Kimi's Topics (170)

I don't think they were a couple. Just one sided from her, and that's make all the photo thing even worse

I am pretty sure they were not a couple... She was just openly crushing on him... I mean they got like 2-3 scenes together and they never called each other in an intimate way. She was just pissed that her "hard work" to get him got to waste because of a guy... Kinda hurt her pride too I guess and they crazy bitch decided to take her "revenge".
Btw could you please share the title of harada's story with a similar plot? I would love to read it! (=・ω・=)

Lol when you catch up you’ll realise the irony of your words

thanks for the implied spoilers T-T

I think you can interpret my words in a couple of different ways so

I was totally with you till your last point you realize beauty is subjective he obviously found her attractive other wise he wouldn't have them as a mistresses, LIKE who you to decide weather someones beautiful or not. that's messed up bro (╬￣皿￣)凸

Very nice input. I've always wanted to read a story about the mistress and the wife collaborating or just being friends.

Like A Wind On A Dry Branch manga is a pretty chill and most of the girls are chill with each other

Yes I like that one! But it would also be nice with a story where the relationship between the women is the central plot.

true

i recommend you to read "no doubt in us"

Well I was talking about the beauty standards at the time. Like, King James II was mocked by King Charles II historically for his taste in women as they were larger. King George I, however, also had a mistress who was viewed as "ugly," at least at the time. She was very skinny, which did not match the beauty standards at the time, which would have benefited King James II's mistresses.
"Who are you to decide whether someone's beautiful or not." I'm an anthropology major so I think that I have the qualifications to decide whether or not historical figures fit the beauty standards at the time of their existence.

LOL having a major still wouldn't give u the right to not think someones not "beautiful" YOU said and I quote "You don't even need to be beautiful!" when in every time period even if they don't fit the ideal standard it's still always going to subjective... like u do realize not every person follows a set of rules what society think is beautiful or not? ever single culture is different not gonna lie you gave me a great laugh for today so thanks for that

I didn't say whether or not I have the right to find whether or not someone is beautiful, since beauty does vary. I said "I think I can qualify whether or not someone fits the beauty *standards* of their time period [and country]."
I'm sorry for not writing "You don't even need to match the beauty standards of your time and country," since I thought people would have basic comprehension skills and understand that would be what I meant since I gave a historical example and every single person knows beauty standards change and are different.
I follow the culture of people. Anthropology is literally the study of people. In this case, I was talking about history. I was talking about historical figures and historical beauty standards based off of their geography. I even mention geography and time in my original post.

I apologize that I misspoke in a way that could easily lead to misinterpretation, that is on me, but your utter refusal to understand what I meant once I clarified myself is disappointing, even entirely missing the point I made - I cannot judge someone's beauty, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I can see whether or not a historical figure fits the beauty standard of their time and location.

hmm you kinda implicated she was ugly, where's everyone not gonna have the same opinions even if it wasn't society norm and idk I'm not really a huge fan of that. get what you were saying but kinda came off real iffy to me like "nooo way u can be successful while not being what some people perceive as beautiful" but were all entitled to our opinion.

I believe most people are under the impression that mistresses are pretty and are taken in because of their looks, and aren't there for anything other than that. I simply wanted to convey that that wasn't true.
We're talking about mistresses here, after all. Women who are partnered with royals who already have wives. I don't think you understand the actual power and importance mistresses have had throughout history. I was specifically talking about English and French mistresses after around the 18th century, as I stated (because they are the ones I have studied the most). I'm not talking about normal people. I am talking about those associated with monarchs who were in power because people believed their bloodline to have been chosen by God. People who went to war because they felt like it, people with the power to kill hundreds of innocents in a day. People who arranged crusades and enslaved and murdered thousands. And these are the women who slept with them. The women who shared royal men with the power and influence that we literally cannot imagine these days.
Now, we have NATO, we have the EU, we have Geneva. But back then, princes could go to war over their inheritance. Charlemagne killed over 400 people in a day. Sure, there was the Magna Carta in England, but did that do anything about slavery between nations? Not at all. Commoners lived in houses made of literal shit, barely getting by, while the royals collected all of their money and then went off to war because of... something or another.
If you were a man who had all of the riches imaginable, what other women would you surround yourself with other than those beautiful? You have other royals to be smart and do stuff for you. Why have the women you sleep with be anything other than accessories?
Is the general consensus around mistresses.
I am talking solely about royal mistresses in a historical context. Not about modern people.
"You can be successful as a mistress of a royal man while not being conventionally attractive" was my statement.
You took my entire statement out of context and applied it to something else i'm not really entitled to talk about considering it's not my branch of study. I never mentioned anything about people other than mistresses in my original statement. And I did imply that the mistresses of King James II weren't beautiful, but I never mentioned ugly. Why do people need to be either beautiful or ugly? Is there no in-between in your mind? When someone isn't beautiful in your eyes does that mean they're ugly?

