Errant Belle's Topics (548)

Umm.., . . . .





The one who smashed the windows is the young master's ex-fiancee's people., right?

Yup!

enemoto like dogs as much as Ren does, so i dont think u have to worry about him hurting tanuki

Nah, Enomoto is a brat with things going on. I can't remember if it's been mentioned but he seems to have a story of his own

Some people prefer one role to the other. It's not about love or trust, it's about preference. So if both don't mind, then it shouldn't matter but if they do, that's their choice. You should have to be forced into a role you don't want because of someone else.

It might as well be rape.

shouldn't*

As a reader I don't mind whether the couple is reversible or not, I enjoy it either way if we have a solid plot; however, I do agree that the emotional power dynamic of a reversible couple is undoubtedly more equitable than a non-reversible one; and this is due that the the seme/uke trope is based on the patriarchal system of male dominance over women. In the case of Yaoi, the Seme is typically taller, with rough hewn muscled body and more defined masculine facial features; whereas the uke is typically shorter with slim body frame and more feminized facial features and overall characteristics. So in terms of true equality in a relationship, reversibility should be the way to go for all couples that truly love each other, where they are not bound by archaic patriarchal dictums, and where give and take is an important aspect of the relationship; however, it all comes down to the sexual preference of each individual within each relationship; so as long as the couple in the story is ok with the roles they play, so am I :D

"a reversible couple is undoubtedly more equitable than a non-reversible one; and this is due that the the seme/uke trope is based on the patriarchal system of male dominance over women. "

No, that is not true. Love and trust and equality does not mean we should be able to do the same things. It means we should accept that we all have our own preferences. Let's say a seme should not be forced to be an uke if they do not want to and neither should a uke be forced to be a seme if they do not want to. I understand in Yaoi it seems like the guys are always fighting for the top spot but that is in no way true in real life. Some men simply prefer to be a bottom and some men simply prefer to be a top. Their preferences should not be something that ties to how much they can/will love someone else.You can't state patriachal dictums here because those are talking exclusively to male and female relationships those FORCING similar male/female ideas or ideals are usually straight people. A man can choose to play a bottom role and this has nothing to do with pratriachal dictums, this is their preference and telling them that that is not true equality is discriminating to their preference.

"reversibility should be the way to go for all couples that truly love each other, where they are not bound by archaic patriarchal dictums,"

Not true. No guy should be forced to stick their dick in someone else or have a dick stuck in them just for this 'false equality' you have going on. Couples themselves should decide the roles they want to play and whether they would be happy playing one role or both. Having to play a role you do not want to is not equality. Please do not think that true equality means they play the same roles, similarly in dominant submissive relationship, a woman can be a dominant and a man can be a submissive and THAT is equality because they chose the roles they prefer. It's ALL preference. TRUE equality is talking it out and deciding your roles and what you are comfortable with and then doing what you feel comfortable with. True equality is not having people play the same roles, it is people having the SAME opportunity to play the roles they each prefer.

It's just like how girls should have the SAME opportunity to get the same job as men but that does not mean they should be forced to take the job just to fit equality that is not equality.

Gray, did you read my post in its entirety? Or did you just jump the gun upon zeroing in on my statement regarding equity?
I agree that nobody should be forced to play a role they don’t want. I didn’t imply that “reversibility” should be “imposed” by force of principle, and I made that perfectly clear in the last sentence of my post, which seems to have gone completely over your head, but just in case, here it is again:

“it all comes down to the sexual preference of each individual within each relationship; so as long as the couple in the story is ok with the roles they play, so am I”

Now, let me expound on my position as it may be I wasn’t articulate enough. I confidently stand by my assertion regarding reversibility as the ultimate sign of equality, due that I base it within the context of the gender dynamics of Yaoi relationships, which are incontrovertibly framed in the patriarchal idealization of “male dominance and female submissiveness”; There’s no room for argument on this gender characterization as it is not a matter of opinion but on fact. You can research this yourself as the issues of patriarchy, male dominance, female submissiveness and their biased characterization in literature have been extensively studied and documented by all the social sciences (philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc.) The romance genre in general (of which Yaoi is a subgenre) is based on this prejudiced, discriminatory, inequitable hegemonic masculinity. Just the other day I commented in another post where a fellow reader asked “why do semes always keep their pants (or shirt, etc.) while the uke is always naked when having sex?” And the answer to that is because yaoi couples exemplify this dominant male/submissive female dichotomy and it is based on this state of inequality that reversibility within the seme/uke dynamic is the ultimate ethical representation of true equality.

