spacesapphire's Topics (23)

omg really?? Pearl boy was amazing and even after all the trauma they had a happy ending, and if all the trauma wasnt long, there wouldnt be much of a plot or a story, we just need to have patience

Thankfully, not all Yaoi are just porn.

yea they are this is a shounen ai they should tag it properly.

That is where you're wrong. Yaoi is simply the adult counterpart to Shounen Ai like How Seinen is to Shounen. It doesn't have to be porno so long as it has maturity. Just take a look at Super Lovers.

super lovers is a shounen ai mangago just puts a lot of wrong tags on stories but on mangafox and any other site super lovers is a shounen ai.

Can't believe you're gonna put the credibility of Mangago, a manga site that specialize on BL, over a site like mangafox. Needless to say, you are yet wrong again. Super Lover is publish in Kadokawa Shoten under Ciel magazine and now Emerald, two magazine that are notorious for Yaoi and not Shounen Ai.

Can y’all stop arguing it’s not that serious and the first person who commented it was saying it as a joke at first so calm the hell down. Get along ٩(๑❛ᴗ❛๑)۶

I'm not arguing. I'm educating. It's always good to learn more about the things you love.

shes/he is arguing and she is wrong lol. Sex does not mean porn btw there are lots of manga with sex scenes that aren't porn...

Aren't you the one who said that Yaoi are porn when I said they're not? Talk about embarrassing yourself by being wrong twice.

Just because something has a sex scene does not make it porn, have you ever seen an R-Rated movie? Plenty have sex scenes, but they also have stories tied to the sex scenes. Sex is a part of every mature relationship and Yaoi's are generally by the vast majority of readers, considered to be stories about relationships which contain sex scenes.

x2 I'm guessing some people might come from a more conservative background where they associate any nudity or sexual content as being "porn", rather than maturely or realistically just seeing as it as a normal part of life that is represented when you deal with adult characters in such comics.

Yep, seems so, but I grew up with a bunch of free love stoners and hippies, so I'm about as far from conservative as it gets haha.

At least you know how to pick your battle.

If there is no sex depicted then by definition it isn't yaoi, it's shounen ai. Shounen ai is primarily romance where as yaoi displays sex or romance and sex.

Then how come there are Shounen Ai out there that depict sex then even when they're not label as Yaoi?

Unlike your opinion, here are the facts. Like Seinen is to Shounen, Yaoi is the mature counter part 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.

That's why in Yaoi, when there is a sex scene, you get the very graphic scene where the genitals are reveal. While in Shounen Ai, even though there is sex, the scene are a lot less revealing because it is targeted towards a younger audience.

As you can see, sexual intercourse doesn't dictate the demographic. Now you won't make the same mistake twice.

Nothing you just said is in anyway a counter to my statement. Also, whose labeling are you referring to? I think it's hilarious you mention genitalia being revealed, because in Japan they will not allow depictions of genitals in their media and any genitals you've seen in a manga were all added later by a redrawer (typically working with a translator team) that may "uncensor" genitals. That's why there's so many "lightsaber" dicks in mangas.
Anyways, both terms do have a difference, and that key difference between yaoi and shounen ai is how they choose to portray (or not portray) sex.

Are you stupid? Your argument is that Yaoi contains sex. I just proved you wrong by stating the fact that Shounen Ai also contain sex as well.

I know that you're dumb for just assuming that the difference between Yaoi is Shounen Ai is sex. But at least remember what the original argument is.

Yaoi does contain sex. Usually it has very graphic sex, but if there is no sex shown then it isn't yaoi. Throwing around insults doesn't help your point in anyway, and I'm pretty sure you're the one that doesn't understand what the original argument is. A simple Google search would back up my claims. Where are these Shounen Ai with graphic sex scenes you're spouting about?

Zankoku na Kami ga Shihaisuru has sex in it. A Night of a Thousand Dreams have sex in it. Omamorishimasu, Dokomademo has sex in it. Not to mention the thousands of shounen ai dojinshi out there that has sex in it.

There is a reason why no one else, not even, spacesapphire talk back after I say that sex isn't what makes a Yaoi. No one else but you. That's because unlike you, they've read enough BL manga to know the facts from the opinion. So stop acting stupid and accept the fact.

And lastly, it's not name calling if it's the truth. Know the difference idiot.

Jesus fucking christ you need help.

Says the person who don't even remember what they said.

If you want the sex content to be graphic a.k.a sex scene that's targeted towards an adult audience, then you read Yaoi that has sex scene. Notice that I didn't say "Yaoi" but "Yaoi that has sex scene." That's because not all Yaoi have to contain sex in order for it to be a Yaoi.

Seriously, it's because of all these stupid pathetic excuse for porn Yaoi manga that people think the difference between Yaoi and Shounen Ai is sex. People these days are so ignorant, yet so arrogant. They don't know sh!t but they still refuse to admit that they're wrong even when they know they're wrong.

In Japanese, Yaoi is short for "Yama Nashi, Ochi Nashi, Imi Nashi," which essentially means "no climax, no resolution, no meaning" and originally referred to smutty dojinshi in Japan. Shonen ai (meaning boys' love) emerged in the '70s in the form of Moto Hagio works like The Heart of Thomas and other shojo manga about romanticized relationships between boys (many of which featured literary tropes, symbolism, and other artistic flourishes). BL, short for boys' love, was later used by Japanese publishers as a blanket category for manga about homosexual male relationships (regardless of the explicit or artistic nature of the content and the age of the males). Nonetheless, English-speaking audiences tend to have their own definitions for yaoi and shonen ai, and graphic content is typically the distinguishing factor, whether you care to acknowledge that or not. Still, labels at sites like this tend to be inconsistent or inaccurate, perhaps because fans are trying to create subcategories within a genre that is typically labeled BL or shojo in Japan. Since many English-speaking fans tend to use yaoi and BL interchangeably, it's probably less confusing and divisive to use the latter term.