Do you mean most people who reads these story? Because I think anyone who's taken a history class knows that there were kings who took lady's who some people don't find attractive everyone one has different preferences some liked a lady who was smart I'm pretty sure that's a well know fact.
Who wouldn't know that the person who sleeping by a kings side has power is that not common sense?
Yeah I feel like its a well know fact that incest was big thing cause they wanted to keep the bloodline pure...
No your statement was "YOU DONT EVEN HAVE TO BE BEAUTIFUL" I didn't take anything out context u just keep changing what your saying all I did was respond to you letting u know even if u don't find that person "beautiful" there's other people will tf cause beauty will ALWAYS be subject no matter the time period.
LOL I mean if not beautiful what did u consider them to be what was the reasoning and no not in my eyes don't only see beauty and ugly because some who I may find ugly will always be beautiful to someone else stop putting words in my mouth lol I just kinda assumed that was your was of thinking. and u changed your statement like 5 times at least the way of phrasing it lol how am I supposed to get what your saying.

A lot of people aren't given education about western mistresses and marriages in royal history, unless you were sent to a very well off school. But let's talk about what I think your main issue is.

I've been changing my wording so that way you can understand it. I'm adding in words that I thought would have easily been implied.
Here, since you're so uptight about direct quotes, I will quote what I have said, but add in the parts about the context. We've clarified what I meant about beautiful, we clarified what I meant about the mistresses, we've done all of that. Now let's talk about why I even said it in the first place, because I think you have missed that.

"Rosemund,,, you don't need to be the official lover of a royal man to be recognized and viewed as powerful or valid."

I said this because Rosemund's entire arc is that she wants to be powerful, to the point where she makes herself be adopted in order to gain a status, something which I said she could earn simply for being smart. See: "Mistresses could rival men in political standing, and could have titles given to them for their intellect."

Next I stated the notorious line, the awful thing I dared to say that caused this entire thing. "You don't even need to be beautiful! Look at King James II's mistresses."

It's pretty obvious that Rosemund is superficial. She wants power and worship. A large portion of her power comes from her beauty.

So let's summarize what I said in the first statement. Rosemund is desperate for a total and recognition, which she thinks can only happen if she has connections and abuses those below her. However, if she is simply smart, she can be given a title regardless and be noticed, even if she wasn't beautiful - or what you said, ugly.

Now, here was where you got mad. How dare I state anything about beauty! Because beauty is subjective. So, I apologized, and clarified what I meant. In my first response to you, I said "Well I was talking about the beauty standards at the time," clarifying that when I was talking about King James II's mistresses, I was saying that they weren't considered beautiful at the time, something I felt qualified to say since it's my area of study.

You then get mad at me, stating that beauty standards change based off of area and time! Which I even pointed out. Saying, in the quote above, "beauty standards at the time."

So I respond, clarifying my point. However, you decide to go back to the first statement, all the way back, to a conversation that we had just cleared up in the previous statements! Saying that I was implying that King James II's mistresses were ugly! Even though we literally just clarified what I meant in the previous conversations because I said it in an oversimplified way that was easily misinterpreted, ignoring literally all the progress we had just made! Woe is me.

So, I decide to do some more clarification. It's my duty, no? I said something that I should have expanded more upon. So I talk a little about mistresses, to explain not only that people view them for their beauty, but they are not normal people like you and I.

You see, if you are in a country that does teach European history, unless you are lucky enough to go to a school with a nice history program, and even then, most students are not taught about royal lineage (unless it is of their country or their colonizers) - and if they are, certainly not about mistresses. Due to popular media, mistresses are portrayed as beautiful villainesses, and most people, due to their lack of education on the topic of mistresses, are usually under the impression that mistresses were simply chosen to be so due to their appearance.

But what do I know? It's not like my area of study is about humanity, nevertheless mostly about European history, and also how modern people are influenced by their understanding of history and its cultural remnants! Oh, wait, it is.

But nevermind that! You respond going back to the very first quote. AGAIN. THE ONE WE LITERALLY CLARIFIED. THE ONE I APOLOGIZED ABOUT. THE ONE I LITERALLY SPENT ANOTHER POST EXPLAINING WHAT I MEANT. You say you "didn't take anything out of context." You mean the context we had literally spent the last conversation explaining and delving into? We had an entire conversation, no, many conversations, explaining the context and meaning behind that quote that offended you so. Which is on me, as I apologized for. And then, you just decide to ignore all of that, to bring it back up again? Was everything in vain??? I did not "change my statement." I explained it. To give context.

