I wanted to revisit this thread for clarification, but also due to it being clear that mods are tolerant of hate speech, harassment, and otherwise abusive langue so long as the targeted user is deemed an "unacceptable" and falsely accused of some prejudicial -ism. A word drop and suddenly you're less than dirt and to be ignored and trashed.

I know I am supposed to bring this to Mods, but the last mod I spoke with told me to be gay.

Why there is so much internal discord, vitriol, and lack of care and compassion within the LGBT+ Community, and why I even hesitate to say I am part of it. And frankly one reason why people outside are unwilling to support. Why care for a demographic who are at each other's throats?

Further, if Transbian is the term for sexual attractions between Ciswomen and Transwomen or between Transwomen, then I will use Lesbian to refer specially to sexual attraction between Ciswomen.

The ironic fact of the matter is that if you're using Transbian then somewhere you recognize that Lesbian is it's own thing, but when I further point that out I am a "Transphobe". Studies show the redefining or appropriation of words, instead of coining new ones to actually reflect increased understandings in diversity, is harming everyone involved.

Acknowledging this is not having something against Trans people. It's being against lazy verbiage that's hurting people.

There is no inherent wrong or evil to Cis-Normative and Hetero-normative attractions, orientations, and social constructs. They're only harmful when forced or dictated or presumed and otherwise done out of prejudice. The same thing for Trans-Normative. There is no inherent right or good to being Trans or Homo over Cis and Hetero just as there is no inherent wrong to it.

Don't tell people to be gay to fit in, dear mods. The very problem we have is people moralizing these things.

If being a "Terf" means arguing that people's sexual attractions and loving relationships are legitimate and real, even if not Transwoman or Man aligned or where Transwoman and or Man is not present, and thus they have a right to decide what enters and what does not enter their bedrooms, then I am a Terf.

We all have a right to our own space.

What upset me wasn't the Trans discussion, but that the point of the story, which is ultimately a universal one we can all understand and appreciate, was being utterly dismissed because of cringe and a potential hatred for anyone outside the "Trans-Normative".

It's okay and healthy some times to accept being excluded. But that exclusion isn't absolute if the underlying message is understood. The complaint of the language the author used was needed language to prove the point that the characters were being harmed by the hetero-normative as well.

I asked what would better replace "No Boys" so that Trans were not exuded in a negative or perceived negative way, in a way that would avoid cringe, but I was told it was irrelevant. I am frankly at a loss. And no one can tell me how I was Transphobic.

It cuts even deeper when I, at a time, went through a Trans phase and met a lot of prejudice and rejection. I say Trans phase not to discredit other, but in my personal experience it was a phase. I realized in my personal Gender/Sex exploration, and spiritual and religious practice, that that phase had its importance in self discovery, but it lead me personally to an understanding of self without those disciminations thus beyond my self. I did not need to make changes to my body nor appearance to understand that.

I am not claiming some greatness, just explaining my personal experience. And I've got a ways to go.

This is not true for all Trans or Trans exploring, this is not defining how you should be, but just my experience. But if you want my honest opinion I will say that the over-attachment on both sides is harming us all. Note that I say over-attachment, not attachment. Defining self has its importance.

I asked why can't ciswomen have their own spaces not to discriminate with prejudice, but because if was understood what the characters were asking for, then there would be no cringe. It's from their perspective, which may not tell the whole story, but certainly explains what is legitimate for them. And if that reality were taken to heart then it would be understood that they were harmed by the same factors some here were harmed by.

I offer my own fault in poor presentation, I got upset in poor form, I let hurt get to me, and I won't sit and defend myself further to that, but these personal attacks, of which I did to no one, won't help.

last edited at Dec 26, 2022 3:48PM

I was actually hoping someone could clarify asexuality for me as I am a sexual person,

The prefix 'a-' can mean "on, in, at", "in such state or condition", "in the manner of", or "not or without" depending on conext. Therefore, the word asexual can mean to be without or to not have sex or to be in the state or condition of sex. Asexuality can be no sex and can be having sex.

However, if one derives some form of fulfillment from sex, isn't that just being sexual regardless of importance and or prevalence or rate of occurrence?

I would have to assume that asexuality is ultimately defined by a state of absence of sex that is sustained without any desire for sex and any derived fulfillment from sex. Rather, an asexual person may have sex, but they won't miss or desire sex after a time of not having it and or when never having had sex?

