between consenting adults, but the genetics aspect of it becomes a weaker and weaker argument as time passes. There are other options like adoption, and technology marches ever forward to assist in predicting, preventing, or even solving such issues. For most, genetics is merely a post-hoc justification for their gut rejection of incest as a concept that's much more rooted in psychology and historical traditions. People who use genetics as an argument seem to construct this imaginary scenario that everyone will be scrambling to get it on with their brother or sister the moment it stops being outlawed, which is an imaginary fantasy scenario, to put it lightly.

One could argue for example, incest is commonly rejected across cultures because it's disadvantageous to a family from a business perspective. Marriage is traditionally less about love and more about business transactions and forging alliances, and an alliance with your own family is a whole lot of fucking nothing.

If you put adoption as the solution then you do indeed avoid the genetic issues. But between straight partners, it's not that easy to make certain it stays that way.
Well once we reach that future, all shiny and chrome, where we can use toolkits to have designer babies, genetic defects do become meaningless, sure. At that point we will have more pressing moral issues to consider anyway...

It's good that you bring up psychology, because it is a far more potent point than genetics in this day and age. Parent/child incest is extremely harmful to the child (not that it really helps the parent either). Even brother/sister incest brings a slew of mental issues with it. I think disregarding those as just "cultural" is a bit rash.

I don't believe that if incest was legal that everyone would scramble to pounce their family, but the cases would unavoidably increase. That is literally undeniable. It's not going to tear down society or some nonsense like that, but America already shows what the countryside does when they "inofficially" turn a blind eye to that kinda thing.

Eh, sure, there are cultural reason for everything. But often nature inspires culture in these cases. Procreating between non-related people creates a healthier gene-pool, so inherently humans want to do that and because of that it is normalized not to marry family members and that's how the entire economic structure even came to be the way it is. So what is the cause and the effect here, really?

There is a reason even cousins are borderline for most nations.

That has nothing to do with genetics as there's 0 biological disadvantage to cousin incest.
It's more or less because people in those countries that are against it are ruled by their gut reactions in this regard and not much else.

Oh really now? You're telling me 1st degree cousins are not in danger of genetical overlap? Come on.
It's certainly not all that problematic, which is why it's borderline.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 4:30AM

But majority opinion doesn’t automatically equal right opinion. For example couple hundreds years ago people almost unanimously saw interracial relationship as wrong and morally questionable.

Also as often the case with the popular beliefs they are not exactly correct. Incest by itself doesn’t really increase the chance of genetic defects that much. Here some hard science:

Majority opinion doesn't make a right, but it lays down the rules. It decides what is taboo. And that is what we are talking about, right? If in 100 years the death penalty is righteous again, that doesn't change the fact that it's frowned upon in most 1st world countries today. What's right or wrong is always "decided" by the majority. Or by a handful of people with real power...

Look, I'm not a biologist (more into Chemistry). When studies show that a limited gene pool and inbreeding lead to an ever increasing rate of genetic failures, I believe them. We had very famous examples of that in royal families across Europe for centuries. The first generation might not be as affected by it, but if you simply make incest something acceptable, the chances only unecessarily rise. There is a reason even cousins are borderline for most nations. 1st degree incest is the most problematic in that scenario.

Of course all of that is sort of irrelevant to lesbian incest.

And BugDevil: not only you are right about how for 1x1/2 you gotta be morbid to come here and read it, but also that Happy Sugar Life is an even worse wreck than this is.

I have a flair for using overdramatic word choices, so please don't get the wrong idea. I don't particularily think this manga is problematic or bad. It makes me uncomfortable in a certain way, but my "morbid curiosity" doesn't imply that I find it detestable.

Happy Sugar Life sure is something else though... I only brought it up because a certain someone was screaming "rape" and "abuse", two things that are not present in 1x1/2, but certainly in HSL.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 4:12AM

^Only one of the two things is canon though, so the suffering continues.

last edited at Jun 23, 2019 3:42AM

Well, tonari vampire was incredibly boring for me.... But I can't believe comic girls and Harukana flopped...