Yes, I understand that in most cases, graphic content is the distinguishing factor between Shounen Ai and Yaoi. But that does not hold true to all cases. Meaning that if you were to make that claim for all BL manga, you would be wrong.

Like you say, Japanese do not use "Yaoi" to label homosexual manga. They use "BL" That's because Yaoi is but a subcategory within BL. English speaking anime fan who does not know much about BL tend to use Yaoi to categorize all homosexual manga. Even those who knows still tend to use Yaoi as the main categorization. Thus, I can understand why people, especially English speakers, would make that mistake.

But the point isn't to understand why they made that mistake. The point is to help them realize their mistake so that they know the truth. It would be hypocritical for people to be a fan of something if they don't know the facts about that something.

In other words, I've already acknowledge the reason why they make that mistake. I only ask that they themselves acknowledge that what they say is wrong.

I’m not sure anyone is wrong or right, though, since that would assume some universal, static definition for shonen ai and yaoi that everyone acknowledges. In this case, fans have co-opted the terms and changed the definitions over time, and those definitions can differ among fan communities. Before deciding what is or is not authentically yaoi or shonen ai, one must first decide what it means to be authentic and who defines that. It would not be wrong, for example, to define yaoi as a genre akin to slash with virtually no plot, since that is what the name implies. Similarly, it would not be wrong to define shonen ai far more narrowly as shojo manga by the Year 24 Group that focuses on the idealized love between boys (often at European boarding schools) where sexual themes may be explored but in a far different way than what you find in yaoi. Ironically, fans’ attempts to be authentic and culturally aware led them to redefine the subgenres on their own terms and then pointlessly quibble about who was more informed (though they were all deviating from the original definitions). Who knows what yaoi or shonen ai is according to fans’ interpretation?

In my mind, the authentic label would be the one given by the publisher, which is South Korean in this case. According to Lezhin, this is a BL webtoon. I don’t really see any value in giving it a dubious Japanese label. For clarity’s sake, these sites should just remove the Japanese labels like shojo or seinen and list the ages or sex of the intended audience instead (if applicable) along with the genre, especially since this site features comics and webtoons from multiple countries.

Because they usually started as Shonen Ai, then developed into Yaoi and someone just forgot to update the genre. Simple as that.

That is the most idiotic thing I've heard since "People die when they are killed."

Dawg, Yaoi has sex, Shonen Ai does not, the end. These are commonly accepted facts and parts of the simple definition of the genres. If you see something that says it's Shonen Ai but at some point involves sex, the author likely just decided to change the genre to Yaoi as the relationship progressed. You have written an entire novel about the definition of two words which you have misunderstood. It's okay, calm down, no one cares that much.

A tree fell down in the middle of the the forest. Just because there isn't anyone there to see the tree falls, doesn't mean that the tree didn't fall. What discerns right from wrong is whether it is actually true. If a definition can be apply to all cases, if it is the absolute truth, then it is right. If a definition doesn't apply to all cases, if it is a conditional definition, then it is wrong. The thing that distinguish facts from opinions is that facts will always remain true whether people disagree with it or not. Something that most people, especially Otaku, has forgotten.

Like I said before, I understand why English speaking fans would define Yaoi in such a stereotypical way. And I have no problem with that as long as they understood that what they're saying is an opinion and not a fact. Had they presented their definition in a form of an opinion and not parade it as a fact, I would have respected their opinion. But they didn't They choose to present their opinion in the form of a fact and refuse to acknowledge that what they're saying is an opinion and is not true.

Just like how all carps are fish but not all fish are carps, all Yaoi are BL but not all BL are Yaoi. Just because most Yaoi have sex in it, that doesn't mean that all Yaoi have sex in it. This is not an opinion. It is the facts. And it will remain true regardless of whether people disagree with it or not.

To you and your narrow little perspective, they may be commonly accept. But to the world outside, they are not. Use the word Yaoi in Japan and no one will understand what the hell you're saying. It is obvious that you have never venture outside of your little circle before so there's no helping that you're ignorant. But there is no excuse for your arrogance cause it comes from your pathetic self. Stop reading manga and try venturing out to the real world for once and your life and you may find that most of the things you think is right is actually wrong.

Or maybe you fail to grasp the concept of Occam's razor, that the simplest solution is often the correct one and therefore your ridiculous, droning ten book long explanation as to why two genres are the same but also not was actually just rooted in a misunderstanding or genre-listing mistake which often occur in these stories. The mangaka of Save Me literally said "I was initially going to make it a Yaoi, but I couldn't draw the sex scenes, so I changed it to Shonen Ai." Inversely, some writers do not think they will end up creating sex scenes but later decide to, changing the genre from Shonen Ai to Yaoi, or sometimes doing so while forgetting to change the fucking genre. God damn it, now can you stop bombarding this comment thread with books of bullshit? Whose mind do you think you are changing? Absolutely no one's is the answer regardless of your thoughts.

Benjamin Franklin once said that most people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. I don't want to be most people.

The reason why I am so adamant about the truth is because, unlike most people, I don't want to live a life built by lies of my own perception. I don't want to live in denial and spend my days not knowing anything outside of myself.

To cut yourself out from the truth and only believe in whatever you want to believe in is to stop changing. Change doesn't always mean growth but to grow, you must change. To stop growing is the equivalent of death.

