What's wrong with therapy? Like tbh I'm personally not qualified to help my kids through the struggles of something I personally cant relate to. I think taking him to group therapy was a great way to get them to understand each other. I wish the mom did it for slightly more innocent reasons but I dont think its something she should apologize for. It's like everyone involved saw therapy=brainwashing
There's nothing wrong with it. And like you said, it's because the mother had ill intentions. And do keep in mind they did mention conversiont herapy, and that is a form of therapy that is invalidating and harmful. So no, getting therapy to work through one's mind and emotions isnt bad. However, if the therapist or those involved do not have good intentions then it is more harming than beneficial. So I do believe she should appologize for her intentions.
The same way that some thereapists may have biases against sexual identity and gender idnetity, people have biases about therapy. It's not about people having an issue with therapy, but why and how we can resolve that 'why' so people can truly find the help they need :)
I laughed pretty hard at this
http://www.mangago.zone/read-manga/princess_s_happily_ever_after_marriage/nto/to_chapter-46/4/
Because "blood is thicker than water" is just shortened slang for "the blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb"
Aka: Those you bleed for are stronger connections than those you share womb water with (family)
not many people know this anymore so thanks for sharing.
WHatever an original phrasing may have been (and modern interpretations may differ), how it has been used for CENTURIES in ENGLISH language is that about familial bonds being stronger than other bonds. Usage versus etymology. It's how we use it NOW that matters. :D
that is what they teach us in English class.
Well considering it is a bible verse, you can misinterpret it all you like but anytime you read the bible the actual, real verse will be there. It's not a quote passed on through "word of mouth" but instead a bad interpretation of text. You can take any text from any book and twist it as you see fit and make it commonly used but it doesn't make it any less wrong of an enterpretation. Plus this particular phrase's original text is somewhat well known. I've definitely heard people correcting others for using it "incorrectly". Which begs the question, at what point do we draw the line? When the majority uses it wrong? By how much of the majority?
I read the Bible and I have taught the Bible. There are all sorts of things in the Bible that are interpreted in different ways in modern times (the one about name in vain, being one). The important thing in communication is what it means NOW to the general audience, just as words change in meaning, sometimes radically, from initial usages.
The line is "what does it mean to the audience to whom you are writing." Common parlance. Common parlance of this phrase for hundreds of years is: family is stronger than non-family.
Yep. That is. ONe of my degrees is in English.
Please give me the Bible citation for this, since you say it's a verse.
Sorry so I did some pretty deep, extensive research and as it turns out the Jewish bible it was taken from was a somewhat radical sect that did not cite anything and just expected people to believe (and believe they did. The phrase I shared above is apparently wildly popular and used by almost every category of people who preach to others) which is why there is a lot of "evidence" to show that is the original phrase, but only since the 1990s. However, the phrase did indeed originate from a phrase that means the opposite of the intentions it's used for today, "Blood is thicker than milk" a.k.a. blood brothers are closer than mom('s milk). Whether or not the way it is used today is more substantial information than the original meaning is more of a philosophical question than it is grammatical rule, especially in this case where water has no meaning so who cares if blood is thicker. I will say that original meaning has more weight to me when a proverb is used as evidence for action (as in this case with the mother) but I can understand why others wouldn't.
I'll also delete this post and use the new line as a response to the misinterpreted phrase so I don't spread any more misinformation concerning this line than there already is
I expected as much. I'm VERY familiar with the Bible and I did not recall any such saying. The covenant relationship is considered primary by many believers (ie, we call each other "household of faith" or "people of the covenant"). Like marriage--two non-relatives (generally) will become relatives. Become "blood" by the covenanting in marriage.
However, for hundreds of years, we use "blood/water" not "blood/milk" etc. It's very common saying, after all. Thanks for looking into it. Until I see an actual scholarly citation of a millenial old use of it to mean what this "sect" says, I ain't buying it as being the saying we use today.
Leave it for the people who actually read all the posts, please. After all, this was a very educational and fun experience on my end.
Other than glasses guy and the female manager, I despise every character in this story including the main. I will never read this again or read on. This author really needs to read up on right and wrong because she seems to have absolutely no idea on how to make a morally driven character. And if we can't relate to a characters morals, how tf are we supposed to become attached or supportive?
This is bad right? Like I'm legitimately confused as to why everyone is heaping praise onto this manga and giving it 5 stars. I couldnt get past chapter 5. The transitions arent even there, nothing is explained, a ton of characters are introduced right from the start and no depth is given to any of them. Everything is over-dramatized. Two people in 1 body which means one of them is gonna die... what the fuck yall? Like this is really bad.
Their backgrounds do get explained in the further chapters. There’s even some good plot twist in them.
I understand. I almost dropped it in the beginning because I thought it was silly and not going anywhere. I’m SO GLAD I didn’t. The plot evolved into a complex intermingling of relationships. So many lives affected, so much trauma experienced and so much effort into healing. Oh, and no typical cliches here.
I do wish we could see how the second couple figured things out though. Long distance is so sad. :(
I dont think aki was the problem with this story. Both characters weird and detached and had emotional bursts that didnt add up. Ever. I think the author should have just scrapped this plot and started all new
agree. it was just lacking any kind of interesting point or emotions... and it's like they keep going in circles lmao
More cute fluffy extras! And a sequel with the brother. I pity him so much, I usually stand by my values of (doing something bad has no excuse) and while I still believe that's true and that he never should have done what he did, I have seen first hand what favoring one kid and ostracizing the other will do in multiple cases. Its horribly damaging to the psyche and kids who get treated like that usually end up thinking that they're never enough for the rest of their lives. My mother got just a hint of this from her father amd it seriously fucked her up. Never favor your children. It's one of the most heinous things you can do and I really wish someone would just heal his soul
Except that there are many rape victims that choose not to hurt others. Im sure every rapist and pedophile has a sad past. Doesn't mean they shouldn't pay for their crimes. People that do awful things are mentally sick and need help, but should still pay for the crimes against the victim.