Asexuality is a spectrum.

Basically, asexuality means not being sexually attracted to others.

However, there's romantic asexuals, who have relationships, but not sex. There's aromantic asexuals, who have no desire for relationships. There's grey asexuals who do feel sexual attraction, under very specific conditions only. There's demi-asexuals, who feel sexual attraction only after getting to know someone and creating a bond with them. And others.

I just say "I'm just me."

For examples in webcomics, there's Erin in Girls with Slingshots.
Vincent in How to Be a Werewolf who's demisexual.
Fiona in Supernormal Step.
Hannelore in Questionable Content.
Shades of A, the protagonist is ace.
Dina in Dumbing of Age is grey-ace.

Note, the A in LBGTIA2S+ stands for asexual, NOT ally.
https://www.asexuality.org/

Thank you for a reasonable reply. Still a little interesting in "some asexual have sexual attraction" as even people who define as sexual are not interested in sex in every condition and wait until the relationship is at a certain step. I just find it a curious overlap, but ClevelandClinic defines Demi as asexual due to lower than average sexual interest. I'll leave it at that and won't bind the comments, but thanks again.

The more overlap understood the less discrimination there is.

Anyway, cute series. I'm glad they ended up together and have the time and space to figure things out for themselves.

last edited at Dec 14, 2022 1:35AM

As I was going to post before I replied to a comment of hate towards gender and sex being associated when both are relevant to sexual attraction, acts, and relationships, for many even if not absolutely so to some. Such hate can be interpreted as hating cis-gender people and those with specific orientation, which is why I responded with defense. And asked why those associations are hated instead of being seen as legitimate in their own right. And this all kicked off into a trial by fire for me to walk.

Brackets show what I have added to my originally intended post.

---

You know, I didn't even think about that when reading it, but now that I do, I totally see what you mean.

I guess one way to look at it is that these are the words that these characters needed to hear, not some broad truth for everyone. Makes me wonder if the author ever thought about transwomen though.

Which story are you two referring to? I think I understand which one it is, but I want to be fully certain before replying in full.

Well, I can’t speak for the original poster but there were two main things that definitely stuck out to me on first reading:

• The “I don’t have a dick!” justification on pg104. Just a small thing but doesn’t have the best implications if you think it through.
• “no boys allowed” on pg114 — it does make more sense in context, but it definitely still stirs some amount of discomfort in me due to the closet trans effect

But don’t get me wrong, I still love this story. It just has a bit more background radiation than usual.

Oh no, I enjoyed the stories overall as well. Though their struggles did sting me a bit too as someone who isn't Trans.
Thank you, I thought to post something, but I wanted to be clear as I worry about vitriol if I were to reply.

1. "I don't have a dick". I think she was just overly clarifying her sex because of the gap between her appearance and sex anatomy, which she has a bit of a personal complex over to start. Further, she recognized that some of the boys were gazing at the girls in their swimsuits and didn't want to cause alarm as a "boy" now coming into a girls changing room when occupied.

[I can see where "girl" not "having a penis" could offend some, but girl not having a penis is very much appropriate and relevant in many instances for many people. Otherwise, I am not certain where the absolute offense is.]

1. "No Boys Allowed". Here the possible offense is clearer as the phrase could be interpretated as being ignorant to or rejecting of Trans. But as with the first, Cis people also struggle with hetero-normative expectations as expressed in the story. There's common ground and understanding to be had there.

In Victorian times, women were assumed sexless or lacking of sexual desire thus could not initiate sex. Therefore, as this was the belief, any woman who initiated sex was insane or if lesbian they were part male as only men had such desires for women and could initiate sex. And many hetero women and lesbian women were institutionalized under this erroneous belief and subject to cruel "cures". This would continue into the 80's and influences remain.

One such example is that sex between women is not real sex if a man isn't involved to some degree, even if simply defining what a woman's sexual agency and ability is. This is in the same lane as romance between girls and women is just playing at love. Why the female characters in the story were hurt or genuinely though was just playing in the earlier story.

I liked Story 6 overall, but was irritated at first as they sort of set themselves up for it by commenting on how far the male character went. That and there's actually good reason to recognize a difference, at least in the potential outcomes, between fingers and penis. Otherwise, any sexual act is real sex regardless of reproductive potential, but some unfortunately belief otherwise. It's not fake nor playing at.