You apparently has never been to any institution or college to pursue any sort of higher education. Nor are you an independent and not relying on someone else to feed your sorry ass. If Occam's razor can be apply to all situation, then I'll have my own harem by now. And you wouldn't be an idiot.

I don't know whether the mangaka from "Save Me" actually said what you claim her to say but I could care less. It doesn't change the fact that "Save Me" is none the less, a Shonen Ai. And more to it than that, you've yet to disprove any of the other manga that I've mention nor the thousands of Shounen Ai Dojin out there. You're only buzzing your mouth off without any concrete argument nor the leg work to back it up.

My suggestion to you is to get smarter. Stop speaking from your @ss and start speaking for the truth. That way, you'd be less ignorant and less arrogant.

The meaning of a word is debatable, so it's not a fact. Usually, debates about word meanings are resolved by consulting different dictionaries or encyclopedias, considering the etymology or history of a word, and agreeing on some consensus definition. I was trying to suggest that yaoi may not have a consensus definition, because it is an informal fan expression that has evolved over time. On the one hand, the original literal definition implies sexual content, so fans are completely justified in arguing yaoi must include sex. On the other hand, fans could be excused for defining the term more broadly, since yaoi has evolved to become synonymous with BL. Your definition seems to be some nuanced variation between the two extremes, but what is your source? In most cases, neither the publisher nor the author/artist is defining a webtoon as yaoi or shonen ai, particularly if the webtoon is South Korean. Therefore, the whole argument seems silly.

Perhaps I should have asked how sites like Mangago defined shonen ai or yaoi. Over at Baka-Updates, shonen ai is defined as a "less extreme" form of yaoi, which is pretty vague.

How is it not a fact when it applies to all situations? Just because you think one plus one is equal to three doesn't mean that one plus one is equal to three. Like I've said before, a fact is a fact whether people agree with it or not. That's because facts are indisputably the case.

Even if they were to change the definition of Yaoi to the equivalent of pornography in the future, there would still be Yaoi from the past that are not pornography. What you're thinking about is something like the definition of marriage. Before, it was a partnership of a man and a women. Now, it is a partnership of two individuals without the gender or sex being specify. The reason why the definition before was flawed is because it didn't apply to all cases. Not to say that the definition that we have now is not flawed either since marriage is not a concept limited to just people. Other animals practices partnership as well.

And just because you understand why someone do something, it doesn't justify or make what they did automatically right. Take for example a person who lash out at random people because of his or her troubled past. You may understand why he or she did it but that doesn't make her right for doing it.

So far, you and the people before you have been talking about what you think and what other people think of Yaoi and not what Yaoi really is. All you people are doing is talking about your opinion of Yaoi. That is why you have yet to even counter or even refute the things I've said. This is why I don't like talking to Otaku. They only care about their opinion and refuse to look at the facts. Even when someone else plainly put it right in front of them.

If you want to know what my opinion of Yaoi is then I will tell you. I think that they are trash and pathetic excuse of a story for the sake of fan girls and guys to fulfill the lust that they aren't capable of fulfilling in reality. The reason why I don't use that definition is because I know full well that that is an opinion and doesn't apply to all Yaoi. That's the difference between a person who knows the facts from the opinion.

You go ahead and do that since you care more about opinion than facts.

It's interesting that you're still arguing about this when like 3 other people have also agreed that the difference between what classifies something as yaoi and shounen ai is sex. The reason so many of us have stopped responding to you is that you're too ignorant to listen to anything except the voice in your head.

Yaoi has graphic explicit detailed sex. Shounen ai has barely drawn-in sex scenes that last not even a portion of the panel. That is the difference. Shounen ai is NOT sex free. It's not likely to show a lot of sex, but definitely doesn't mean impossible for there to be simple sex.

Than how come Super Lover is a Yaoi?

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.

Super Lovers will depict sex in future chapters, but I don't think shota is what the author has in mind so she's putting it off until Ren is a bit older. Also, Super Lovers has shown scenes sexual enough that it probably can be considered yaoi even at this point.

Then you want a complete Yaoi without a sex scene? Try reading 2-14 Jiken.

Yaoi has graphic explicit detailed sex. Shounen ai has barely drawn-in sex scenes that last not even a portion of the panel. That is the difference.

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?

If the manga is complete and doesn't have a sex scene then it ISN'T yaoi. Have you read anything anyone has been typing or are you just hitting reply without looking?

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.

I'm literally going to state this fact one last time before muting this convo and never looking back: If there isn't sex depicted then by definition it isn't yaoi.

Yaoi has graphic explicit detailed sex. Shounen ai has barely drawn-in sex scenes that last not even a portion of the panel. That is the difference.

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'm the one who went on and on about history. Was this directed at me? Perhaps you cannot tell different people and the individual points they are making apart?

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.

No, I can do more than that. I can tell the difference between a fact and an opinion.

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.

Perhaps if you keep repeating that mantra it will come true.

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.

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.

Finally, in one of my last posts, I provided research supporting some of your points! If you actually read and understood my posts, you would recognize that I was never interested in disproving your definitions.

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?

Facts are true regardless of whether you agree to them or not.

Unlike you what I say came from hard data that can be confirmed by anyone. It didn't come from some magical books that is written by people's opinion. Does the bible sounds familiar to you? Or maybe it's the Quran.

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.

I just prove you wrong and you're agreeing to it.

This discussion in a nutshell: I provide citations and history. You quote yourself, dismiss my refereed sources as stupid, and ask me to explain how your opinions aren't facts.

Please provide the hard data. I dare you to add a little value to the discussion.

No, we have insurmountable problems. For starters, that is not what I meant by invaluable resource. I'm asking you to provide citations for your definitions.

