Damn the "quality" of their relationship was worth all the wait! xD

I think its time for dynasty to classify the comments per chapter, not in one room for the whole chapters,, its kinda hard to follow up and see what people's thoughts like this

Look at the dates

Well shit.. that was spicyy ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

last edited at Sep 3, 2020 7:38AM

It be like that, to each their own. I think labels are dumb, but they sure fun to use.

Same

Once the "Ookuma doesn't realize Kanda is a girl" gag was dropped, the series improved significantly. And the reveal about Ookuma having a top alter was amazing and hilarious, amazingly hilarious if you will. This is now of my favorite series now.

A little bird told me that there are actual lesbians out there that denigrate those among us here who apply top/bottom labels to lesbians such as Kanda and Ookuma, considering such people to be "morons". Apparently these women are somehow arrogant enough to believe that they can speak on behalf of the entire lesbian community around the world without conducting anything remotely qualifiable as a statistically valid survey.

By that same token those who like to label people as "tops" or "bottoms" are just as arrogant to assume they also speak for the entire gay community.

As a rule of thumb if you want to label yourself "top" or "bottom" and somebody gives you shit for it, they can go screw themselves, but conversely if you try to label somebody else with those terms and they find it offensive then you're the one that needs to shut the Hell up.

It's a bit like the crux of the whole transgender debate. It comes down to simple manners that you should not refer to someone in a manner they find derogatory unless it is your intent to spit in their face at which point you shouldn't be surprised when things go terribly wrong afterwards.

last edited at Sep 3, 2020 10:55PM

By that same token those who like to label people as "tops" or "bottoms" are just as arrogant to assume they also speak for the entire gay community.

I don't follow? If individual Y asserts that individual X is top or bottom, it is usually in reference to a current situation ("X is topping here") or general observable pattern ("X apparently likes to top"/"X is top"). The "label" is applied to individual X, not any group of people, by individual Y, speaking for him/herself, not for any kind of group unless specified otherwise or spoken in a representative function.
Thus I really don't get the notion that "those people" assume they are speaking "for the entire gay community" in any sense. They are not talking about a group, nor do they represent a group. Furthermore, the "Top/Bot"-dynamic exists regardless of sexuality, and the categories aren't to be seen as prescriptive/restrictive, but descriptive of patterns and tendencies.
Case in point, though: It is explicitly stated that Kanda directed their first sexual interactions (https://dynasty-scans.com/chapters/handsome_girl_and_sheltered_girl_ch11#18), so the assertion that Kanda is probably a top is not exactly unreasonable or far-fetched, although we have only a limited dataset to draw conclusions from. The assumption that Ookuma is a "natural bottom", on the other hand, is not only based on her usual behaviour as "going with the flow" and her apparently letting Kanda be in charge in the sexual encounters we'd seen before chapter 12. She seems to be topping in Ch. 12, which coincides with an alcohol-induced personality flip and is portrayed as something atypical, out-of-character for her. The assessment that this was something exceptional further reinforces the idea that Ookuma is usually a bottom.

And now please tell me how I said anything about any group of people (>2) or representing any group of people.

As a rule of thumb if you want to label yourself "top" or "bottom" and somebody gives you shit for it, they can go screw themselves, but conversely if you try to label somebody else with those terms and they find it offensive then you're the one that needs to shut the Hell up.

Mind you we're not technically labelling people here. We are applying attributes to fictional characters based on observed "behaviour".
Also if someone "finds it offensive" that they're being labeled "wrongly" they need to take a deep breath and be ready to explain why they think the label was applied wrongly, because there's probably a good reason why the "incorrect" label appeared applicable to the other. You're not required to "shut the hell up" because someone's offended, but you should absolutely question what you said and why it was perceived as offensive, and maybe reevaluate your stance based on new information. The truth sometimes offends, so instead of "shut the hell up" I'd recommend finding out what actually went wrong.

It's a bit like the crux of the whole transgender debate. It comes down to simple manners that you should not refer to someone in a manner they find derogatory unless it is your intent to spit in their face at which point you shouldn't be surprised when things go terribly wrong afterwards.

I agree insofar that the "intent to exclusively offend" is where I no longer see the need to protect an utterance as "free speech". This is different from being provocative and cheeky in order to drive forward a debate or make a point. I don't think the serious parts of the "trans" debate revolve around preferred pronouns anymore, though.

last edited at Sep 4, 2020 6:49AM

The fundamental issue is that people discussing this kind of stuff in practice - also routinely here - tend to use such labels as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

They're also wont to throw hissy fits when such obsessive categorization gets called out.

The fundamental issue is that people discussing this kind of stuff in practice - also routinely here - tend to use such labels as prescriptive rather than descriptive.

Making sense of the world is fun, though. I agree, prescriptive use of labels in discussion of observations is generally silly.

Just to be sure we're not having a terminological misunderstanding:

• When I say "prescriptive" I mean "if you're A then you automatically must X, Y and Z, and if not you definitely should"

• when I say "descriptive" I mean "I see you show X, Y and Z patterns, thus it appears you are B."