[It's sad, the hetero normative expectation caused harm to them and then conflict between them. Though I would say the lesson is not to hold other to be always aware, and one should be wary of basing self-esteem on other. I don't think the male character intended harm nor the author anything trans-phobic. I asked how the author could avoid such a thing in the future, but was told that didn't matter by.]

---

[Anyway, I meant I was done with the argument before, but this time I am done with the whole series, thread, and discussion. Treatment I received leaves me distrusting, but sadly I also expected vitriol and condemnation. My worries appear to have tipped my original approach, which is regrettable, but again, I didn't light the logs.]

last edited at Dec 13, 2022 10:19PM

Feel negative about a phrase used by two ciswomen lesbians, because they are tired of the hetero-normative definition that sex is not real if it does not involve a penis and or male to some degree in direct response to a male implying their sex isn't real.

lol saying trans people are heteronormative.

I'm not reading the rest of what you're saying. You can say "I'm not transphobic all you want", but even I can see you are. Also keep in mind attitude like your terfy garbage are not accepted on this forum, and you WILL probably be banned for this. I'd advise everyone reading this thread to just ignore this person, or you'll comments will prolly just end up being deleted when its cleaned up.

Let's try to actually talk about the comic at hand, and now some random phobe's outrage at people existing and being uncomfortable with cisnormativity.

I did not say that Trans people are hetero-normative. What I was saying is that there is common ground among Cis and Trans struggling with Hetero-Normative expectations, which this story clearly portrays for the cis side of the matter.

I think at this time your only effort is to harm and threaten and belittle and ostracize me while twisting what I said. To that end, I began with asking clarification of the specific stories involved and points of concern.

"You're a lair, garbage, terfy, should be ignored, bad things will be done to you..." I never said any of this to anyone here. I made nothing directly personal.

The discomfort and harm is shared, not unique to Trans nor Cis.

The author's intent is fair, but how should they have better presented it to avoid offense?

The author doesn't need to present it better. People were simply expressing how they felt about the story and why. That should have been the end of it.

So the offense is for offense sake and not context and not to see how it can be avoided... Maybe I was asking not for the author to literally do something, but so that I could better understand. Clearly, that's not wanted.

I'm seriously done. I wish you all well. This is abusive.

I am terribly sorry for wanting to know exactly why it hurt while bringing context to actual content. And if I can offer any actual apology it is that my wording may have been poor to start and for any harm that has brought. This was not my intent.

last edited at Dec 13, 2022 9:12PM

I think you're talking about something different from the posters you replied to. "No Boys Allowed" was only mentioned in one reply, and no one has brought it up since, other than yourself.

No Boys Allowed is part of the hetero-normative complaint and in the context of the story. Why not bring it up?

I think it's clear now that no discussion of the story and intent and context and concerns/struggles of the intended demographic is wanted.

And if you do have such discussion or ask questions, you're a transphobe with an ugly heart who bring up "irrelevant" things.

Got it. I will not respond anymore but finish my post on my understanding of the story and be done with it.

last edited at Dec 13, 2022 8:21PM

was afraid to cause a long discussion tbh. I hate them. I just wanted to say how the lines like pg104 "I am not a boy, I dont have a dick" and "only because we are both girls, I understand it" pg118, really struck a nerve.

I would also like to not derail it too much. It also kinda feels like a bad faith argument here.

It's a legitimate reason to feel uncomfortable and negative about it. You should be allowed to acknowledge you're uncomfortable by cisnormative writing without people jumpin' down your throat.

I didn't notice it myself while reading it, myself, but now that you mention it I do see whatcha mean too.

Feel negative about a phrase used by two ciswomen lesbians, because they are tired of the hetero-normative definition that sex is not real if it does not involve a penis and or male to some degree in direct response to a male implying their sex isn't real.

The writer had to write hetero-normative, to a point, to even tell the story and make the point. It wasn't to slight Trans even if not quite holistic.

I see a point of common understanding, but I also see a fault given to hetero-normative as being inherently wrong or ignorant or nefariously intended,

I understand it. "No Boys Allowed" appears to dismiss Trans under the premise that some Transwomen have a penis and are attracted to Women. The author could have used "No Boys and Trans Allowed" or "No Penis Allowed", but I can see the former offending some and the later doesn't wholly encompass the concern, which is not just direct involvement.