Sure I'm wrong. I have no idea what you're trying to say half the time, but I'm sure it's about how I'm wrong and your right. After all, that's what's important, right? Forget the pursuit of knowledge, learning new things, communicating effectively with other people, etc.

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 read everything you wrote. If you understand me, learn to tell me apart from the other people responding to you.

Well, super computer, invest in a grammar checker. I've made some mistakes, but it's sometimes hard to understand what you're trying to say.

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?

The sad thing is I'm not a troll. If I may offer some final, unsolicited advice: Don't underestimate the value of a good reference and don't ignore questions about your examples or points. A decent source would have given your definition a persuasive edge and a few explanations would have shortened this exchange considerably.

First of all, What I said is "facts that can be proved." Anyone can take the evidence that I provided and confirm it to be true. You basically proved to your dimwitted self that you're wrong. Seriously, you are such a stupid idiot. How you even graduated from college is beyond me.

Second of all, there is nothing to debate about. This is where you misunderstood the most. What you're talking about is how people define Yaoi and not what Yaoi actually is. In my definition, there is nothing to debate about because everything is facts. In your definition, everything is opinionated and that is why you keep trying to debate.

To ultimately put it, you think that the definition that comes from people's opinion is better than the definition that is dictate by facts. Seriously, I hate stupid people who try to parade their opinion as though it is facts and impose it onto others as though it is somehow better. The only reason why people would do that is to boost their pathetic ego and feed their stupid pride. And that's exactly what you're doing. END OF STORY.

I did perfectly told you apart. You're the stupid idiot that is trying to pass opinions as facts. That's the reason why we've been arguing this whole time. Because you won't admit that what you're talking about is not the definition of Yaoi but how people define Yaoi through their narrow opinion.

It's because you're stupid like a TI-30 that you can't interpret the words of a super computer.

Sad. You're a college graduate and you use two source without any credibility to prove your pathetic definition. Not to mention that even after graduating college, you can't even think for yourself and have to rely on other people to see the facts. Not that what you present is even fact to begin with.

My basis doesn't need to come from someone because anyone can prove that what I said is fact just by confirmation alone. It's the equivalent to gravity. Unless you're one of those stupid people in the middle age, which you seem to be, you won't need a stupid paper without credibility to understand the effect of gravity. It's an observed phenomenon base on experimental facts.

This is the difference between a social studies major vs an science and engineering major. Talk about college graduating, I haven't heard that words for more than a decade now.

First of all, your reference is shit because it came from a source with no credibility. Secondly, you are a stupid a troll and I can prove it.

I quote you:

"Well, super computer, invest in a grammar checker. I've made some mistakes, but it's sometimes hard to understand what you're trying to say."

If your intention isn't to anger me with that quote and troll me then I don't what is. Face the facts loser. Stop trying to escape reality and stop lying to your pathetic self. There won't be anyone in your pathetic life time that can so accurately and precisely interpret other people's words than me.

My advice to you is to drop out from your stupid social studies major which is 100% base on subjectivity and actually go to the science field and learn some actual facts.

I took quite a few science classes when I majored in engineering, but thanks for the advice. I wanted to revisit this discussion one last time because it upsets me that it devolved into petty attacks. I gave up after you kept criticizing my posts in a way that made it impossible to respond (you were attacking people and we disagreed on the fundamental nature of definitions), so I resorted to passive-aggressive gibes in frustration. I apologize for that. It was stupid and counterproductive, mostly because my irrational stubbornness overshadowed any rational thought. When you said I was a troll, it occurred to me you might really think that. After all, I ultimately succumbed to my own childish impulse to defend each post after I concluded you intended to derail the conversation while hypocritically presenting everyone else involved as anti-intellectual saboteurs. Perhaps I was wrong, and weaknesses in my own posts contributed to the impasse, making it impossible for you to respond in any other way. Perhaps revisiting earlier arguments would explain why it was so difficult to have a constructive conversation.

When I entered this discussion, I felt everyone was defending valid points, though you seemed to ruffle feathers by being especially patronizing. As someone who had encountered similar debates before, I questioned the notion that only one definition was legitimate. You first claimed, “Yaoi is simply the adult counterpart to Shounen Ai like How Seinen is to Shounen. It doesn't have to be porno so long as it has maturity. Just take a look at Super Lovers.” When spacesapphire assumed you were relying on questionable website tags to classify Super Lovers, you responded, “Can't believe you're gonna put the credibility of Mangago, a manga site that specialize on BL, over a site like mangafox. Needless to say, you are yet wrong again. Super Lover is publish in Kadokawa Shoten under Ciel magazine and now Emerald, two magazine that are notorious for Yaoi and not Shounen Ai.” Your second sentence was worth exploring.

When I revisited your Super Lover argument later, I forgot some of this early exchange. I apologize for that. I wrote, “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?” Later, I included two of your other examples when I wrote, “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.”

You did imply that you were also relying on the publisher to determine the nature of the manga, so I was wrong to suggest otherwise. I was frustrated that your replies to me did not address these points until the very end (even then, you just repeated yourself), but perhaps you felt you exhausted the topic in your responses to others. My problem was that the language barrier made it difficult to determine how Kadokawa Shoten labeled its content. Some promotional materials for Emerald advertised the inclusion of shojo and BL content in one magazine. Ciel was obviously a BL magazine, but was it exclusively BL? Moreover, were we now claiming Yaoi was the same thing as BL? I did not see the terms shonen ai or Yaoi used anywhere, except on English or French sites.

