
Not every Yaoi has sex. Just take a look at Super Lovers. And the fact that Shounen Ai has sex proves that you can't differentiate the difference between Shounen Ai and Yaoi just by saying one have sex and the other don't. That is the whole point. Had you people just agree with the facts and not just ramble on with your opinion, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I responded to your original post because I wanted to share some of what I’d read about the history of shojo and BL manga from journalists and professors like Matt Thorn. I thought anyone taking the time to argue about definitions might be interested. I had the following four objectives: (1) to define yaoi and shonen ai according to the specific Japanese cultural movements and phenomena they historically represented; (2) to acknowledge inconsistent or evolving interpretations of those definitions among English-speaking fan communities; (3) to argue that fans should try to agree on who or what definitively defines such terms before criticizing each other for relying on different source definitions; and (4) to suggest that, if no consensus exists, fans defer to the publishers and artists as the authority on genre classifications (as opposed to inconsistent or unclear definitions offered at fan sites like Mangago or Baka-Updates). Despite my last recommendation, I still think it’s important to recognize how everyone involved, from amateur artists to international consumers, redefine what and how comics are created, disseminated, and appreciated. For that reason, I wanted to know the source(s) of your own definitions. I hope by providing some foundation for my own comments, you will provide some foundation for yours. The rest of this post is mostly quotes from other sources, which I would recommend reading.
Many fan definitions of yaoi and shonen ai resemble Cathy Camper’s definitions in the article “Yaoi 101: Girls Love ‘Boys’ Love’”:
“The ‘gay’ love comics are just one genre among shojo, or girls' comics. Such comics have lots of names and genres. Shonen-ai or shounen-ai means ‘boy love.’ This genre emphasizes relationships and romance over sex. Bishonen or bishounen means ‘beautiful boy.’ Yaoi is the sexier stuff, an acronym for ‘yama nashi, ochi nashi, imi nashi,’ or ‘no climax, no point, no meaning’-a pretty good definition of pornography generally. There's also an old joke that yaoi is really an acronym for ‘yamete kudasai, oshiri ga itai yo,’ or, ‘Stop it, my butt hurts!’ Generally, yaoi is smuttier than shonen-ai, but the Japanese names have shifted in meaning over time, as have their connotations in the West, so for this article, I'll use the generic term ‘boys' love.’”
I prefer the definitions given by Mark McLelland and James Welker in their introduction to a collection of academic essays called Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan, which I have included below.
“shonen’ai—This term combines ‘boy’ (shonen) and ‘love’ (ai) and has been most widely used in reference to commercially published shojo manga from the 1970s into the 1980s. It is sometimes used retrospectively today to describe these works, but the term, now more closely associated in popular discourse with pedophilia, has largely fallen out of favor.
“JUNE—This word comes from the title of a commercial BL magazine published from the late 1970s to the mid-1990s and has been used to refer to the kinds of manga appearing in the magazine. It has also been used in reference to works produced and consumed outside commercial channels, particularly original rather than derivative works.
“yaoi—An acronym for yama nashi, ochi nashi, imi nashi (which might be translated as ‘no climax, no point, no meaning’), this self-mocking label was coined in 1979 and disseminated by an influential dojinshi circle. It became popularized in the 1980s in reference to BL works that have not been published commercially, but it is sometimes used to encompass both commercial and non-commercial works.
“boys love—Pronounced ‘boizu rabu’ and usually written in the katakana script, this term first appeared in the commercial BL sphere at the beginning of the 1990s. It is most frequently used as a label for commercially published manga and light novels, but it can also be used as a label for non-commercial works. It is often abbreviated ‘BL.’