"No Boys Allowed" is just a general statement to cover the direct and indirect involvement of cismale as not being wanted, and any degree of male. Which is a fair emotion and want to have. Saying that is not jumping down people's throats.

The author's intent is fair, but how should they have better presented it to avoid offense?

Funny, I worried over long debated and vitriol for even asking for better understanding. Interesting how that works out.

last edited at Dec 13, 2022 7:51PM

Asking questions in actual and literal context to the story and characters is misrepresenting the feelings of people not in the story? Let's not start this with fallacies.

"I can understand where some of the slight and some of the pain can come from, but what causes that is not happening in these specific stories"

I dismissed no one's personal feelings. I recognized them. I simply explained, in context to the story, that "No Boys Allowed" was not an anti-Trans statement,but "we ciswomen want to have sex without a male, to some degree, being involved and defining it as real or not".

I then asked how the personal desire of these characters causes pain in those not involved in this specific relationship?

Some are hurt not by what the context nor story is saying, but outside context. I do not dismiss that.

You accuse me of an ugly heart, because you need me to be ugly thus make me so.

I have no fear of Trans. Likewise, I will not be intimidated by Trans.

I am discussing the story and asking question in context to it.

What have I actually said that is ugly and what have I said exactly that is Transphobic?

Edit: To clarify earlier statement, as I can see where that would cause confusion, I did not use the term intolerance to refer to some pedantic and personal accusation of some phobia or -ism. If so, I would have addressed people directly. What I meant is that the stories, particular Story 6, is about two women in a romantic/sexual relationship hurt by the notion that they can not have that without some male involvement or definition of it not being real. In rejection of this definition, they say, for at least a short period of time, "no boys allowed".

Where does Trans factor into that?

The intolerance I saw was of women wanting this ability, the characters wanting this ability, but then readers not seeing this and being hurt by what was not there in context to the content.

last edited at Dec 13, 2022 7:04PM

Nothing I said was Transphobic.Can you answer my questions instead of making this personal to me?

Women having their own sexual orientations, relationships, wants, bodily autonomy, and so on is not Transphobia. Stating one's fluidity is not the fluidity of another is not Transphobia. To say that not everything involves "you" is not Transphobia.

I did not equate Transwoman to Men. In fact I said "to some degree", which is not an equation. It is Trans identifying individuals in the comments offended by "no boys allowed". That's ironic.

Let's not go down this road. It is indeed very tiring.

last edited at Dec 13, 2022 5:52PM

some cute stuff owo
even though some words did sting abit as a transbian

Not a transbian but i know exactly the lines you're talking about, they made me cringe too

I hate how gender is associated with sex

Gender and Sex Characteristics are very much involved in sexual orientation, attraction and acts. Not absolutely, but they are still important.

What I see is an intolerance to women and their own relationships, attractions, and wants. Why is it a slight, why is it a harm, that lesbian women and women in general want, at least for some minutes while they have sex or change their clothes, to be without male involvement to some degree?

I can understand where some of the slight and some of the pain can come from, but what causes that is not happening in these specific stories.

Why can't women, even for a second, want a space and bodily autonomy without male to some degree? People have a right to say no to what they don't want in their sex, relationships, bodies, and other private spaces. That is all they meant by "No Boys Allowed".

The female characters are literally hurt by the implication that they can't have those things without male involvement or definition to some degree. Asserting Trans this way is no different.

It is healthy to have self-esteem when in isolation or when not included.

Why is the author accused as being potentially thoughtless of Transgender when they are writing stories about girls and women lesbian that show no indication of being Trans?

last edited at Dec 13, 2022 5:20PM

some cute stuff owo
even though some words did sting abit as a transbian

You know, I didn't even think about that when reading it, but now that I do, I totally see what you mean.

I guess one way to look at it is that these are the words that these characters needed to hear, not some broad truth for everyone. Makes me wonder if the author ever thought about transwomen though.

Which story are you two referring to? I think I understand which one it is, but I want to be fully certain before replying in full.

last edited at Dec 13, 2022 1:37PM

I was actually hoping someone could clarify asexuality for me as I am a sexual person,

The prefix 'a-' can mean "on, in, at", "in such state or condition", "in the manner of", or "not or without" depending on conext. Therefore, the word asexual can mean to be without or to not have sex or to be in the state or condition of sex. Asexuality can be no sex and can be having sex.