Suddenly, I realized the approach I recommended—consulting publishers—presented obstacles. First, English-speakers may have trouble determining how Japanese publishers classify manga that is not licensed in the United States. Second, the classification of non-commercial content on websites would have to be determined by someone or something else. Third, publishers’ classifications may not be meaningful to readers choosing manga based on the nature of its homosexual content. It made sense for independent websites, fans, amateur writers, or anyone operating beyond the stringent requirements of the publishing industry to develop their own labels for their own purposes. Would such definitions, if they were both useful and popular, be wrong? If so, why? What or who determined the legitimacy or correctness of a definition?

I have tried to argue that the words we use to define reality are socially constructed. People decide what things are called both implicitly and explicitly as language develops and changes. Therefore, defining or analyzing each of the terms we are discussing seems to require a four-step process. The first step involves searching for current definitions recorded in dictionaries or other sources, which inevitably leads to evaluating the reliability of the sources. The second step involves investigating the etymology of the term. The third step involves examining the application of definitions through the formal and informal classification of manga. The fourth step combines findings from the previous three steps and any other related considerations in a final evaluation of the definition based on some criteria, such as its usefulness or popular usage. When discussing definitions here, I spent a little time on each step.

(1) Definitions: I started with a basic Google search and found definitions at manga sites, reference sites (including Wikipedia), blogs, and online articles or papers. Through my university library, I accessed academic articles and papers. I also searched for the names of professors whose works were mentioned frequently. I knew of Matt Thorn from his interviews with Moto Hagio, whom I discovered back when I was first introduced to the history of shonen ai, but I ended up focusing on the compilation of essays I mentioned and a couple other articles instead. The volume’s introduction and essays were by familiar authors who presented definitions that synthesized what I’d read elsewhere in a succinct way. Moreover, the authors were summarizing the results of surveys and interviews they (or other researchers) had conducted with people who pioneered certain movements or authored BL manga in Japan. Their comments reinforced my impression that popular definitions could vary. I briefly referenced Baka-Updates and Cathy Camper’s definition to illustrate the perpetuation of yaoi definitions in which sexual content was a defining characteristic. I did check to see if Mangago included a term glossary, but I did not find one (I should check again). I also looked for term glossaries at English publishing sites like VIZ Media and SuBlime (the latter seems to use yaoi and BL interchangeably, but my cursory search did not yield much information).

(2) Etymology: Though I had some basic understanding of the history, which is documented in multiple places, I found that James Welker, Fujimoto Yukari, and Kazuko Suzuki each offered a different emphasis in their descriptions of the Year 24 Group and later generations. Suzuki’s study included long anecdotes from interviewees about their experiences writing BL professionally that underscored the defining characteristics of contemporary terms.

(3) Classification: I investigated how your examples were classified by publishers, distributors, and websites like this one, though I did not do much beyond that. As a longtime reader, I have a general impression of manga labels, but I am not familiar with how manga is tagged at different websites. When trying to learn about the submission process at Mangago, I gathered that users submit content via links to site contacts or moderators. I am not sure how the labels are determined, though. That would be something worth investigating.

(4) Evaluation: I did some cursory research beyond what is presented in my posts, but it is not enough to claim any single definition is the one everyone is or should be using. At best, I can acknowledge the existence of different definitions in different circles at different times and try to identify common themes or reasons why fans might choose to accept one definition over another, such as authenticity (the definition is faithful to its original or current meaning in Japan), authority (the source is widely respected, giving the definition credibility), common practice (people, including consumers, writers, and publishers, implicitly rely on that definition), and applicability (the definition is easy to use or it presents meaningful categorical distinctions). I could certainly spend more time and energy on each of the four steps, but I am not sure more research would result in different impressions or greater clarity. Moreover, I am less interested in arguing the merits of a definition than understanding how publishers and fans categorize manga in practice. You have asked me several times to admit your definition is right, but I can’t do that without knowing what makes a definition right in the first place. Everyone must agree on that before we can evaluate definitions.

By continuing to reply to you, I initially hoped to explore how I could tweak or improve my points, perhaps changing my mind in the process. In fact, I did start to appreciate Kazuko Suzuki’s definitions, among other things. When you said I was only interested in my own opinions, I tried to show I was relying on other sources and documented history. When you ridiculed one of those sources, I emphasized I was sharing multiple sources. When you claimed an unspecified reference was unreliable or lacking credibility, I asked why and included reviews recommending the reference I thought you were describing. When you dismissed everything as mere opinion, as if opinions could not be validated, I questioned why you were presenting the uncertainties in your own arguments as certain. How were your comments different from mine, apart from my effort to explain and support my observations with research and historical accounts? It was this effort and approach I was defending more than anything else.

You offered analogies to support your claim that labels are self-evident. I don’t see how definitions of marriage and gravity support that view, though. Marriage may be defined differently depending on popular religion or legal jurisdiction, and the legal definition of marriage may depend on local laws, public opinion, or some other factor. Also, since human governments and religious institutions give us the concept of marriage, I question the notion of animal marriage. Perhaps you were criticizing the use of history to support or dispute any current definition, but I was simply suggesting contemporary fan definitions may reflect each term’s origins to some degree. Whether that makes those definitions “right” depends on how you define right. Similarly, gravity has been defined by at least three schools of thought: Newtonian physics, Einstein’s general relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Sure, anyone can test gravitational phenomena in a lab, but each person is not discovering and redefining gravity on his own. I tend to think gravity is a poor example anyway, because this topic falls under humanities, not natural sciences. I don’t think any of our points can be definitively “proven,” with or without the scientific method, which is also subject to debate (see Popper, Kuhn, and others).

Finally, it was self-indulgent of me to perceive your attempts to correct another as an invitation to debate the terms you insisted had certain meanings. Since you were presenting your arguments as unequivocal truths, you were not entertaining questions, alternatives, or the investigations of a curious, noncommittal commenter. It was my mistake to pretend you were, and I should have kept my comments to a few succinct observations.