“In addition to their overlapping usage in Japan, note as well that the common use of ‘shonen’ai,’ ‘yaoi,’ and ‘boys love’ in English and other languages among fans outside Japan often differs from the meanings given above. (The emergence of these categories and distinctions between them are discussed at length in chapters by James Welker, Fujimoto Yukari, and Kazuko Suzuki.) For the sake of simplicity, in this volume we generally use ‘BL’ as shorthand to encompass all of these categories, alongside more specific terms reflecting the context. Because the meaning of these terms varies by contexts, however, chapter authors often offer their own more specific definitions.”
In “Flower Tribes and Female Desire: Complicating Early Female Consumption of Male Homosexuality in Shojo Manga,” James Welker gives a brief history of shonen ai based on Ishida Minori’s research:
“Ishida Minori's Hisoyaka na kyoiku: ‘Yaoi/bdizu rahu’ zenshi (2008, A secret education: The prehistory of yaoi / boys' love) is perhaps the most authoritative history of the origins of shonen’ai manga. The book is based in part on extensive interviews with several individuals who played key roles in the genre's creation and development. Among them is the long-overlooked Masuyama Norie, a novelist and music critic who originally conceived of the introduction to shojo manga of beautiful boys in love with each other and who encouraged pioneering artists Takemiya Keiko and Hagio Moto to give life to her ideas. Masuyama believed shojo manga needed to be revolutionized from a frivolous distraction into a serious literary form; she helped steer Takemiya and Hagio toward the creation of works that variously drew upon and extended the strong bonds between male adolescents depicted in Herman Hesse's novels, and the love of and by eroticized beautiful boys celebrated in the writing of Inagaki Taruho, whose Shonen’ai no bigaku (1968, The aesthetics of boy loving) can be linked to the use of the term shonen’ai as a label for the genre. Masuyama saw the metaphysical sphere of ‘shonen’ai’ in shojo manga, as well as in Taruho's writing, as quite distinct from ‘homosexuality’ as depicted in the works of (for instance) Mishima Yukio and Shibusawa Tatsuhiko, which she believes requires the presence of physical male bodies.”
In “The Evolution of BL as ‘Playing with Gender’: Viewing the Genesis and Development of BL from a Contemporary Perspective,” Fujimoto Yukari describes distinct stages in which the historical period and publication define the content:
“Shonen’ai works were published in general shojo manga in the 1970s and early 1980s, while JUNE, published from 1978 until 1996, was a commercial magazine specializing in male–male romance. By the middle of the 1980s, the use of the term ‘yaoi’ had become established to refer to these narratives both in amateur dojinshi (coterie magazines) that parodied existing shonen manga and anime, as well as in original dojinshi depicting male–male romance. Finally, ‘boys love’ (boizu rabu), or BL, generally refers to commercially produced works after around 1992 of original (that is, not parodic) prose fiction and manga. Works dealing with gender necessarily reflect the gender situation of the time, and the author’s age (the era in which the author was born) also surely impacts the treatment of gender in her works. Furthermore, the expression of ideas in works appearing in commercial manga magazines and works that, from the beginning, are aimed at an audience of one’s peers, also naturally differ.”
Yukari refers to an earlier article, in which she argued:
“ … By taking the form of shonen-ai, shojo manga were able to enter the domain of ‘sexuality,’ which had formerly been taboo . . . By applying this characteristic to a male body, and by also setting the narrative on a stage completely separated from reality, [highly influential artist] Takemiya [Keiko] has succeeded in depicting this theme in a purified form and in a way that protects the reader from its raw pain. To borrow the words of Ueno Chizuko, male homosexual love ‘is a safety device that girls use to manage the dangerous weapon of sexuality by separating themselves from their own bodies; it provides wings for girls to fly.’
“This will become even clearer if we look at the ‘yaoi’ subgenre . . . These yaoi narratives overflow with sex to an unprecedented degree. . . . Shonen-ai has made it possible for young women to ‘play with sex.’ Here in yaoi, the bitter pain associated with the monuments of shonen-ai manga has already disappeared, and young women happily squeal, ‘Oooh, how obscene,’ while indulging themselves in ‘dangerous’ and ‘forbidden’ liaisons between men …
“By vicariously taking the form of young male lovers, young women no longer have to see themselves as the only ones suffering pain, even if rape or SM is being portrayed . . . But the most important thing is that through this means women are freed from the position of always being the one ‘done to,’ and are able to take on the viewpoint of the ‘doer,’ and also the viewpoint of the ‘looker.’ This is an extremely significant transformation.”