However, if one derives some form of fulfillment from sex, isn't that just being sexual regardless of importance and or prevalence or rate of occurrence?

I would have to assume that asexuality is ultimately defined by a state of absence of sex that is innately sustained without any desire for sex and any derived fulfillment from sex. Rather, an asexual person may have sex, or otherwise be exposed to sex, but they won't miss or desire sex after a time of not having it and or when never having had sex?

last edited at Dec 8, 2022 10:31PM

Or have a typical romance, again for the satisfaction of the reader, when that typical expectation isn't Asahi's primary interest?

Why would they end up together as a couple, for the satisfaction of the reader ? This is a romance story. Do the character end up as a couple ? The answer is yes, but the manga failed to depict that properly. The ending is so abrupt that we're never shown them as a couple; at best, we are told (through the confession) that they love each other. But due to the ending being so abrupt, it doesn't really tell much, or anything.

The appeal to realism argument would mean that they can equally have decided to never take their relationship further and act as platonic friends for the rest of their lives, and that the reader doesn't have a right to feel cheated by such an ending. I don't personally agree -- such an ending would certainly be "realistic" but it would be pretty poor, narratively, as the culmination of a romance story, and would be a waste of the interactions the characters had with each other. And, even for people who would be happy to see such an ending, the relationship the characters settle on should still be depicted properly.

After following the story until the end and the evolution of the characters, I feel that the readers "deserve" (if I may use such a word) to see how it ends. There are many ways this could have been shown : they might be going on a date, moving together, one might call the other their lover, partner, or whatever word feels right in front of others, or anything else that strikes the author's fancy. None of those is necessary because every couple can feel comfortable with different things, yet any of those would have shown them as a proper couple, rather than this vague ending. Kissing (along with marriage) happens to be one of the simplest, most unambiguous things to depict characters as a couple, and generally serves that purpose when used in the ending, but it's not the only option.

I feel that this ending correctly addresses the evolution of the characters in being able to properly express their feelings (as shown from the fact that they both confessed), but fails to provide a satisfying conclusion to their relationship and interactions towards each other.

Removed last to clarify... The initial post I replied to called for kissing, but now it's another option and I missed that part in the new argument.

Character's are real in context to the story and thus have their own agency. Therefore, my point is that there is a difference between finding satisfaction in how others actually are in their own right as opposed to finding satisfaction in our dictations of how other should be in our view.

As for the story, the writing style ends where is does as to clarify the objective of the characters and their feelings and probable development. And this allows for imaginative thinking in how they get there. In classic Japanese literature this is a satisfying ending and of what the author appears to have gone for. We know they love each other and that it's romantic, the rest is up to them and reader thought in context. Many find such ending satisfying.

How well the author made use of that is another story. But to imply that kissing and a traditional date is an option again ignores character agency in context to the story thus they're not options at all.

They address the lover aspect, but when Hinako's fear and doubt of labels and expectations surfaced, the satisfying resolution was leaving that matter to rest for now. The same for Asahi and her concerns or fears with romance/love. These concerns, fears, and doubts kept them suffering, uncertain, and separated. And now together they can face them over time in common upstanding and love and devotion which the moon shows is romantically inclined.

(sorry, I shouldn't be writing with a migraine..)

Accusing someone who ignores all the textual evidence of a fairly lengthy series of a failure of reading comprehension is far from being anything like a “personal insult”—it is a reasonable inference from the specious argument being made.

Anyone who asserts that a pioneering Class-S series written in 2003 (Marimite), a slice-of-life workplace series with an on-again-off-again yuri tease (Aquatope), and a carefully developed romance featuring ace characters (Crescent Moon) are essentially the same obviously is more committed to breezy generalizations than to reading stories in their context.

EDIT:

Kissing (along with marriage) happens to be one of the simplest, most unambiguous things to depict characters as a couple, and generally serves that purpose when used in the ending, but it's not the only option.

This assertion seems to handwave away the context of the story and the development arc of the characters. These are ace characters for whom even holding hands is a new and somewhat alien experience; a depicted kiss (or one of the unstated alternatives) would be entirely for the benefit of skeptical readers.