Can you shut up, that person gave ACTUAL facts from professors, the history and origin of the words, and sources on a silver platter. All you did was dodge their questions and insult everyone that proved you wrong. Also advising suicide and joking about it, you're truly a disgusting person, all this because people proved you wrong. I don't know whats bigger your ego, or ignorance. You're the one basing it off YOUR OWN ASSUMPTION AND OPINION. honestly are you a child? because it seems like when you're being proved wrong, you resort to grade school level insults. all you did was state your own opinion and play the 'you're wrong I'm right' game and repeat 'facts are facts' you're not right get over yourself, you seem like the ignorant idiotic otaku.

I actually never cared about the sex in yaoi XD it was boring most of the time anyway and I skip most of it. I only cared about the Relationship in it. sooo...I guess I miss the point you all think it's porn. I guess you...don't know what "porn" is ╮(￣▽￣)╭ yeas there is yaoi that is a pure porn with no plot at all, but really? you think all yaoi don't have plot at all???
porn don't have PLOT guys, most yaoi does have plot. so.....you can't really called it porn. whatever it have sex or not.
I guess you need to watch a real porn to see the difference ╮(￣▽￣)╭

You're just blathering on without substance like the stupid idiot you are. Even after all that, you've failed to disprove anything that I've said and only go on about how much of an idiot you are. To plainly put everything that you say here into simple words that even you can understand, you didn't argue with me because you disagree with what I said but how I said it.

Typical of a pussy. You're mad that your "friend" didn't treat you nicely? Wanna suck your mama's tits? BOO HOO! No one is under oath to show you any sort of manner, especially when you have none to begin with.

Like I say, if you want to troll than we can do this all night. You already admit that you're wrong and I'm right. I'm already the winner and you the loser. But that's no surprise. It was the obvious result.

"I'm already the winner and you the loser" lmao you really are a child.

Then prove to me that what he's saying is facts and not opinions.

Seriously, you people don't even understand what he's trying to say. He's talking about how people in history define Yaoi and got a wrong and is continuing to search for a better definition. In other words, he understand full well that everything he says is an opinion.

The only argument he's making is that the definition of Yaoi is opinionated and can't be define through facts. Which I disprove him of because my definition is define through facts. Facts that he can't and won't be able to disprove.

I already prove to that what he's saying is not facts but opinion. And I already prove that what I said is facts. It is him who's blathering out on his own. Open your eyes for god sake.

Pathetic little dimwit who can't read the mood. Had you actually take the time to look through the conversation, you'd understand inside your little Pee-Brain that we're no longer arguing. We're just trolling now. So of course I'd be acting like a kid.

Unlike you who's actually a kid and can't even read between the lines. What an idiot.

My point exactly.

lmao, its obvious your trolling dumbass. and is 'idiot' all you can come up with? im not the pathetic dimwit here. anyways im muting this convo but have fun ig, kids shouldnt stay online too much

Got your ass trash and now you're leaving cause you can't make a clever comeback. Typical of a stupid idiot. Stay in the playground kid, you can't compete in the big league.

I'm more baffled by your hostility than anything. I was interested in discussing definitions, not trading insults or competing with you. You do not need to reinforce the impression that I wasted my time. Since I have apologized for any misunderstandings or poor conduct on my part, I have nothing more to say. I hope you enjoy the rest of the webtoon.

I'm even more baffled by your stupidity. I was interested in discussing facts, not trying to pass opinions as the truths and parading to be the good guy even though you're really not. Like I say, there is nothing to argue or discuss about. You just have to accept the fact and move on. If you have nothing to say then please take your exit so that there will be one less troll in this discussion.

That was my attempt to end the discussion, so please stop trying to provoke me. Neither of us liked it when I responded in kind.

This is the thread that neeeever ends, it just goes on and on my frieeeends, some people, staaarted arguing so very long ago and since they started arguing it goes on and on and so this is the thread that never eeeeenddds, etc., etc., etc. Yaaawn, this is soooo fucking pointless at this point, he doesn't agree on the definition and apparently never will, why even try anymore?

I’m not sure if this was directed at me or Shindere, but you’re right that it’s foolish to continue. I was trying to end the discussion, but I should at least clarify my motives to an observer. I wanted to discuss how definitions are derived and to question any single person’s claim that one definition is unequivocally superior without foundation. Though Shindere may suggest otherwise, acknowledging uncertainty is not verifying any position and should not be reinterpreted that way. Our arguments underscore the extent to which we think and discuss ideas in a rational, constructive way. Shindere is dismissing the credibility of other sources and perspectives without reason while neglecting to develop or substantiate his/her own arguments. Any questions I ask about specific points or examples are summarily dismissed as stupidity and treated as hostile attacks, no matter how I rephrase the questions. Shindere claims to teach others, but it’s impossible to learn from such an approach, which results in the death of civil discourse as we’ve witnessed here. How we defend or explain our perspectives is more important than trivial definitions. Unfortunately, attempts to discredit others or delegitimize their efforts without justification are not limited to this discussion. For that reason, our arguments have broader implications, even if this particular exchange has become a joke. Of course, trying to engage an unreceptive audience is futile. I was stupid to reply, but that's what it was about (for me, anyway).

You had no intention of honoring your words to begin with so stop pretending like it's my fault. A troll's a troll.

It's not a matter of agree or disagreeing. To disagree and to agree calls for opinions. The things I've said are not opinions. Facts are facts regardless of whether you agree to it or not. There is nothing to agree or disagree about. Unless you can somehow prove it wrong, which no one has yet to, there is nothing to talk about.