"all I did was respond to you letting u know even if u don't find that person "beautiful" there's other people will tf cause beauty will ALWAYS be subject no matter the time period." AND THEN WE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT TOPIC. I NEVER ONCE MENTIONED MY PERSONAL VIEWPOINT ON BEAUTY OR WHETHER OR NOT I THOUGHT THAT KING JAMES II'S MISTRESSES WERE BEAUTIFUL TO ME. AS I SAID, ALL I WAS DOING WAS "[seeing] whether or not a historical figure fits the beauty standard of their time and location." I DONT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS BEAUTIFUL. I EVEN AGREED WITH YOU ON THAT REGARD, THAT BEAUTY IS SUBJECTIVE. HERE, I'LL QUOTE IT: "[I] cannot judge someone's beauty, beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

ARE YOU FUCKING INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING BASIC CONVERSATION? ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF RETAINING INFORMATION? I THOUGHT THIS WAS FINISHED. I THOUGHT WE WERE DONE. YOU SHOWED ME WHAT I DID WRONG, AND I TOOK NOTICE OF THAT. NOW I KNOW NOT TO LEAVE THINGS UP TO OTHERS TO INFER BECAUSE YOU'LL FUCKING ASSUME THAT I THINK THAT I CAN JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE ARE *ACTUALLY* BEAUTIFUL.

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. Does NOTHING go through with you? I tried being civil. I fucking TRIED. I'm autistic, so sometimes when I type or read things, it goes through differently. That's why things such as "/srs" or "/s" are being used, to make things easier for neurodivergents like me. So I recognize when I say things incorrectly, and I apologize, and I try to do better. I try to explain the context of things. And then when problems arise in those explanations, I try to explain those things. To help you understand.
BUT THEN YOU FUCKING IGNORE ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND BRING IT BACK TO THE FIRST FUCKING STATEMENT. I'M DONE. IF YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING THAT I APOLOGIZED, AND DID MY BEST TO MAKE AMENDS AND HELP YOU UNDERSTAND, THEN THAT'S OKAY. I DON'T CARE ANYMORE.

This is no longer my responsibility to try to explain. I did explain. I explained what I meant. I explained the context behind me bringing up my major. And then I explained again what I meant when you brought it up. And now I'm done. Because clearly, you're just incapable of understanding, after so much conversation, that when I said "You don't even need to be beautiful!" I meant "You don't need to [match the beauty standards of your time and location] to be a successful and powerful mistress." You're so focused on the beauty part you forgot the entire reason it was brought up was because of Rosemund wanting a title and to be recognized.

I wish you a good day, one where you are able to go to sleep and feel accomplished knowing that you did what you needed to do. Because I feel fucking drained from interacting with you beyond what was necessary. And I hope you know that. I hope you know that you made someone very very frustrated, and empty. Because you refused to listen to what they tried to tell you, and just ignored it. Because you decided to assume things about them, about their worldview, that wasn't even relevant to the discussion. Because at the end of the day, all that I was trying to say, was that Rosemund was silly, because she could easily have recognition and a title if she just put her effort into becoming smarter, and she doesn't even need to be considered conventionally beautiful to do so.

damn you wrote a whole easy that's tough, not gonna read I feel like even if I decided to read that and rebuttal everything your saying we still wouldn't come to a mutual understanding, I'm still gonna gonna stand by what I don't agree with you. Because everyone has different view points an opinion lol no asked u to spend your time responding to me, not gonna apologize for stating my opinion but have a nice day as well.

i urge you to read. please don't make that worthless. i beg you. i am so empty from these conversations. that was my last statement, and i just want you to read it.
and i've told you my opinion on beauty, here is what I have said on it:
"beauty does vary," "beauty standards change and are different," and "I cannot judge someone's beauty, beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
Just... please read it. I don't want my last input to be ignored.

oh yeah I totally agree with your last thought, although I wasn't really thinking about Rosemund in any of this conversation, kinda understand but that's just her character.

oh and sorry about assuming you were from America I was wondering why you were bringing up things most Americans learned in high school I do apologize for being ignorant about that but that's it.

That's fine. I'm assuming you're American if you automatically assume anyone else is from America... I won't fault you. It's not your fault you were born into such an awful culture. I just wish you like... had actually understood why each conversation was being held. And not just bringing it back to the original statement about Rosemund.

Because I do agree with you. I know better than most that beauty standards are different for every individual and for every culture and time. But you just misconstrued one statement I made, even when we had spent so long discussing it.

