Forum › Posts by Lifecharacter

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

I await the inevitable, exasperating explanations and justifications for why Ririha and Isuzu behave the way they do and how they aren't just intolerable, manipulative bullies who deserve nothing but our disgust and disapproval.

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Weep everyone, for the totally not-nazis who insist on using nazi imagery and threatening websites who don't really want nazi imagery on their stuff. Also for transphobic idiots, unsurprisingly.

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Must be hard using rational thinking and not just scream racism when you see a symbol at the very end of a smut manga that resembled something else once.

"Resembled" is a nice way to say that it's the exact same symbol save for a change of logo in the circle. A logo that just happens to now be the one for a website where the people too shit for fucking 4chan ran away to. You'll have to excuse my lack of rational thinking in being able to recognize symbols and take note of where the came from. Also how I've never actually screamed (or said, really) racism. You know because who could ever describe the conspiracy theory of "the immigrants are coming to exterminate the white race with miscegenation" as racist?

Speaking of conspiracies.

https://dynasty-scans.com/forum/topics/12602-mermaids-lovers-discussion?page=1#forum_post_300561

"These are their ideal lesbians: fictional and fetishized. Lesbians are cool so long as they exist only to entertain men. It's when they want things like rights and respect that they become the blight that is bringing the entirety of western civilization to its knees."

...That's not a conspiracy? That's an explanation of why people who typically oppose LGBT rights (and existence more generally) aren't violently opposed to all depictions of lesbians everywhere. Because when the lesbians aren't real and exist for the sake of their entertainment, it's all good.

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Shockingly, when you openly state that you're going to tolerate nazi shit, you get the same boring, repeated bullshit they spread everywhere. "lol TRIGGERED!" (which is apparently the highest form of comedy considering how many people repeat it which such satisfaction) "It's ironic and a joke and sarcasm and satire, don't you get it!" "Umm, actually, nazi symbols aren't really nazi symbols and everyone should just pretend that my use of nazi symbols in a context where they're very clearly meant to be nazi symbols is really referring to the true meaning of nazi symbols." And now "nazis are the real victims of a grand conspiracy to import immigrants to Germany and destroy the white race!"

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

I'm utterly shocked that the sort of people frequenting the scum pit and using nazi iconography are composed of assholes who are insistent on nazi iconography being included or else. But they're only doing it as an ironic joke, honest.

How thick does one's skin need to be before they stop having a problem with nazis again?

Since I never said anything about the manga, I guess I should do it here to avoid spending too much time on the topic. It was okay? The arts what you'd expect from the artist and there's plenty of fanservice, but I'm not really feeling it. It's already been mentioned that Tsukasa probably shouldn't have left the suicidal woman on the roof as she leapt away feeling heroic, but the action seems a little lackluster as well.

You shouldn't introduce the protagonist as someone who can just casually jump up a skyscraper to catch someone falling and then not follow up with that in fight scenes. Nothing she does when fighting a bunch of mercenaries is something that you wouldn't see if the story was about a girl who was just really good with her swords. She uses her sword to pull someone down into a knee and then cuts a dude's leg off, all while Xinling is the one jumping around kicking and bodyslamming people. You don't even see Tsukasa moving around during the fight outside of one panel where she's charging forward with Xinling; every other time it's just her arms moving.

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Look where the translation came from. Shouldn't really surprise anyone that nazi shit comes out of that shithole.

What I don't understand is why the neo-nazis have a yuri board to begin with

These are their ideal lesbians: fictional and fetishized. Lesbians are cool so long as they exist only to entertain men. It's when they want things like rights and respect that they become the blight that is bringing the entirety of western civilization to its knees.

last edited at Jul 16, 2017 3:39AM

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

whats with the nazi shit on the credits page

Look where the translation came from. Shouldn't really surprise anyone that nazi shit comes out of that shithole.

Lifecharacter
Image Comments 30 Jun 17:03
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013
Tumblr_orepagg3pp1rvzjc8o1_r1_1280

Maybe Maria's just lifting Tsubasa and the bike through Tsubasa's head, with Tsubasa holding onto the bike with her hands and thighs?

Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Ok it starts getting hard to read. Kobalos gives you facts from manga that Kou doesn't want to be child's father and is perfectly willing to act like distant uncle. And yet you are now suggesting Kobalos is using some general, made up examples to explain their point. You talk how bond between biological father and child is so strong, important and not easy to erase. Nobody denies it, but in case of Kou he himself said he doesn't want to be child's father, so he himself doesn't feel any strong bond. Sure he can change his mind later etc. cos biology, but right now he has no desire to be anything more than a occasional babysitter. So yea, you are the one that keeps on dismiss how things look in actual manga and instead base it on your viewpoint trying to insert feelings that were not show in manga, as something that is factual.

If Kobalos wants to limit their argument to facts from the manga, then I suggest they not start discussing how being a sperm donor who is involved with the resulting child's life has no greater meaning than that of any other genetic relative like a niece. And when they actually limit their arguments to facts from the manga, I won't then respond by discussing how there's a little more to that relationship than that, and thus a little more to Michael's issue than him taking advantage of Kou's agreement to babysit a niece that is just a niece and nothing more to pressure him.

No, he has no rights whatsoever for a child.

And nowhere did I indicate that he did.

You are ignoring the crucial point that Kou was asked to give sperm so couple can have a child. It's not like he made a child randomly and then give it away to someone who asked, despite his partner wanting to have child. He is doing a favor and without doing it, he wouldn't have means to have a kid anyway. Kou is not giving child away to spite Michael. Imagine you want to buy a house and live with your partner in it, but you don't have money for it. Then your partner's friends decided to buy a house for themselves and took a loan, but they needed someone to back up for them in case they can't pay it off, so your partner agreed to it. Would you then go and say that you have right to live in the house because you are partially involved into making it?

No, but then I wouldn't compare the desire to have a child and the existence of the literal child you want to the desire to have a mortgaged house. For one there's the emotional weight to it all that apparently doesn't exist because why would you ever be emotionally invested in having a child with your partner, and then there's the difference between "I'm no ready for a kid" and "we can't afford a house." One's a state of financial reality and the other's a personal view on the status of their life and their willingness to start a family. I swapped them around a few times so it's a puzzle to tell which one's which.

That is the same case here. They could ask for anyone's sperm. Kou agreed to it and agreed to not be a child's parent or involved more than necessary. So his bf from all people has no right to the child, because it's not theirs.

Sure, he can be angry etc. but he really has no rights to and throwing a tantrum over it, actually make him pretty self-centered and not a good partner to be with.

Good to know that taking issue with your partner fathering a child that he gets to be involved with to some degree but who you will always be separate from even though it is literally the thing you want makes you a bad partner who throws tantrums. Though maybe if they didn't want to have to deal with the complicated issues of involving the sperm donor in the child's life, going against all good sense, entitled jerks like Michael wouldn't show up and ask to be included in the complicated mess they want to bring his partner into and to have a more meaningful role than honorary babysitter.

But I'm not talking generally - I'm talking specifically about this manga. I don't understand why you're insisting on forcing a generality to my statements that isn't there.

If you won't do me the basic respect of reading my posts, I'm not going to reply any further. Feel free to continue insulting me based on an invented caricature of what I've said.

I seem to be the only one showing you the basic respect of reading your posts. I mean, I could ignore that part where you weren't talking specifically about this manga, but that would be, as you said, disrespectful.

Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

But that's irrelevant. My brother isn't biologically related to me, but he's every bit my brother. Meanwhile, I have genetic siblings that I would never consider to be family. Your insistence upon being the determining factor in familial relationships is both reductive and insulting. Adoptive parents are no less parents because they have no genetic relation to their child. Similarly, a biological progenitor has no innate right to the sociological label of "parent" if they don't fulfill that actual role in the child's life.

No, it's not irrelevant. Turns out people have emotions and form strong bonds with children. The only one insisting on a single determining factor here is you, as you continue to do nothing but completely dismiss the relationship between all sorts of parents and their children. I never said adoptive parents are less parents than biological (this entire thing started with a discussion of Michael, who wouldn't be the biological father after all) nor that biological parents have the right to the legal and social title of parent. What I did say is that it's not some simple, easy process of never ever forming emotional connections with children that are stronger than the one's you're supposed to based on an agreement you made with your friends (or your partner's friends) and nothing else.