Yeah, you're right they're not "opinions," they're incorrect opinions.

Yes you are.

There is something to discuss if you want to convince others that your definitions are meaningful. I abandoned this discussion a couple weeks ago because you didn’t acknowledge counterarguments or the questions people raised. That doesn’t mean such questions or issues with the examples you used to justify your claims don’t exist. In fact, I have something new to add after I just realized Zankokuna Kami ga Shihai Suru (A Cruel God Reigns), one of the three examples you gave of shonen ai, was published in a josei magazine called Petit Flower. Since the intended audience is women and the manga has mature themes, don’t your definitions suggest it’s yaoi, not shonen ai? How does this example support, not refute, your definitions?

While I'm at it, I should point out that your other two shonen ai examples are as debatable as the three yaoi examples I questioned in earlier posts. One Thousand and One Nights is a manhwa (South Korean comic) published by Seoul Munwhasa. I can’t read Hangul, but the English publisher Yen Press ( http://www.b2c.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/none/one-thousand-and-one-nights-vol-4/9780759528741/?yen) gives it an “Older Teen” rating and uses broad genre classifications (e.g., “General” initially and “Gay & Lesbian” for later volumes), so it’s not clear why you think it’s shonen ai or how your definition applies. Omamorishimasu, Dokomademo is published in Chara, a “Boys love comic for girls” ( http://www.chara-info.net/). Chara is well known for what most manga sites label Yaoi, though shoujo or BL might be better labels. If such sites are labeling Omamorishimasu, Dokomademo differently from other manga published in the same magazine, is it really because the age or maturity of the intended audience is different? Also, does Omamorishimasu, Dokomademo have a sex scene? The last few pages imply the main pair is about to consummate their relationship, but is there more?

In other words, your six examples raise more questions than they answer and do not show that your definitions are superior to any other definitions presented in this thread.

This is where you are stupid. Somehow, you're under the notion that I'm trying to convince people of my "opinion." In fact, I'm not doing that at all. I'm informing people. Go back and read what I said at the beginning people. I don't need to convince. The thing I said are indisputable facts that no one can disprove. The fact that you yourself can't disprove it.

Petit Flower are notorious for Shoujo manga as well along side Shounen Ai. Just because they have a few Josei manga doesn't mean that they cater towards the specifically. Unlike other publisher, Petit Flower is pretty broad so stop with your stupid assumption.

As for One Thousand and One Nights, it is for older teens you idiot and not for young adults. Meaning the age of 13 - 17 and not 18 - 21 which are Seinen and Josei. Get your demographics right you idiot.

It is so sad that you're still trying so hard to troll. You're not a person of your word. You said you stop but you didn't. Which makes you a stupid hypocrite.

Thank you for actually responding to some of my specific questions.

Petit Flower is listed as a josei magazine and most of what it publishes is josei, including A Cruel God Reigns:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_(magazine)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Cruel_God_Reigns
https://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?pubname=Petit+Flower
http://www.mangago.zone/read-manga/zankoku_na_kami_ga_shihai_suru/


This is not coming from me. I looked it up. I did read A Cruel God Reigns a while ago, and it's not hard to understand why the content is classified as adult. I am willing to accept some link or source contradicting this claim, but you denying what I learn from other sources without providing an external reference is counterproductive. In case you want to dismiss my links, I am aware of Wikipedia's limitations. The point here is to show that I am not giving my own opinions. If you want to debate the quality of specific sources, lead by example and provide a few of your own. I am simply pointing out that A Cruel God Reigns is widely considered josei, so you seem to be contradicting your own definition of shonen ai.

I think you missed my point regarding One Thousand and One Nights. I was emphasizing that the English publisher does not actually provide any category label other than the age rating and the General or Gay & Lesbian label. The specific age rating is a side issue (though it could be interpreted as evidence that the manhwa is not considered to have explicit sexual content, since sexual content partly determines the age rating). My main point is that Yen Press does not use the BL label, and it certainly does not use the label shonen ai, since it's referring to a South Korean comic. I question using seinen, josei, or any other Japanese publishing label for manhwa, but that's a digression. I've subscribed to a number of legal websites where I purchase access to translated South Korean webtoons (Lezhin, Netcomics, etc.), and BL is usually used if the focus is on a gay couple's relationship (often with an additional age rating if the content is particularly explicit). This is more of an historical adventure comic and the focus of each volume is on different stories, many of which do not feature homosexual couples, so I tend to think it defies easy categorization. There is more homosexual content in Banana Fish, which was marketed as shojo, not BL or shonen ai. Perhaps it's not worth comparing publishers from different countries, though. (Banana Fish has dark, adult themes, so it's sometimes hard to define the limits of shojo based on mature content.)

Regardless, you have not explained why you think One Thousand and One Nights is shonen ai in the first place. If that label comes from Baka-Updates, for example, that website does not use your definitions, as I have already mentioned ( https://www.mangaupdates.com/genres.html). I can't say anything about Mangago labels, since I'm not sure how those are applied. Still, I'm not sure why Mangago's labels would be deemed more accurate than the publisher's, and I think you would have to demonstrate that Mangago is actually using your classification. It's quite possible the label is based on the lack of explicit sexual content between the main pair, regardless of whether you found a sex scene. Also, this label could simply reflect the opinion of whoever submitted the link or accepted the submission. Again, I'm simply pointing out that your examples highlight additional uncertainties. I would be very interested in knowing how Mangago classifies manga, so feel free to provide links that might enlighten me.

I realized something new weeks after our conversation ended. Interpret that as you will, but aren't you being a bit melodramatic? You make it sound as if I swore an oath, when it's not even clear to me you wanted to end the discussion. That was my own decision because I had nothing more to say at the time. I thought the point about A Cruel God Reigns was worth sharing. You don't need to read more into it than that.