It's actually really rare for Kirara shows to sell well! They make their money back by inspiring people to buy the manga

I honestly wondered how CGDCT shows actually manage to keep coming back. It doesn't seem like there would be a huge market for it in anime. So it really was the advertisement angle.

She won't let her sleep tonight. Or any night. Coffee is scary.

Hmmmm... I'm trying to see this whole situation from Nene's perspective here, but it's rough. She hadn't been this spiteful at the start I feel. It might all fall in place if we actually find out her reason for breaking up, but for now I see nothing but cruelty and pressuring someone who is clearly not ready into a relationship.

I knew that Kou had already made up her mind the moment she took that picture, but she only realized that for good by the end of this chapter. I don't see any solution to the problem yet, but maybe she can find out more by being closer to Nene.

Senpai took another photo of Amane in pain... and she said that the photo Kou showed her was something she had never seen from Amane before. This just tells me that she never saw her truly happy ever since childhood. Does it make her envious? Or does she really prefer Amane's suffering, because it makes for the best pictures?
Either way, exploiting someone's heartache for a contest is wrong. Amane isn't modelling.
But indeed, real emotions make for the best pictures...

It is called "family planning" after all.

last edited at Jun 27, 2019 12:11AM

Deleting my response to BugDevil, since we probably agree more than we disagree on the main point, and ^ @Nene was really the point I should have been making anyway.

Why, now I just feel deprived of a good post. Alas, Nene isn't wrong (except for the part about Japan not having haters and aggressive posters in forums lol).
Still, discussion and conflict of ideas keeps the world turning, never forget that. Empty mudslinging against a tag or genre is quite pointless, but critisizing a work in detail or disagreeing with how a topic is handled is not something to be denounced. Otherwise we get echo chambers.

Not that either of you has been advocating for that... I think. So I'll shut up now.

last edited at Jun 22, 2019 7:14PM

Doesn't make it any less bad of course. But a good author can sell anything, right?

Sound argument but good and bad and moral taboos are all relative terms. Depending on time and place same things may be considered normal and good or wrong and bad.

Point taken I suppose, but in this current year of our timeline, in 90% of all countries and thanks to our inherent genetics, incest is almost unanimously seen as wrong. It is a taboo. It is morally questionable when it concerns a parent and child in particular.

The biggest softening factor in yuri incest is the inability to procreate, which at least takes away the issues of genetic defects. That doesn't help with the psychological fallout and that it is still socially unacceptable, but I mean, this is fiction and this story doesn't shy away from the fact that it's a heavy taboo. No matter how this manga ends, I doubt it will have the message "Love whoever you want to love, even if its your mom".

Amazing how many people are fine with, say, professional assassins as protagonists without thinking that professional hitmen will become “normalized.”

rolls eyes
Assassins aren't portrayed as morally upright (most of the time) and neither do many people have the option to become one. If media suddenly started to portray assassination as the good thing to do and the best way to solve conflicts, ya think the talk of assassinating Trumpty Dumpty and other political figures wouldn't become more widespread (than the firghteningly real amount of advocates that already exist)?

As I already mentioned in the same comment you so graciously referenced, there is merit in telling a story about morally questionable things. Because real life doesn't work in black and white. It's good to explore taboos for the sake of broadening one's horizon.

Doesn't make it any less bad of course. But a good author can sell anything, right?

^Should I laugh or sigh at this point? I mean I quite literally made fun of the guy for saying something so wrong and yet I still get lumped into the same category. Guess for now I'll just shrug. shrugs

last edited at Jun 22, 2019 6:21PM

Feast your eyes, everyone. Child abuse, incest and rape. It's so CUTE!

This isn't the [Happy Sugar Life] thread. Weird how many people took a wrong turn today.

^ Image source?

Bocchi's Bizarre Friendventure
Hitoribocchi. Just the cutest manga and a real pallette cleanser after this incest stuff I'd reckon!
https://dynasty-scans.com/series/hitoribocchi_no_oo_seikatsu

last edited at Jun 22, 2019 4:30PM