I don't understand this sentence. Kou-kun isn't a father and actively rejects that label. You can't just enforce an interpretation of a character that's not only openly false, but openly denied. Kou-kun does not consider himself the father. There's no "emotional weight" being placed on him. In fact, his objection is mainly to the fact that he'd rather not be involved at all, because he assumes the involvement they're asking for is more than it is.

I'm fully aware you don't understand it. That's part of the issue, though the bigger part is that you insist that your inability to understand means that parents and their emotional connection with their children are these simple things that you can just consciously choose to not have. And, of course, that if you ever want a child and become frustrated that your partner is more interested in having a child to give another family you are just being an unreasonably selfish jerk.

Not "involved" to the extent your sentence implies. He'll exist as a distant relative or godfather--which Kou-kun actively wants--to babysit on occasion, but will have no parental role in the child's life. They basically just want to be able to offer an explanation to the child if they ask. They're not asking Kou-kun to be a parent, and Kou-kun does not want to be a parent.

He's involved. He's there. The reason you don't get your friends to be your sperm donor is to prevent the donor from being involved with the child and complicating the situation. We can all pretend that everything always goes as perfectly as it was planned and that no complications will ever happen so long as that jerk Michael stays silent about his own desire to have a family.

That's why Michael's claim on the child is ridiculous. Michael has no social or genetic stake in the child's life; why is he insisting on being considered its parent? He's not, in any capacity.

He's insisting on being a parent to his partner's child because he wants to be a father and its his partner's child. And maybe don't go on about not having a stake in a child's life when discussing a manga about homosexual parents where one parent is always lacking in stake when compared to the other. God forbid the partner of a biological parent dare want to be considered a parent while not being one of the protagonists.

And I never said it was unreasonable. My contention is the fact that Michael is asserting a place in a child's life that Kou-kun is actively rejecting.

He's asserting that he wants a place in a child's life and that he has a problem with the literal child he wants being out there if he has no place in their life. Because he doesn't live in the weird fantasy where he can just turn off his emotions and form a legal agreement with others to have no feelings for the child he wants.

I don't understand the hostility in your post, tbh. You seem annoyed that I disagree with you and are behaving rudely towards me because of it. Please drop the patronising attitude.

I'm annoyed because someone who can't even understand why Michael might have an issue is kind of annoying. It's not that you disagree, it's that you've just decided that anyone who disagrees with you is just being wholly unreasonable and has no logic to their position. Imagine seeing something you really want, like a life goal of yours that will form a major piece of your future. Then imagine that your partner wants to come into possession of such a thing and then immediately gives it away to someone else right in front of you. I would hope that you could understand why you might have some issue or frustration with such a situation.

Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

How is that a problem, though? Kou-kun has a child that's genetically related to him but that he has no parental involvement with, nor any desire to be parentally involved with, which is pretty much exactly the same as having a niece or a cousin. I'm more than willing to babysit for my uncle or aunt if there's a need, but if a girlfriend of mine decided to use my willingness to exist as a genetic relative as leverage to demand I raise a child with her in a parental capacity, that would be ridiculous.

Because no amount of "But he's just an 'Uncle,' and noting more" will stop him from being the biological father. In cases where the donor is anonymous and completely uninvolved and unaware of the child's life, that's not a problem. But here's the biological father running around, and here's Michael, the father's partner who really wants a kid. When you stop pretending that there's literally no emotional weight put on being someone's actual father that isn't there as an uncle, it's a lot easier to understand.

I just don't understand Michael's logic. His insistence upon being considered a "father" to the lesbian couple's child is nonsensical when you factor in that not even Kou-kun considers himself a father. It seems like either Michael doesn't understand that you can be genetically related to someone and not be a parent or he's trying to pressure Kou-kun into having children with him when Kou-kun isn't ready and this is a poor excuse for it. Either way, Michael is being unreasonable.

They wanted a complicated situation where the biological father is openly and happily involved in the child's life, and, shockingly, that leads to complications. Wanting to have a child with your partner isn't unreasonable. Taking issue with your partner having a child whose life he is involved with and who you will likely interact with isn't unreasonable. It's a completely understandable reaction. People's emotional connection with children is literally the reason you get anonymous donations that come with clear, legal separation between the donor and the child.