Sorry for the confusion, the "don't resort to personal insult" was directer to the Uploader comment about chasing phantoms. Pointing out clearly missed context is not a personal insult.

Class-S was a mixed bag of painful reality and social idealism. I wouldn't generalize the genre as one or the other. Though rare, some Class-S did depict sexual/romantic relationships that lasted beyond school.

last edited at Dec 8, 2022 9:23PM

Bit of a downer ending. Even if they're not interested in kissing, we could at least have had a flashforward of them as a couple. The ending happens to be a confession, but then there's no kiss, no romantic date, and no plans together for the future. For a romance manga, this is a bit disappointing as an ending. Anything that would cement them as a romantic couple, beyond a few words that have often been misused in yuri manga, would have made this more satisfying.

Why would they kiss for the sanctification of the reader when they themselves don't want to? Or have a typical romance, again for the satisfaction of the reader, when that typical expectation isn't Asahi's primary interest?

In fact, trying to live up to the labels and expectations of others, for the fulfillment of other, is exactly why both of them suffer and can not connect their own love.

They absolutely do plan on staying together, both say as much. And the moon representing romantic love is classic to Japanese romantic literature. The story ends with a full moon or their love for one another realized, even if it does not fit into labels of the expectations of others.

Like I said. No reading comprehension. They can literally confess, say I love you and lets stay together forever and it's still not enough.

There's a long history in anime and manga of two female characters telling each other "I love you," after which one or both hook up with a guy anyway. The issue is what happens after they say it, but this story just ends there. To me, that comes across as "so close, yet so far."

I'll also keep it at that. Yes, I'm annoyed, but hey, there's so much more to read out there.

You're fighting phantoms of your own making. The story has plainly laid out the feelings and circumstances of Hinako and Asahi. They are asexual. They are romantically interested in one another. They are moving forward on that basis. What elements are missing to make them qualify as a couple, in your eyes?

Can this not be discussed without personal insult. There enough contextual evidence to use without making it personal.

It is clear that Hinko and Asahi are in love with each other and the reference to the moon at the end is romantic in meaning. The latter being classic Japanese poetic symbology for romantic love. And in classic Japanese romantic literature the implicit or objective whole is preferred over the explicit or subjective dissection typical of Western romantic literature.

This is not the same as when some manga and anime hide or detract from lesbianism for some moral purpose. History is not evidence of every occurrence.

Otherwise, Hinako's concern is if they can truly be lovers, even if she may not be interested in or capable of kissing kissing and going further. Asahi otherwise assures her they can be.

---

Anyway, I'm gonna go listen to Haddaway.

What is love!? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me. No more.
What is right, what is wrong?
I need you forever..
The moon is full...

last edited at Dec 8, 2022 6:03PM

I understand and appreciate the effort to keep things civil, but in effort to respect the artist and their efforts I think it unfair to censor their works and discussion of it, in context, because of some bad actors and or out of context interpretation.

don't forget about the very first time that you guys had to shut down a convo that devolved into accusations of alt accounts and discord servers. this manga's comment section is wild

My explanations went into a further depth, and I acknowledged they may have gotten a bit complex, but they were in context. I even posted contextual links in the initial post. I did not insult people. I did not accuse people. And I did not create an alt account nor speak on discord. I don't even have discord.

Be mindful of who you accuse.

Thank you,

This discussion full stops here. I will not reply to comments.

last edited at Nov 16, 2022 12:15AM

it's time to end this conversation. when things devolve to personal insults it's time to stop.

if it continues we will have to step in. if you insult forum members, i will ban you and delete your posts. thanks.

I am not entirely certain on which conversation is being banned. The insulting identity politic discord or Aya's initial gender miss-identification in context to the actual story? Context includes Mistuki's general social anxiety lead insecurities that overlap with, but are ultimately unrelated to "Onii-san".

I understand and appreciate the effort to keep things civil, but in effort to respect the artist and their efforts I think it unfair to censor their works and discussion of it, in context, because of some bad actors and or out of context interpretation.

And if we're censoring identity comments, then wlftchtr82 comment should probably be removed as well. This discord started with an "essentially trans" argument and wlftchtr82 has made an "essentially bisexual" argument. And both are out of context. I am not discussing those essentials, only what's contextually relevant.