She reiterates her main points with the following summary:
“1. Shōnen’ai first emerged as a mechanism offering an escape from the social realities of gender suppression and the avoidance of sex(uality); 2. Once it had emerged, however, the same mechanism made it possible for girls to ‘play with sex(uality)’ (sei o asobu) and opened up possibilities for them to shift their own point of view from passive to active engagement. The main point I would like to emphasize regarding these two assertions is that the first corresponds to the structure of shōnen’ai, while the second corresponds to the development of yaoi.”
My purpose in sharing these quotes is to provide some historical context for some of the interpretations and disagreements expressed here, many of which are not without foundation. You will find some variation of each definition at different websites, whether you consult Wikipedia or some other popular reference, but it’s misleading to present any definition as completely uncontested or unambiguous. Even those who write essays on the subject are wise enough to recognize the everchanging dynamics determining the fandom lexicon. I also think it’s important to capture some of the nuance that’s lost in these debates. Genre categories are important because they are explaining what the author is trying to do and who the intended audience is. You do not really get a good sense of that from the way shonen ai and yaoi labels are applied at fan sites. Moreover, such labels are inconsistent. Claiming Super Lovers is yaoi is debatable, since it’s featured in BL/shojo magazines that may not use the term yaoi. In fact, you could even argue that it’s not shonen ai or yaoi, based on the definitions I’ve referenced above. Who decides that it’s yaoi? Wikipedia calls it shonen ai, Baka-Updates calls it yaoi, and Mangago calls it shonen ai and yaoi. What informed your assertion that it was yaoi in the first place? What is the source of your definition?

I've just given you a Yaoi without a pornographic sex scene and you still say that I'm wrong. There is no greater form of denial than that.
In the face of facts, evidence, and proof, people still choose to only believe in what they want to believe in. This is when you know that we're f@cked as a species.

Meaning that you have given me a historical progression of how people has defined Yaoi and got wrong and is in a continuous effort to strive for a correct definition. People who do not look at the facts will never see the facts. Whoever that professor is, he deserves to lose his degree. I just proved his ass wrong by giving Yaoi a universal definition that works for every, and I mean EVERY, Yaoi out there.
Now, the source of my definition didn't come from looking at other people's opinion. My definition came from observing and confirming the facts , which can be observed and confirm by anyone to be true. This is the method that science use to determine facts.
There are Yaoi out there without a sex scene. That is a fact. Yaoi is not the only BL manga out there that has sex scene. That is a fact. I've given you, time and time again, facts and evidence that are indisputable and undeniable. And you still choose to listen to the subjective view of other people. You've chosen subjectivity over objectivity.
It's like I'm a scientist, talking to a bunch of religious people.

Try reading 2-14 Jiken and Venus Kiss and you will find no explicit detailed sex in them.
Like I've said before. The facts are the facts regardless of whether you agree with it or not. How people define Yaoi has change because the Yaoi of nowadays has change but that doesn't mean that there aren't past Yaoi to confirm the true essence of Yaoi. You who goes on and on about your stupid history. You of all people should understand that.