Seriously, parent-child relationships are incredibly powerful and complicated things and if you can't understand that than there's literally no reason to keep trying to explain this to you. And no, saying "but he's not the actual parent" does not somehow dissolve that.

Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

It's not his child, though; the actual parents were very clear that they wanted him as a distant godfather that could babysit on occasion, just so they had an explanation to give the child for how they were born. He'd have absolutely no parental role in their life, and therefore he isn't their father, and they aren't his child.

And that's the problem: they want a babysitter who's around when it's convenient for them. Michael wants to be a dad and start a family with Kou and wants to be involved with any children Kou is having. But that's supposed to make him some unreasonably selfish person crushing our heroes' dreams rather than someone who is basically in the same position as them.

Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

I mean, it's genetically related to him, sure, but a regular niece would be genetically related to him, too, and I'm sure Michael wouldn't argue that Kou-kun refuse his familial status as an uncle. I mean, they were all clear that he won't be part of the familial unit raising the child anyway, so the genetic relation is irrelevant, unless Michael also wanted to argue that adopted parents have less parental rights than a biological parent who's never seen the child.

It's a bit ridiculous for Michael to essentially demand Kou-kun never involve himself in a child's life unless Michael is allowed to exist as a parental figure. What if someone wanted to make Kou-kun a godfather? Would that be unacceptable, too?

I dunno. I can't even understand it, logically.

It'd be easier to understand if you didn't obfuscate it as if we're talking about literally any child related to Kou. It's just his actual child, a child that he will be involved with as a family member. It helps to not add extra information that exists for no other reason than to make someone you disagree with look more unreasonable when trying to understand someone's position.

If you wanted to start a family with your partner, them going off to involve themselves in another family that you are separate from is clearly an issue. Maybe if Hiroko and Koyuki didn't insist on their donor being involved with the child it would be less an issue, but they're set on that for some reason and thus you get problems such as this.

Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

I don't really see the sexism in Michael's position. You could argue he's being somewhat selfish, but so is everyone else in this situation. He wants to have a child who will consider him its father and that's a perfectly understandable desire for him to have. In fact it's the exact same desire that the protagonists have. And here's his partner agreeing to help create a child, but a child who will never call him father.

Imagine if a gay couple approached the protagonists with a similar offer: have their child and be somewhat involved as aunts. Disregarding the difference in what their help would entail (pregnancy being more intensive than sperm donation), would you be angry at them for turning their friends down? Would you be angry with their desire to be mothers instead of aunts?

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Oh hey, cameo from the bully's friends. https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/pranking_the_pranker#8

Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

I really don't like how this is pushing the apparent need to have the sperm donor personally involved in the child's life. I could understand the practical issues with Japan not really allowing homosexual couples to use more official sources of donated sperm, but the donor does not need to be intimately involved with a child's life. As much as it pushes the idea that the child will apparently experience an existential crisis if it doesn't know who the sperm donor is, what's the impact going to be when you tell the child "that's your father, no he's not your parent, we're your parents"?

Other people have said it already, but it comes across as if they don't just want to have a child, they want to have an "uncle" who'll always be there for them and their child but will be required to keep enough of an emotional distance that he doesn't eventually want to become more involved in his child's life.

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

She said she might have feelings for her but hold back because she didn't think it would work. Also idea that 16 years old (or how old they are) can't give a consent is just retarded. You can make as much rules about it in law as you want, but 16 years old date, have sex and in general are closer to be adults than being a child. We don't know all details, so we don't know how exactly it went, but from what she says it seems like interest was mutual. She is know to be flirting with people left and right and likes to experiment. So to me it seems like she felt something for teacher, wanted to check if it is, they did it and she liked it, but for some reason ultimately didn't go for it or maybe because she didn't say she liked her but instead said it was just a 1 time or something, teacher didn't take her seriously after it. Or they got catch during/after that first time. And teachers are people too. She might actually have some interest in her as well. She definitely didn't act professional as a teacher, but I have no issue with adults as long as there is consent on both sides and younger one is 16 or so, which is when you are old enough to know wtf you are doing. As long as she wasn't forced to it and was fully aware of what she was doing, I can't see her as being a victim, just because she wasn't legally a adult yet hence she can avoid responsibility for all her actions. We don't talk here about 10 years old or younger who has no idea what is happening. Not to mention the legal age for marriage and sex for women in Japan in some places is as low as 16 years old.