And this is because no matter how much they may love each other, how ok they may be with their respective roles or how emotionally fulfilled they may be in their relationship, the Bottom/Top roles can never escape their fixed attributes. Top is dominant, Bottom is submissive, Top always feels pleasure, Bottom has to always negotiate with pain, no matter how resilient their anus is, no matter how much they love the act, how pleasurable they find it, no matter how stretched or accustomed their anus has become, or how much they prepare the anus prior sex, for the Bottom, there is always the potentiality of pain or worst, anal fissures; Top is ready to engage in sex without much preparation, Bottom has to deal with arduous anal hygiene (pre-sex anal douche and post-sex cleansing). Again, these are factual attributes that cannot be avoided, denied or escaped. The bottom typically holds the submissive role, and always has to deal with the negatives and inconveniences (along with the pleasures) of having their anus penetrated.

Now, do you understand what I’m writing here? That from a theoretical ethical standpoint, reversibility symbolizes equality, it counters the inequality of the patriarchal idealization of male dominance typified by the seme/uke gender roles. I am not proposing that all mangakas rise like banshees in a feminist outcry and impose reversibility on all their yaoi couples, or that that real life couples do the same; what I’m doing here is presenting a theoretical ethical argument for reversibility as the ultimate (and most likely the only) symbol of gender/power equality in yaoi couples.

No.

Like I said, if you want true equality it is NOT about trying to reverse past conceptions. What you should is LET GO of it. By reversing it, you are just amplifying its importance.

It is also untrue that in mangakas ukes meant submissive and seme meant dominant. Mangakas in the past has already written in the reverse. While it is not as many, it was still present. By showing reversibility you are only trying to reverse what was already there when that is not the case. You are then only showing another untruth.

By acknowledging that patriachal roles dictate which position and how it should then you opposing it by reversibility, you are still ACKNOWLEDGING the patriachal roles by saying 'Hey no, we shouldn't have one role, we should do both to be neither.' You're still saying it's only fair if everybody plays both roles because THEN it does not play into patriachal roles but at the same time you're still admitting that if you choose to do just one role it means you are following patriachal standards. You see how you're still following the patriachal mindset in such a way? Instead we should do with the preconceived notion that one role actually plays to one specific character type/gender.

True equality should be something like no role is meant for a particular position/gender/masculinity/feminity. It should be a choice/preference that you yourself make. Instead of saying "Hey in manga there shouldn't be a set role for each partner, there should be reversibility so we can have equal roles." We should be advocating that "Hey, your character/personality should not dictate what role you play and one person being more dominating does not mean you then have to give your ass to them even when you don't want to. You should play the role you feel most comfortable and you and your partner should discuss it." Be equal by having the same chance to choose a role.

I understand it might be difficult to understand using simply text. I'm a pictorial person myself but I hope you understand by saying that reversibility is a true equal way, you are still admitting that one role is deemed lower/worse than the other and that one role STILL means that the character will act according to the role they set(being submissive/dominant when they are bottom/top) when that should not be the way. If you want true equality is better to throw away the idea that one role fits one character, not that they all should be reversible.

Sorry to put it simply.

Character A: I want to be an uke!

You: No, you should do reversible or else you'll simply be submissive!

Character B: I want to be seme!

You: No! You should do reversible or else you'll simply be dominant!

I'm just trying to show how if we want an equal world in manga(in your belief), this would be how it sounds like(not that you are trying to enforce it)

You are still admitting that one role has a predetermined character type.

Why should we have reversibility? We shouldn't NEED to have reversibility because we shouldn't SEE any role as one predetermined character type(Which I get that you're trying to explain but your method is still wrong). And to do that we should therefore abolish the MINDSET that one roles fits a certain character. NOT by advocating true equality is reversibility.

"the Bottom/Top roles can never escape their fixed attributes. Top is dominant, Bottom is submissive, Top always feels pleasure, Bottom has to always negotiate with pain, no matter how resilient their anus is, no matter how much they love the act, how pleasurable they find it, no matter how stretched or accustomed their anus has become, or how much they prepare the anus prior sex, for the Bottom, there is always the potentiality of pain or worst, anal fissures; Top is ready to engage in sex without much preparation, Bottom has to deal with arduous anal hygiene (pre-sex anal douche and post-sex cleansing). Again, these are factual attributes that cannot be avoided, denied or escaped. The bottom typically holds the submissive role, and always has to deal with the negatives and inconveniences (along with the pleasures) of having their anus penetrated."