• Descriptive and prescriptive use should also be separated from the normative function of classification, which is a somewhat unfortunate consequence of either that cannot be completely avoided. The normative aspect would be "I see you show X, Y and Z patterns, thus it appears you are B. It therefore seems likely that you're also α, β and γ."

Labels, like any cliché or stereotype, can serve as guidelines and blueprints in the creation of relatable, cohesive characters, and in that function they would be somewhat prescriptive. It also makes a nice basis for throwing curveball attributes into the mix that break with the stereotype.

For the manga in question we don't really have many data points to base our assessments on, and while what we've been shown and told does paint a certain picture, it's all up for debate and can be upturned by future developments. I'd say that potential ambiguity makes speculating and debate a bit more interesting.

last edited at Sep 4, 2020 11:42AM

Labels are not evil. Top and bottom is a very common descriptive word for gay couples and most have no problem using them. Unless someone specifically asks you to, then why make an issue about it? Especially with fictional characters like here.

In yuri, top/bottom can be more blurred, so their use is more general. Like when someone gets called a top, that's used to describe their typical or most common behavior, it doesn't mean they have to be a top literally all the time.

Crude, stereotyped pigeonholing is bad though - and that tends to be what such labels in practice get used for in online discussions at least.

Internet audiences tend to be abysmal at things like "nuance" and grasping that human behaviour is generally a context-dependent spectrum.

Crude, stereotyped pigeonholing is bad though - and that tends to be what such labels in practice get used for in online discussions at least.

Internet audiences tend to be abysmal at things like "nuance" and grasping that human behaviour is generally a context-dependent spectrum.

Interesting. That's not the impression I so far got on this forum. People seem to be relatively open-minded here.

"Relatively" being the operative word. This bunch is better than most but by no means immune to blinkered pigeonholing and cockeyed shoehorning.

...actually looking at the thread backlog a bit, weren't you yourself involved in a debate about a different set of labels and their application some four-five pages back Zor?

...actually looking at the thread backlog a bit, weren't you yourself involved in a debate about a different set of labels and their application some four-five pages back Zor?

Indeed, albeit just a very short exchange without much back and forth and disagreement. Doesn't get more civilized than that I think.

The more difficult discussions happened on "So, do you want to go out, or?"

last edited at Sep 4, 2020 1:20PM

Personally I've literally never seen anyone using the word top/bottom in a yuri work in the rigid way. Most people know the nature of the yuri dynamic is more versatile and use them accordingly, or in a humorous way like "wow surprised Ookuma toped Kanda! She was such a bottom"
The only times where it becomes more absolute is in yaoi, where the nature of the act does indeed require more rigid roles to begin with.

(Ch. 12) Drunk Ookuma is hot as fuck, oh my god.

Crude, stereotyped pigeonholing is bad though - and that tends to be what such labels in practice get used for in online discussions at least.

Internet audiences tend to be abysmal at things like "nuance" and grasping that human behaviour is generally a context-dependent spectrum.

And you're the enlightened exception, not at all pigeonholing the local audience into your preconceptions of internet behavior?

As for the topic, it's wrong to try to fit every gay (or straight!) couple into top and bottom roles, or ask "who's the guy?"

It's not wrong to look at a specific couple and see that top/bottom roles fit their behavior as observed so far. It might be rude to do that to a real couple but that's not a problem here. Especially as fictional couples may well be written with those roles in mind.

The only times where it becomes more absolute is in yaoi, where the nature of the act does indeed require more rigid roles to begin with.

'rigid' :D

(I'm not 12 I swear)

(Also not like yaoi couples are limited to just one kind of act, at least in theory.)

last edited at Sep 4, 2020 6:11PM

ya know usually when two characters confess in romance genres it changes their character dynamic too much and the story just kinda dies off because there's nothing else to make any plot out of but this is one of the better examples where it actually forwards the progression between them, i guess that kinda makes my point redundant but bruh that shits top tier chief.

drunk top

They're so cute... I ship them so much!! (o ≧ ꒳≦ )b

drunk top

yes

I heard, that the next chapter will be the last one. 27th October ;_; Another great yuri series ending shortly ;(

I've just read all the chapters available and damn, this series is much cuter than I thought. Kanda is the perfect girlfriend, I may have fallen for her, too lol
Although I couldn't help but feel a little sad over the premise, I feel that in real life something like this would never happen. The idea of a straight (?) girl who falls for a guy but still loves and accepts him when it's revealed that she was a girl all along... that's not how sexual orientation works, is it? But in hindsight it seems that Ookuma was probably a lesbian all along, too and never realized due to how sheltered she was. Otherwise she wouldn't be able to enjoy kissing and even having sex with another girl. Plus, in the very first chapter she says she never liked any guy before Kanda.

Going back to the plot, I'm gonna be sad once it's over. I love their interactions, they're very funny. And the relationship itself is really sweet and respectful! 10/10 couple here.