Beauty is constantly changing. I study history and human culture. That's what anthropology is, the study of humanity. But you can look at a person and decide whether or not they fit the beauty standard for when and where they lived. There's nothing wrong with not being conventionally attractive.

And you don't need to even be beautiful to be loved or viewed as valuable, whether in a historical context or not.

No one can really be objectively ugly, but even if one isn't beautiful that's okay. I wouldn't call myself beautiful. I know some people have, but when I look in the mirror I see someone more "cute" than beautiful. When I look at my boyfriend I say he's more "handsome" than "sexy." Beauty is just one charm of physical attributes. But Americans do have a strange culture with etymology. It's one of the things I've noticed in my studies. Even though you guys share the same language as many other countries, it's a strange phenomenon. Perhaps due to your education system? I know your government is more fond of sports than grammar or vocabulary education.

Beauty is subjective, as is ugliness. The same person that you see as beautiful can be seen as ugly. And both are valid perceptions, so long as you aren't associating the persons value with their looks or how they perceive looks. There is nothing mean if a person sees another as ugly. As long as that individual knows their opinion is not objective.

You just became so stuck in this idea that I thought that I was actually stating my opinion on whether or not someone was "ugly," when I was just stating that they weren't beautiful according to the beauty standard of their time and location.

Fun fact, despite the DPRK and Korea having the same history, the beauty standards of the DPRK are slightly different. Women are prized for having a more "healthy" complexion and a rounder face with smaller features, while South Korean beauty standards lean more to pale complexions and larger features. However, beauty standards in my current country of residence, France, are a lot more varied due to it not being a very homogenous country, and don't really account for specifics like "skin tone" or "eye size."

Totally agree with everything with you said pretty insightful, but although I am American my family not from America so they don't really take part in things most Americans do since there from a different culture but I guess being here for most my life did kinda make me accustom to it. and not gonna lie I thought the beauty stander in north and south Korea was pale like most of Asia actually that makes since, since they are one of the only four countries that escaped European colonialism thanks for the fun fact .

Korea's beauty standard for being pale is due to royalty, same with China and Japan. While the royals stayed inside, servants and lower class would do work outside making them tan, so the royals would be pale. A lot of Koreans will get mad if people think it's because of European influence, so I'm glad you brought up that Korea never had that much influence from Europe (until after the war, of course).

But Korea *was* taken over by Japan. During that time it was illegal to speak Korean, many Koreans were enslaved for physical labor or to be a sex slave, museums were burned down in an attempt to erase Korean culture... And that only ended in the 40's. Many Koreans still feel hatred towards Japan because of it, definitely including my older family. Japan still refuses to truly apologize and acknowledge what they did, something which caused the Boycott Japan movement a while back.

yes I know which is why I brought up Asia as a whole because there's are other places like India where colorisim runs deep like yes it's cause the caste system but also In India, white men told them how their white privilege enabled them to get ahead in their business and social lives. and I already know the history between Korea and Japan. Japen doesn't have a good track history.

you are very wise ma'am/sir i agree, you cant hate someone based on there past,,,, hopefully he matured

No he wanted to battle her when she was 11 and when she denied multiple times he and that dumbass king pushed her into battle and he killed her spirit

he was a teen. he was still a kid. like,,,, people aren't born that competitive. if he was that competitive to a stranger, how do you think he was raised? i'm still mad at him, but i also feel bad for him.

The difference is he was a teen and she was a child. Just because the way he was raised it excuses that? A 16 year old should know what limits are but to challenge he thought to be an 11 year old child and killing her spirit?

That's not what I said at all. He needs to take responsibility for his actions. In my original comment I even said "Me feeling sorry for him doesn't mean I forgive him, both hatred and pity can exist at the same time."
You can have multiple feelings about someone. It may be easy to just only hate them and not try to view them as a complex character.
Clearly he has some issues, and that's what I think is pitiful. What I want is for him to have a redemption arc and for us to see why he became so competitive.
Furthermore, he did not kill her spirit, and second of all, no one knows about spirits. That's her entire story. She's being constantly overlooked because no one knows anything about spirits or what they do.
All I am saying is I feel bad for him - that does not mean I am not mad at him. I want him to have a redemption arc and to be more than just a one dimensional guy people can easily hate.

or OR, it could be a play, where, since his features are slightly androginous, they made him play the female lead role

I think it’s far more probable that he got some kind of soccer mom, except with theatre instead of soccer.

i mean if that was the case then there wouldn't be any confusion as to whether it was him or not, and he would have just been honest when he said that he didn't go the same elementary/middle school.

yeah it's a common trope in a lot of comics. some very well written though.