Are you a male gay? Can you speak for the whole population? Do you understand by saying that it would ALWAYS be submissive is YOUR WRONG perception. The fact that the person CHOSE to be a certain role showed that it is their choice. You are ENFORCING your belief that the role means submissive.

"Submissive means: ready to conform to the authority or will of others; meekly obedient or passive."

What you are saying is that the person is submissive simply by being bottom when that is SO WRONG on SO MANY LEVELS. If the person CHOOSES the role of THEIR OWN VIOLATION that means they are not submissive. A person can still be a bottom and dominant if they force the Top to be their Top because then the TOP is CONFORMING to your authority. You are ENFORCING YOUR BELIEFS that the role is predetermined to be submissive SIMPLY because of the discomfort they must face when that is NOT THE CASE AT ALL. You can't change the meaning of submissive to suit your argument. What someone chooses to go through is of their own violation. Unless they are being FORCED to the position, they are still choosing what they want to do.

All that talk about trouble with caring for anal hygeine and without much preparation is not something that is simply TAKEN AS A FACT or a factor(some people may not care what they have to go through to have a dick in their ass. You are enforcing your belief/opinion on the 'troubles' you think they may face when they might not find it a trouble as long as they get a dick. What constitutes as discomfort for you may not be true for everyone else. And therefore can't be taken as fact. ANd come on, the top faces trouble with penile hygeine which I can tell you, is MORE COMMON and usually MORE DETRIMENTAL) That's why you choose who you get into a relationship with or who you have sex with. If someone has sex without the proper preparation and WITHOUT your consent(because there's some men who actually said they like the pain once in awhile) then we're talking about a whole different deal here which is rape.

Do NOT dictate the inconvenience of someone else by YOUR OWN beliefs. And please please please do not misrepresent the word submissive willy nilly. It DOES NOT mean what you think it means. "Typically hold the submissive role" OPINION! There are such things as femdom and there ARE such things as dominant bottom. Do not mix fact with opinions, your comment is laced with them

By the way, I don't think you should reply me until you can grasp what submissive means.

And once again, it all just goes over your head. I’m not sure if it’s a case of Dunning-Kruger or any other cognitive bias, but it is evident based on your erratic responses that had nothing to do with the central issue I expounded on that you lack the cognitive depth to understand the subject in context. In the simplest terms possible, the universal fixed attributes of a thing do not change because of external exceptions. An apple is still an apple whether some people choose to it eat it or not. One does not respond to an objective discussion with one’s subjective opinion. It is futile if you cannot understand the central issue of an objective discussion. The only thing I can recommend to you as constructive criticism is to get educated, expand your mind and your cognitive depth so that someday you are able to differentiate between Objective perspective and subjective opinion.

You see, you used so many terms but did not once talked about the points I made. You are not being objective. You are trying to use 'emotional' reasons to deny what I said rather thta arguing the points that I made. And girl, or boy or whoever you are, I've seen that being played out before, it's weak. I hope you don't write your essays like that.

Do you really believe you were being objective when you made SUBMISSIVE to mean the person who might receive more pain? That's not being objective, that's being SUBJECTIVE because you manipulated the meaning of submissive to what you BELIEVE it means rather than the correct term of the word.

You were being subjective when you continued to state that simply by being the bottom they are submissive.

You are being subjective when you chose to ignore the fact that I said that you are still following patriachal roles by saying that only reversible is equality. If you want to argue, then stop trying to act like you are smart by using flowery words and I don't know...make a point? Do not try to play by emotions and telling people they are being subjective when you could not do me the simple act of explaining the CORRECT meaning of submissive.

Do not ask someone to subjective when you could not do the same for them.

And sorry, I aimed for YOUR objective discussion about the nonsense of 'equality is reversibility' but you choose to ignore it. I aimed for the RIDICULOUS point about how simply being a bottom and receiving more pain means the person is being submissive. It's seriously boggled my mind that you could try to act smart but TOTALLY MISINTERPRET THE WORD and then choose to reply with the BS above because you cannot deny that I made a point. I also aim for other points but I see you rather play the emotion game than have a true discussion. Have fun with that.