And I write this not to single out any use nor presume or accuse intent, there is no negative intention to wlftchtr82's comment, but to point out that this ban is ambiguous.

last edited at Nov 15, 2022 4:46PM

lol, the matsuri death stare xD

As a Yuu-Sensei fan I say Matsuri needs to stare much harder...

What is love?
Oh, baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Baby, don't hurt me, don't hurt me
No More
What is love?
Yeah

Oh, I don't know, what can I do?
What else can I say? It's up to you
I know we're one, just me and you
I can't go on

In need you forever, is it love?

Haddaway - What is Love?

last edited at Oct 14, 2022 3:04PM

Yet again NaritaGOD proving that he is the best character of the series and closing the mouths of those who thought bad of him bc he is a teen man

So, the typical teen man thinks he can manipulate girls to his satisfaction at the girl's expense? Narita states in thought that he's used to wrapping girls around his finger (manipulate) to his self satisfaction. That's how he approached Mistuki, which when he didn't get what he wanted out of her he openly mocked her in class. Aya then called Narita out for his harmful treatment of others.

Given actual content and context to the series, where were people thinking bad of him simply because he's a teen man?
If people were thinking bad of him simply for being a teen man, then all his actual wrongs must be indicative of being a teen man.

The issue wasn't comments calling him out, but condemning him thus preventing "redemption". A redemption that started after Aya called him out and Mitsuki confronted him.

The back-swing then was to condemn while the forward-swing now is to absolve. And yet neither are the truth of the matter. Narita did wrong, but that's clearly not the whole of his person.

last edited at Oct 9, 2022 6:01PM

I have experienced being catfished by association (my friend was the one being deceived by her own roommate, I was introduced too). I know the anger of being deceived. I also tried pretending to be someone else so I can talk an old friend again. That friend knew all along that is was me. Both situation didn’t yield any good outcome. A lot of problems can be solved by being true to ourselves but where do we get the courage to come out? Can we find in ourselves to forgive and be forgiven?

This sort of thing is why I argue that while people have a right to safe places and their insecurities, we do not have a right to deceive and harm others to preserve that safe space or insecurity. This doesn't mean to condemn someone for doing so as such a response simply causes more harm, but this doesn't negate responsibility either nor saying what needs said even if it hurts.

I'm hoping that Mitsuki is the one to take the first step here, even if Semi-Jerkface* has to push her. Or at least if directly confronted doesn't still try to keep up the facade.

*I hope he gets a name at some point.

last edited at Sep 27, 2022 12:12AM

Maybe it is reflective of her newfound ability to use love-related terminology more, but even that is strange. Maybe we'll get more about her weird use of terms in future chapters, idk. (Or I wonder if the official translation will differ here.)

Anyway, at the beginning of the series it seems like Hinako is aromantic and asexual. Now, it seems like Hinako may be romantically into Asahi while Asahi is romantically and sexually into Hinako. But it still isn't completely clear; Hinako might be sexually into Asahi too. I suspect the last few chapters will clarify that.

I understood nothing of what you said 0.0 I only know of the friend having some interest in one of the characters but the asexual or aromantic thing tied to any of the two MC??? eh? were did they come from???

Hinako has only shown an aversion to dating and having intimate physical contact with men. This seemingly exacerbated by her mother's incessant criticism and pressure on her to find a man and get married so she can "finally do something" with her life. However, she clearly has a natural affinity for women where neither aversion has been shown to exist.

As for Asahi, there's little to go on, but she doesn't appear averse to the typical romantic development either. It's more that her family trauma and zealous and selfless care towards her sister has left her own feelings or desires unexplored.

That said and regardless of labels, they're both going at their own paces to discover love for themselves on their own terms while being compassionate to one another. And I'll leave it at that.

last edited at Sep 26, 2022 11:20PM

Well, we've averted the French Revolution for now and have rowed right into partisan shipping lanes.

I do like how this series approached serious matters. It was good to see lesbianism and gender brought up and not used as fault or excuse. This furthering the "not Yuri Yuri" movement in the genre. However, I wish the author made it clearer that Rei's harassing treatment of Claire is a matter of individual personality and not a result of being a lesbian.

Unfortunately, I'm also getting some Shitsurakuen vibes from this story given that Rei is lecherous, manipulative, and her love isn't as selfless as she lets on. Rei does get a bit of a pass for this until Lady Manaria challenges her. Both of them fighting over Claire is obnoxious. And I think it's clear that Claire will be mad at both of them.