Sigh... I'm sick and tired of talking to a troll who doesn't know shit. I'll give you a glimpse at how much I know to prove to you once in for all how insignificant your pathetic information network is.

First and for most, if you've done your research CORRECTLY, you would have known that Zankoku na Kami ga Shihai Suru is a SHOUJO and a SHOUNEN AI. Under Petite Flower which is sold by Shogakukan, Zankoku na Kami ga Shihai Suru is label as a manga for high school girls. If you want the link, it is right here. ( https://www.shogakukan.co.jp.) The same goes with A Night of a Thousand Dreams which is serialize by Wink Comic. The link to it is here. ( https://blog.naver.com/winkfamily) These are link that came directly from the website that sells it. Not from some third party like yours. If you can't read Japanese and Korean then you shouldn't even be presenting your source material at all. That's why I refuse to reason with you cause I know your source is unreliable and you're a freaking dumb ass to even believe in them.

Secondly, Josei and Shounen Ai are two different things. Josei is a demographic while Shounen Ai is a genre. And if you're too stupid to understand, one is to point out the audience the story and the other is an element of the story. Just because a manga is a Josei doesn't mean that it can't be a Shounen Ai you shit eating ret@rd. The fact that you don't even understand that invalidate everything that you said.

Just from those two points alone, I've already proven to you AGAIN that everything you've done, every research that you partake, all of it are NOT FACTS but OPINIONS. And just from those two points, I've prove yet again that what I say are FACTS and NOT OPINIONS.

My suggestion to you is to stop what you're doing and start reevaluating your life and everything you believe in. If you even have an ounce of belief that you're somehow right and I'm wrong, I suggest that you take a carrot, shove it up your ass, and then take a bite out of it. After this point onward, if you still wish to continue arguing with me, you're no longer be arguing. You'll just be trolling. And I will speak to you as such.

Hot damn, y'all really just don't know when to quit in an endless stalemate based on one dude being adamantly wrong, do ya? lol. Aaaaaaand a mutha fuckin' mute.

I acknowledged a while ago that the language barrier was an issue and an obvious limitation, which is why I was relying on English sites and sources. I’ve discussed this at length in earlier posts, so I’m not sure why you are ridiculing this weakness now. In fact, I argued this was a big source of uncertainty for English-speaking fans. I welcome corrections to the English sources, but links to magazine or publishers’ homepages I can’t read do not tell me anything new, especially since I already acknowledged the publishers and my references provide similar links as sources.

Perhaps I misunderstood your definition of shonen ai, since I thought you were arguing that the maturity of the intended demographic was the defining characteristic distinguishing Yaoi from shonen ai when you argued, “Yaoi is simply the adult counterpart to Shounen Ai like How Seinen is to Shounen.” That’s why I questioned how a josei manga, which is, by definition, intended for a mature audience, could also be classified as shonen ai according to your definition. I thought I was highlighting a rather obvious contradiction, but you clearly disagree. Ironically, you reinforce my argument about uncertainty with every reference you dismiss. Regardless, we’ve both made our points, so let’s end this here. Good bye.

Sorry, I forgot to mention that the publisher does seem to support your claim that A Cruel God Reigns is marketed for high school girls here:
https://www.shogakukan.co.jp/search/site/%E6%AE%8B%E9%85%B7%E3%81%AA%E7%A5%9E%E3%81%8C%E6%94%AF%E9%85%8D%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B

Also, I should explain that I used my translator after copying and pasting the name of the manga, but my translator is a bit wonky. Matt Thorn and that essay compilation I referenced earlier also use the term shojo to describe A Cruel God Reigns, though they use shojo broadly. That may be why I originally thought all manga by Moto Hagio were considered shojo until I found A Cruel God Reigns classified differently in multiple places. My surprise triggered my latest comments here, but it turns out that the josei/shojo classification is as debatable as everything else.

There is an old discussion over at Baka-Updates about the intended audience of different manga magazines: https://www.mangaupdates.com/showtopic.php?page=4&tid=9924

I don't bring this to your attention to claim the poster is right or wrong. I just thought it was interesting to see how this particular person classified the different magazines using the prevalence of furigana (among other things). (Someone did reply that they consider Flowers, the contemporary incarnation of Petit Flower, to be shojo.) It also shows how those at Baka-Updates might be classifying manga. Given the mixed conclusions one could draw from a basic Google search, I am inclined to accept the poster's claim that "age wise the terms Shoujo/Josei are somewhat subjective terms."

I would expect someone fluent in Japanese to have a better understanding of Japanese genre classifications than someone forced to rely on English explanations. However, for better or worse, others fluent in Japanese have attempted to inform the English-speaking community. You can balk at their efforts, but it's simply inaccurate to claim that manga genre classifications are self-evident to English speakers. Right or wrong, most fans learn what terms mean from a source or multiple sources. I have no problem with relying on the publisher to determine the genre if I can understand the publisher. I also have no problem relying on some simpler classification scheme all fans understand if it's consistently applied. If I point out how your definition or examples are not particularly helpful to someone seeking clarification, I'm not trolling you. I'm being honest. Anyway, this really is my final post, so please do not reply. I apologize for restarting the conversation.

It is not subjective you idiot. Your biggest mistake is assuming that Josei is a genre. If it was a genre then there has to be an element that is consistent with it. But it is not a genre. It is a demographic. As long as the book is sold and cater to Josei fan, it is a Josei. Where as genre, like Shounen Ai, is an element of the story and certain criteria has to be true in order for it to be a Shounen Ai.

This discussion is become even more stupid.

And that dude is you.