Who is wrong and in what way? Which professor are you dismissing? I referenced more than five (Matt Thorne, James Welker, Mark McLelland, Fujimoto Yukari, Kazuko Suzuki, Ishida Minori, and others involved in the essay collection I mentioned), and they each offer different perspectives and definitions. It took time and effort to offer more than just my opinions, which are not unfounded. I included refereed sources incorporating surveys, interviews, and other studies, and provided historical context, multiple definitions, names, dates, and sources. I gave you free excerpts from references I had originally purchased or accessed through my university library. I also bothered to check your example (Super Lovers) to determine if it was classified consistently by the publishers and different popular websites, which I thought you might be using to classify manga, since you gave no source. You did not answer any of my questions regarding Super Lovers and you did not provide the basis for what I believe is your main argument: “Like Seinen is to Shounen, Yaoi is the mature counterpart to Shounen Ai. Meaning that as long as a homosexual story is targeted towards an older female audience that which is older than teenagers, it is a Yaoi.”
You reference Super Lovers, 2-14 Jiken, and Venus Kiss as proof that your taxonomy applies under the dubious assumption that we all agree those are examples of “Yaoi.” If websites provided consistent labels with clear definitions, we would not be having this discussion, and we could simply refer to some formal taxonomy provided by a source everyone acknowledged. If we were dealing with science, which we are not, that taxonomy would be developed and documented by original inventors and discoverers, yet you seemingly dismiss the etymology of the Japanese terms we are discussing as unimportant. Following your argument, I have tried to determine the intended audience for the manga you referenced, but how would I do that through observation, as you suggest? It seems easiest to look up the publishers and magazines. Both Kadokawa Shoten and Hakusensha produce shojo and BL publications, so I’m not sure who the intended audience is (especially since I cannot read kanji or kana), and all three examples deal with high schoolers and feature some shojo themes/artistic styles, so it’s not clear they’re marketed for adults exclusively. Again, feel free to enlighten me, provide sources, etc. I am simply requesting further justification for your classification scheme instead of ad hominem attacks, circular reasoning, and repeated tautologies, such as “a fact is a fact” (we clearly define facts and science differently, and I have a background in engineering). If your claim is a fact, you should be able to provide verifiable evidence others cannot reasonably dispute. Contrary to your assertions, you have not done that, which is why this discussion continues.
Notice that I never actually disputed your definitions. I claimed they were debatable, supported that claim by providing examples of how definitions vary, and quoted researchers acknowledging those differences. Both you and your detractors could use my quotes to support some of your arguments. If you don’t like my original quotes, I can provide others with slightly different conclusions. For example, I have provided another quote below from one of the professors I mentioned earlier, Kazuko Suzuki, whose definition of Yaoi most closely resembles yours in “What Can We Learn from Japanese Professional Writers? A Sociological Analysis of Yaoi/BL Terminology and Classifications”:
“ … BL in Japan refers to commercialized fiction and fictional media by and for women that focuses on male–male erotic and/or romantic relationships … It is important to note, however, that ‘BL’ is not a common term among fans of female-oriented male–male love fiction outside Japan. These works are more popularly known in the Americas and some countries in Europe, Eurasia, and Asia as ‘Yaoi,’ a Japanese term often used as an umbrella category that can encompass various Japanese subgenres of male–male erotic/romantic fiction by and for women. This tendency to use ‘Yaoi’ as an umbrella term also exists in Japan, where the term ‘BL’ is used to describe a specific subgenre within Yaoi works. In this chapter, I will use ‘male–male romance’ or ‘Yaoi’ interchangeably as a generic term for male–male erotic/romance fiction and fictional media primarily written by and targeted to women. When empirical evidence is to be presented, I will adopt the exact term used by my interviewees and survey respondents: ‘Yaoi’ (with a capital ‘Y’) when used as a contemporary umbrella term, in contrast with ‘yaoi’ (with a lower-case ‘y’) when used to refer to another specific subgenre within the Yaoi or male–male romance umbrella.”
