
Also, please stop perpetuating this myth that you provided facts. I gave you facts, including what the yaoi acronym stood for, what it meant, how it originated, and when. I also provided multiple quotes giving the history of the term shonen'ai, including one that traced the term back to Inagaki Taruho's Shonen'ai no bigaku, which was written in 1968. Those are facts, my friend, and I magnanimously indulged your own assertion that you had facts to support your definition, but you cannot even answer simple questions. You really thinking bashing the people who conducted interviews with the writers who coined the terms we're discussing helps your case? The equivalent in the dog breed scenario would be to consult the original breeders, the kennel clubs under which they were registered, or Eva Seeley, who first recognized the Alaskan Malamute breed in 1935. By all means, though, continue to deflect attention from the weaknesses of your own unsubstantiated arguments.

Yes, you give me history. HISTORY that helps you to understand the definition that PEOPLE give to Yaoi which was WRONG! And that is why there is a progression of CHANGE from within the HISTORY of Yaoi to get it right.
I said that at my previous posts and I quote myself
"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. "
Those "facts" my friends has already been disproved by me right here. And you've yet to even disagree that they were wrong. So don't tell me that I didn't disprove the "facts" that you present. In fact, it is you who has failed to disprove any facts that I've given. Not because you don't know how but because you can't.
So tell me, my self proclaim "friend." How is what I'm saying not facts?

SMH (>ლ) How can your dimwitted research serve to prove my point when it can't even prove your pathetic point? They are opinion UrsulaX, get that through your head before you fling yourself off a cliff for being stupid and wrong.
And the only reason why you're saying that you never had an interest to disprove me to begin with now is because you realize that you're wrong and that I'm right. Plain and simple.
Had you realize that to begin with instead of trying to defend your failed argument, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

This discussion in a nutshell: Your pathetic little P-Brain knows that I'm right and that you are wrong. But because you're a person with a high ego and low intelligence, you keep singing the same song even though you know that it doesn't mean jack squat. The easiest for anyone to commit suicide is for them to jump off from your ego and land on your IQ.
If there is something that every real historian knows, not a stupid fake historian like you, it is that all of history and all records of history are subjective. Those who wins tells their side of the story while those who lose don't. That is subjectivity. When one translate records of history from one language to another, accuracy is lost due to language barrier. That is subjectivity. And when one uses a modern mind to interpret records of a 500 years ago mind, accuracy is lost due to the change in moral, culture, and politics over time. Everything, from the language to the interpretation if history, everything about history is subjective.
In science, there is none of that nonsense. Science is base on evidence and facts that can be confirm by anyone. It doesn't matter who you are or what kind of background you have, you'll come up with the same answer every time. That's the beauty of facts. It's true regardless whether there are people as stupid as you to disagree with it or not. That's because facts is indisputably the case.
I have, time and time again, proved that everything you've said is base on opinion. Not even once have you prove that what I say isn't base on facts. That is why I ask you to explain how my opinions aren't facts. Cause you haven't done that even once.
But let's be honest here, we already know that I'm right and that you're wrong a long time ago. You even agreed to that yourself. The only reason why we are still having this conversation is because you're a troll and I love trolling trolls. Simple as that. If you can admit to that then there is nothing more we need to talk about. If you still want to troll then by all means be my guest. It's a win win situation for me.

I already did.
When ToxicMalice said that the difference between Yaoi and Shounen Ai is that the first have sex and the latter don't. I disprove him by presenting hard facts like Zankoku na Kami ga Shihaisuru, A Night of a Thousand Dreams, Omamorishimasu, Dokomademo, which are Shounen Ai that have sex in it.
And when you say that all Yaoi have explicit sex scene in it. I proved your ass wrong by presenting hard facts like 2-14 Jiken and Venus Kiss which are Yaoi manga without an explicit sex scene.
These is hard truth that anyone can confirm. It didn't come from a stupid Professor with a fake PHD or some subjective textbook read as though it was the bible. It came from observation and evidence that is true no matter who looks at it.
If you want to talk about who contributed the most hard data in this conversation, that person would be me. And if you want to talk about who contributed the most nonsense, that person would be you.

No, I was interested in the topic and how other people defined yaoi and shonen ai. I would have had this discussion with anyone. That's why I provided pages of quotes and neglected much of what you said. Your comments were too vague, so I couldn't really address them in any meaningful way. I could disagree with the idea of only one right definition or ask you to explain what you meant by that, but that's about it. In an attempt to provide a little substance, I tried to include what other people had to say from their research. When you attacked me, I wanted you to elaborate on your own arguments so I could actually respond. I also felt you had no business criticizing the substance of academic papers when you offered nothing of that caliber yourself.

Citation? What are you a college student? If there is anything that any college student knows is that there are always sources out there that parade itself as the truth. You can go online and find a cite or a source to support your claim no matter how wrong your claim is. Citation without credibility is equal to paper money that is worthless than trash.
The fact that the citation you gave isn't even from a reliable source proves this even more.

Now that's the root of the problem. The reason why you have no idea what I'm saying is because you didn't even care to read what I say. It's no wonder you can't disprove what I say. Not that you can in the first place. And you have the nerves to say that I'm the one who's not reading what you say. Not only are you stupid, you're also a hypocrite. You're a stupid hypocrite.
As for me, I understand every word that comes out of your mouth because I actually read what you say. And that is why I was able to disprove it. Seriously, forget the pursuit of knowledge, forget learning new things, forget about communicating effectively with other people, you need to get off your high horse and actually listen for once in your pathetic life.

This just goes to show that I intelligence is already far beyond yours. I already understand how people define Yaoi and Shounen Ai. I'm at the level that transcend beyond petty opinions and is striving towards the fact.
You on the other hand is still stuck in a stage where you have to rely on other people's opinion to dictate your action. Relying on "academic papers" that comes from a source with no credibility. If we were to give this a metaphor, I'm like a super computer and you're like a TI-30.

First of all, hard data refers to "information such as numbers or facts that can be proved." You have not contributed anything like that. Second, I did not say Yaoi had to have explicit sex. That was icreatedthisaccountjusttoreply. At one point, I responded to your reply to him/her because I thought you might be confusing the two of us, which you apparently are. That explains a lot. If you really did read the quotes I included, you should have noticed the definitions I provided were much different. Third, if no one has agreed on how to classify manga, you can't argue that any of the examples are Yaoi or Shonen Ai. That's what everyone is debating. Fourth, I suggested that users just refer to publishers' classifications for the sake of simplicity. Go back and read some of my arguments if you don't believe me. Therefore, from my perspective, the manga you mentioned are whatever the publishers say they are. End of story.

I'm a college graduate. I'm asking that your definitions come from a dictionary, encyclopedia, website, reference book, article, or some other published source. This is not an outrageous request.
Many of the definitions and essays I quoted came from the following collection:
'Boys Love Manga and Beyond: History, Culture, and Community in Japan', edited by Mark Mclelland, Kazumi Nagaike, Katsuhiko Suganuma and James Welker (University Press of Mississippi, 2015).
Here are a couple reviews:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311863918_A_Review_of_Boys_Love_Manga_and_Beyond_History_Culture_and_Community_in_Japan
http://journal.transformativeworks.org/index.php/twc/article/view/1011/901
What is your basis for claiming this is an unreliable source?
wheres the steamy sex scenes tho....