I agree with you... At the beginning, in the first story, and even the second one, it was love. It was a healthy relationship, they both had strong characters and they both were free but co-dependant at the same time. They had issue, but they solved it together, they helped each others.
In this story, and especially at the end, I had the feeling that Keichi was using the trauma of Shingo in order to completly win him over, and to 'erase' his proud character, to make him submissive and in need of him. There was nothing left of the Shingo at the beginning. I know it's a good thing, because he had trust issues and he was unhappy, but still, there is NOTHING left of him. He's just at the beck and call of Keichi. Keichi has succeed and he has made him his thing.
And I am disappointed in Keichi.

Yeah, I honestly hate this couple now. It's really creepy how the author tries to portray it as romantic.

I'm pretty much just reading (well. skimming) every chapter now out of curiosity instead of an actual enjoyment of the story.

I think it's a something like lost in translation. In a summary I read somewhere of ch 13 Keiichi said "thank you for becoming mine," not "my possession." It more or else might seems the same thing to some, but to me it definitely sounds more romantic than the other.

I kind of found the other translation a lot more "romantic" as a whole. I think this one is full of grammatical and syntax errors. I'm grateful for the people who translate these, however, I feel that a lot of the meaning is is lost along with the grammar. Especially when these are translated from one language, to another, to anther. Instead of directly from the original language.

Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone let alone the people who graciously take time off their lives to translate these for free. But the meaning of some words make a whole world of difference when not used correctly and vice versa.

I do agree with you however, in that this series didn't seem romantic at all! Keiichi didn't do any explaining or apologizing to Shingo. Shingo was the only one crying, begging and apologizing throughout the whole thing. I do get that Keiichi was incredibly sweet and gentle towards him in some of the other series, but in this one he was a huge ass and never even took the time to explain himself...

Me too.
It started out OK, so I tried to stick with it, but by the end reading it was painful.
I was also bothered by all the comments about how cute and romantic the ending was, so I'm really really glad I'm not the only one who was bothered by their relationship.

Well at least you know you're not the only one who didn't think the ending was a happy one...
By the end I really despised Keichi and was just sad about Shingo, he deserved better.

Yeah... a lot of the reactions are creeping me out too :/ .

Agree with anon. i remember reading the raws and yes it more accurately translated to 'thank you for becoming mine'. And yes, may mean the same thing to some people but i think they have different implications. I'd probably have felt the same way as you if i had not read the raws

In case you guys need to know... I translated from chinese to english. The chinese translated it from most probably the JPN raws, so it most probably got lost in translation. Based on the chinese translations though, the literal translation would have been "Thanks for becoming my thing" I thought it would color Kagami as a bad guy for calling him a thing. So I used possession instead. Turns out it was equally bad lol. Sadly, I didn't have any raws to refer to that I can use as a reference to translate. (I know a little of Japanese) I felt bad for even coloring Kagami as a bad guy throughout this series I thought it might have been my fault.

Oh no,sweetie, you did well (๑•ㅂ•)و✧ Thank you!
Are you a translator or an interpreter? If not, you did an awesome work and we immensely appreciate it. Thank you so much!
I bet even translators had their troubles from time to time, so don't worry.

I think even if there were phrases that you weren't able to convey, the characters are somehow difficult and not everybody would like them. Whereas Kagami's possessiveness or Shingo's insecurity, even if they were little, someone would not like them.
So, don't worry, I think it just has something to do with statistics. ╮(￣▽￣)╭

No, it's definitly not your fault. Even if he didn't say it (be it thing, or possession or mine), I still would have been angry at Kagami, and I think the others too. Not because he is possessive, there is a lot of possessive uke/seme out there, but because he simply was odious in this last story. I agree with what "Anonymous" said earlier : they were both wrong, Shingo as well as Keiichi, but Keiichi acted like he was absolutly right, like Shingo was the only one at fault, like Shing had to cry and beg and suffer in order to win him back.

Anyway, just saying that it wasn't your fault AT ALL, it was Keiichi's fault >.<
And on the contrary, thank you a lot for your hard work !!

Still though, I agree with Anonymous. I did have some syntax error and grammatical errors in there and some part probably didn't make sense. (There were some parts that didn't make sense in earlier chapters' translation too) It's constructive criticism (from my view) so I'll reflect on it and work better for my next translations.

When I was typesetting this chapter I had a feeling some people were going to be upset with this sentence...by the way thank you SuzukiLina so much for translating this chapter!!!<3 <3 you're awesome!!

I have crazy respect for all translators.
Not only is it a ton of work, but it is difficult to capture nuances and slang, which is a lot of pressure when you are working on a story by an author/artist you love and for whom you want to get things right.
More importantly, without translators I would miss out on so many amazing mangas, which makes me forever grateful to them.