Then again, Manaria goes overboard and against the grain of all the primary characters, so I wonder if she's actually the masked villain or another isekai character who somehow ended up in Rei's game. Rei saying she can never beat Manaria is a possible flag that Manaria may be a final boss. Or simply that Rei doesn't have to beat Manaria for Claire's affection.

always find it stupid how characters say you clearly don't love someone enough even though you are respecting their boundaries and space and not constantly harassing them especially after they have told you they aren't into you yet.

This sounds a lot like Rei. And whether someone is into you or not doesn't excuse nor make abusive treatments better or worse. There is no especial here as far as I see it.

Hmmm well for me, I was so grateful that this twist happened, because to be honest that matsuri/festival chapter with the mask was when I realized, hey, this can't keep going like this, it felt like a filler, and naturally the end of the Act 1 was over.
And let's be honest, 70 % of the drama is in this forum of things that could or would or should happen, I bet a lot of people feel unnecessary overwhelmed, but in the story itself things are still okay.

The timeline is a bit confusing, but regardless I think this chapter shows Aya has realized Mitsuki and Onii-san are one in the same person.

What's I find a bit odd though is that Mitsuki is oblivious when her fear of being identified is supposedly pathological or compulsive. I also don't quite comprehend how Mitsuki is seemingly oblivious to why she can't leave Aya alone now.

I mean, up until now it certainly appeared Mistuki was hiding her identity to continue a relationship that she already knew had a romantic direction to it.

last edited at Sep 4, 2022 8:23PM

Sora's mother lives in Hokkaido and the class trip has brought them to Hokkaido, so I am assuming her mother has made her return. If I recall correctly, the mother's permission for Sora to stay behind was temporary and conditional. And the matter between them hasn't been fully resolved yet.

Considering that the mother started a new family and seemed pretty glad to have her out of the way, I don't really see why she would get involved unless she absolutely needs to.

Maybe the mother isn't as heartless as made out to be?

^ and a lot of this is due to the sister.

I do believe that Rinne is acting with good intention, but she's also an enabler who has dependency issues of her own to work through. She also seems to find some misplaced pride or special status in being the sibling of an individual with a disability.

That said, I would argue that Rinne has simply exacerbated strongly reactive, self-loathing, and even jealous tendencies Saki already had as opposed to creating them.

imma gonna give saki an +A for not being bright but having manage to used that one cell to realize she is in love with canon. welp not that being dense has anything to do with being bright though, atleast she can put two and two together.

Yeah, but to Saki 2+2 = Pitch Fork. She's really isn't stupid, but she is under so much internal and external pressure that she increasingly can't see the moment and Kanon in it.

last edited at Sep 3, 2022 9:42PM

I guess I’m too stupid to follow all the nuances of this argument, but I for one never thought there was a chance in hell that Kanon liked the teacher.

I based that belief on the premise that, although there certainly are manga where students like/have crushes on/get involved with teachers, Kanon was not that student, the teacher was not that teacher, and this was not that manga

Honestly, I don't see any romantic liking by Kanon for Miura-Sensei no matter of subtle or explicit considerations. To presume or project a romantic liking between them in any direction is exactly what Saki does and Kanon laments over and calls out. Kanon does like Miura-Sensei, but that liking is platonic appreciation or even admiration for him being knowledgeable, humble and fair with her.

Likewise, I am failing to see any and all potential and or manifested "internalized homophobia" within Saki. This argument feels to me to simply be victimization for sake of argument. To see "internalized homophobia" when all Saki has expressed are social conventions is to claim all hetero social conventions as inherently homophobic. This especially confusing when most "hetero" conventions are not hetero exclusive. The closest to homophobia is Saki's excuse of going to an all girls school making Kanon "safe", but ignorance itself dos not equate to prejudicial or irrational fear.

Ultimately, the "ulterior motive" isn't romantically or physically liking someone of the same-sex, but the notion of love or some other arguably self-serving motivation as inherently ulterior or bad. Thus, it's even "worse" to have a self-motivation involving someone with a disability. This judges the person as a disability in need of special treatment, not an individual to be treated fairly.

last edited at Sep 3, 2022 7:19PM