Obviously, her definitions differ from yours in some respects (she distinguishes yaoi from Yaoi while defining BL as a narrower commercial category within Yaoi). However, you both emphasize that Yaoi is intended for women (as opposed to girls). Like the other professors I quoted before, she views yaoi and shonen ai more narrowly as historical movements. She also credits yaoi with establishing the seme-uke relationship as a defining characteristic of later BL genres, as indicated below:
“It is important for the purpose of enhancing classification to recognize three aspects of the development of yaoi. First, like other dōjinshi, yaoi dōjinshi is a venue for self-expression without the intervention of various social restrictions placed on other mass media such as TV and commercial works. Second, yaoi dōjinshi played a significant role in the dissemination of male–male love fiction by and for women in Japan. Third, yaoi distinguished itself through a specific narrative structure through its pairing of men who are not in male homosexual relationships in the original anime and manga in accordance with a convention called ‘kappuringu’ (coupling). In this coupling, the sexual positioning of the pair is divided into two roles: seme and uke. As suggested above, seme refers to a protagonist who takes a position as the penetrator in sexual intercourse, whereas uke refers to a protagonist who takes the position as the penetrated. Again, existing studies show that one way to make a distinction within the genre of male–male romance fiction by and for women is to pay attention to stylistic aspects and draw a boundary between the shōnen’ai/JUNE categories and the yaoi/BL categories, that is, before and after the invention of the yaoi narrative structure and method. What separates these subgenres into the two groups is whether the rigid formality in narrative structure, in particular the seme–uke framework, is adopted or not. This rigidity of the sexual positioning is not conspicuous in any of the early subgenres of male–male romance.”
Kazuko Suzuki’s interviewees also suggest BL can be distinguished from other Yaoi genres as follows: “There are some distinctive features of BL from the perspective of professional writers and editors. First, BL denotes commercially based publications mostly made for entertainment. Many professional writers make dōjinshi, but their dōjinshi works are not labeled as BL at various events called ‘sokubaikai’ (spot sale events), where their fans can obtain side stories of their commercial BL. For instance, at the Comic Market, the largest sokubaikai, their dōjinshi is usually classified into a category called sōsaku JUNE, which might be translated as ‘original yaoi dōjinshi.’ When extrapolations from original manga or anime are sold by the professional BL writers at the site, they are inclined to use the term ‘parody’ even if the stories are not comedic. This seems to distinguish them from their original works and side stories of their commercial BL works. Second, in contrast to the tragedies commonly seen in the JUNE genre, there is an expectation among readers that BL must end happily and no main protagonists must die. Finally, BL has inherited the seme–uke framework of yaoi. However, unlike yaoi, there are many rules that BL writers have to follow such as the principle of ‘ichibō ikketsu' (one stick, one hole), meaning that the couple needs to be monogamous.”
In her conclusion, she observes, “What we find in this study is not only that there is diversity within the Yaoi genre but also that professional BL writers consciously and unconsciously distinguish BL from both its predecessors and coexisting subgenres of male–male romance. A highly formalized narrative structure, in particular, as well as the centrality of coupling and the seme–uke framework, was an invention of yaoi and was inherited by BL, which has added further rigidity via additional formal rules. This kind of framework and formality (that is, the yaoi narrative structure and various methods for manipulating gender display beyond binary gender codes) cannot be observed in the shōnen’ai, tanbi, and JUNE genres. Thus, we need to think about what was rendered possible or impossible by the invention and adoption of the yaoi narrative structure and method in the development of male–male romance in Japan. This chapter underscores the perception among professional writers of BL as entertainment as opposed to tanbi, defined as high culture. How do we interpret this finding in order to better understand contemporary Yaoi-related phenomena, such as dōjinshi activities which include both original stories like sōsaku JUNE and derivative creations such as yaoi parody, as well as both professional and amateur writers in a single event? What are the contributing factors of changing motivations that led shōnen’ai manga to aspire to the quality of literature and contemporary BL to pure entertainment? In the study of sociology of knowledge and culture, what is important is not classification itself, but the ways in which things are categorized and how meanings are imposed on certain categories in specific times and spaces. Hence, we should also explore how different local understandings of the subgenres emerged. These are a few examples of future agendas for Yaoi/BL studies.”