When reading any story, I do recognize that some words can't be directly translated, so it is often a judgement call on the part of the translators, as to which words to use.
That being said, I'm surprised that, as translated here, so many people found this "cute" and "romantic". Whatever the original Japanese text was, here people read "possession" and still gushed over it, which is what creeped me out. But it's much bigger than one word.

As this series approached it's end, the relationship between Shingo and Keichii got progressively less appealing (at least for me). Long before the page with the word "possession" appeared, I felt Keichii's behavior had turned from love into psychological abuse and manipulation.

It would be perfect psychological horror story if not for the author constantly trying to color it as romantic.

(don't get me wrong though, I actually like the authors other works, and I'm especially fond of the other entries in the cat series. I guess she's just trying to write for a very, VERY specific set of kinks here...
.... but yeah, still creepy.)

Like?

He actually told Ren that if he didn't do what he said, Ren could NEVER come home again. For a child who already has so many deep seated issues related to home and family, that was beyond cruel, not to mention manipulative.
Then there was the whole hiding Ren in the bathroom like he was so disgusting the twins shouldn't be exposed to him. After which he also abandoned Ren, a small child in a foreign country, for days and right in time for the holidays.
Sorry, but a lot of what Haru does to Ren seems like psychological torture designed to keep the poor kid confused and dependent on Haru. To me that's not love it's more like abuse.

Yes! I agree. There is something wrong with the relationship dynamics of Ren and Haru. It is unhealthy.

Yes that's true in the beginning. But remember through the story, Haru has come to understand how big of an ass he was being and is most definitely "trying" to be better about hurting poor Rin's feelings. I feel this story has a lot more to tell, and I feel their relationship will grow up a lot in the end.

Except that when he told Ren to either do what he said or he could NEVER come home again it was very late in the story.
At that point Haru knew exactly what he was doing and had theoretically wised up, yet he still did one of the cruelest and most manipulative things he could do.

Ok, im not trying to justify his behavior but...

at the beggining Haru didnt remember Ren, didnt know that much about his past AND he dont wanted to worried the twins who were in university entrance exams, he never says something about Ren being disgustting, he just wanna find the right time to tell them all about this new brother... he never lock ren in the bathroom, ren stays there because he misread haru's command, he could have left whenever he wants... but even after that, haru apologies.

He left ren alone because he dont wanted to take it with him for his guilty feelings about him being the cause of his parents accident, he just remember a huge trauma, and Ren presence just increase that memory so he wanted to calm himself first... yeah, that was awful, but ren wasnt a little kid, he was 13 at that time, had money, and a rooft... he wasnt left in a trash can or at the streets...

That time he says ren never could back home again HE WAS JELAOUS, and knows thats the only way ren could understand that he cant do him until he's and adult of that could be a crime, but ren is a little stubborn kid, and interpreted haru's words the other way... HE KNOWS thats the only way ren could understand him and come back with him withaout hesitating.

Haru saids himself so many times he's a 'bad guy' and 'awful adult' he says too that he's going to bond Ren to him to the point that ren never dares to look anybody else but him, and that comes with his feeling of abandonment since he was a child (for his parents divorce and suddenly move to japan)...

Exactly........

I think you just did justify bad behavior.
More to the point, you wrote a small essay to do it.
Admitting you're a bad guy doesn't magically excuse you're behavior.
All I'm saying is that Haru had done some incredibly cruel things to Ren, over and over again.
At some point in time that's not a mistake, it's just him being a bad person.

Im giving facts about why he does what he does... the last one was cruel and i accept it but he was angry and any person in that state of mind do wrong things so i can blame him... the first too were mistakes and misinterpretation. He's a bad person, so what? he give the boy some hope in life and do anything for him, and ren love him that way... if hes that bad of a carather for you, why are you waisting your time reading this manga? go find another unrealistic type of perfect guy who dont make any mistake then...

How is that not justifying?
Look, it's fine if you're OK with his behavior, just own it.
Nowhere is it written that two people have to agree.
If you think Haru telling Ren, who had experienced abandonment and trauma from a young age, that he could either do as he was told or never return to the only stable home he'd know, then that's you.
I just think Haru has done some mean things and none of you're examples/justifying have changed my mind.
No idea why you have to be so nasty about it.
These posts are so people can share their thoughts, mine was simply that Haru has been cruel. Don't see why that means that somehow I should stop reading it.
You seem to be taking this way too personally.

That would be INCREDIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!ლ(´ڡ`ლ)