A child's feelings on the matter do not give them some extra-judicial right to consent to sex. They're still a child regardless of backwards places deciding that it's perfectly fine to allow adults to take advantage of children. The parts of the brain that are relevant to decision making don't reach actual maturity until around age 25, so 16 is not borderline adulthood and thus open for whatever adult feels like creeping on children. I don't know what nostalgia or image you have of sixteen year olds, but they do not have the world figured out and are thus capable of engaging in complex and potentially abusive relationships with adults.

And that's without getting into the inherent power imbalance of the relationship. The teacher is already an adult and thus has some authority and power over the child, but as a teacher that authority and power is magnified immensely. There's a reason people in positions of authority such as doctors, teachers, and employers aren't supposed to start relationships with you, even when you're an adult, and it's not because you are eternally considered someone who doesn't know wtf they are doing.

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

gamagoori posted:

so she was involved with a teacher and the STUDENT gets a year suspension? like in what universe is statutory rape something punish the victim for, especially with an entire year suspension. i'm sure the teacher got off worse but why would you even bother punishing the student

Where it says she was the victim? From the way she speaks about it it gives impression she was the one to flirt and seduce teacher. Also calling it statutory rape when most likely both sides, especially underage one, was ok with it and possibly the one that initiated it, sounds really off to me.

Unless she forced herself on the teacher, she is the victim. And, unless the teacher was within a certain age range (unlikely), having sex with a child is inherently sexual assault because a child cannot give consent. And no, "being seduced" is not a defense; if you're an adult you're supposed to be capable of withstanding the seduction of children.

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

So are images of sexy lady teachers something you can just unintentionally run into on the internet in Japan, or is Sakurako just looking up images of sexy lady teachers with her new phone?

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Happy End has been called. Let's see if they're able to audible at the last second to "theoretical future that's not necessarily true" or if they've just made all the time spent reading this completely worthless.

Also, Kotooka continues to be nothing but horrible and unsympathetic.

last edited at Apr 30, 2017 11:59AM

Lifecharacter
Transgender discussion 14 Apr 16:52
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

How the hell am I suppose to tell sarcasm over texted words in the first place moron? Second that user also did the same thing, you're just defending her. That user just had to use transphobic like the triggered sjw she is. People l=came here to enjoy doujins not to fucking see some sjw triggered because of a wrong pronoun smh. People that complies to shit like that are just sad and defending triggered people are just worse, that's you.

Well, the hope is that you are able to read the context to come to the conclusion that my statement was sort of ridiculous. I guess I could have kappa'd but I didn't think it was necessary.

As for the rest, if you think calling things that are kind of transphobic transphobic is the act that marks her as an evil sjw with poor trigger discipline, I'd suggest spending less time with people whine about sjws and use "triggered" as an insult and more with actually decent human beings. You might actually grow as a person. Though, you would have to do such horrible things as using the proper pronouns for people, so gird your loins for the challenges ahead.

As for me, if "complying" and "defending" someone with a perfectly reasonable complaint makes me "sad" and "worse," call me the saddest worstest bastard there is. Considering the source, it's practically a compliment.

Lifecharacter
Transgender discussion 14 Apr 15:39
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Thank you for supporting my opinion friend. This site is for yuri, political or social (whatever it is) has no place here in my opinion. I'm not sure about everyone else but I'm here to bask in yuri and cute girls doing yuri things... and lewd things... like hand holding.

I guess the sarcasm zoomed over your head, which is quite the feat.

If you're here to bask in the yuri, I'd suggest reading the thousands of pages of yuri that exist on this site, not going into the forum to complain that a trans woman took issue with being told that yuri doesn't include them.

Lifecharacter
Transgender discussion 14 Apr 14:28
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

Always a good sign when the person telling a trans person to shut up because the sanctity of a thread supersedes their issue with being told that yuri precludes trans girls/women slips up and misgenders them.

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

"It's weird that you invited Nobara to your house but not me."

"Well Misa, Nobara never left me alone on a rock in the ocean when she knew I couldn't swim."

Lifecharacter
Canaan2
joined May 9, 2013

"Conquest 3: The yuri queen appears."

...

I'm Listening.