I included this last bit because fans obviously have their own reasons for adopting and changing classification schemes. They do not necessarily adhere to academics’ or authors’ depictions of their own work, and most just want a way to easily find comics they will enjoy. In that sense, is a simplified distinction between shojo/BL or shonen ai/Yaoi based on sexual content or seme-uke relationships so problematic, especially if that distinction has been adopted by websites providing access to such content? The classification scheme itself is irrelevant, but it must be clear, consistently applied, and readily understood by users. More important, sites like Mangago should have a page explaining terms and the process used to tag content. I did not see such a page. If there is one, there is no need to debate the classification scheme used here.

I feel you will dismiss what I wrote again, so perhaps I should use an analogy to illustrate my point of view. Let’s suppose we both disagreed on the breed of a dog we found in a park. I think it’s an Alaskan Malamute and you think it’s a Siberian Husky. To support your case, you might describe the characteristics that distinguish one breed from the other. However, if I happened to disagree with your defining traits, you would get nowhere by simply claiming, “Well, a fact is a fact.” In this case, we do not actually agree on the definitive characteristics of each breed, so we must consult an authoritative source we would both accept, such as a guide on dog breeds or a veterinarian, to resolve our dispute. Let’s suppose you dismiss any reference or expert opinion I provide by claiming you are not interested in “opinions.” This makes no sense, because the expert opinion is representing a consensus definition accepted by the broader community. The breed of dog is not self-evident. The breed is a label produced by a taxonomy someone or group of people invented. Acceptance of that label by a broader community legitimizes that label. Therefore, the correctness or accuracy of your own label is determined by other people, not just you. Even if we were to do a DNA test, the defining characteristics of the breed would still be subjective. It’s just that the subjective classification scheme would be applied in a universally accepted, consistent way.
Similarly, the professors’ quotes represent broader research and investigation of how manga authors, publishers, and fan groups classify manga to define genre labels as they are understood by the communities that give them legitimacy. I present their views because they reflect a broader understanding of how definitions might be universally or locally applied. In representing these communities, their definitions tend to be more readily accepted than yours or mine. You cannot claim that your own definition has greater legitimacy if you cannot show that definition is widely accepted.

That is only the case if you were to present facts that the dog is indeed an Alaskan Malamute to counter my facts. What you did is not present facts but opinions. If you were to metaphorically put your words into the context of that dog example, your argument will the equivalent of claiming that dog to be an Alaskan Malamute simply because some body else said that it was. Not because they have valid facts but because they think it was an Alaskan Malamute.
Like I've said before, the stupid professors that you so stupidly praise did not look at the facts. He look at other people's opinion. And those who look at the opinion will never understand the facts. The fact that you can't even prove that what you say is true and the fact that you can't disprove anything I say is prove enough of this.

It was fun to revisit an old debate and learn new things from sources I had forgotten. History is always interesting, and I like exploring the etymology of words. You compelled me to read more and broaden my horizons, despite offering very little in response to my questions and points. I assume you were too disinterested to read the quotes or much of what I wrote, since you never responded in any meaningful way. If you ever want to explain yourself in greater detail, I would still be interested in knowing the source of your definitions and how you classified the examples you provided. Did you just make up your own definitions? That would be a pity, since I hoped you would introduce me to some invaluable website or resource that had informed your perspective. I hope you derived some entertainment from belittling me and the research that typically produces the definitions we are discussing. It would be sad if only one of us benefited from this exchange.

It is you who assume that I didn't read what you've said. And it is precisely because I've read what you say that I can say that it is an opinion. And the fact that you couldn't deny it means that it is the truth which in terms serve to prove even more that I did read what you said.
And I have given you invaluable resources. I even give you the example of marriage and how even now, the definition of marriage is flawed and incomplete. But you choose to let that blow over your head cause you value opinion more than facts.
That is the only problem we have here.
wheres the steamy sex scenes tho....