Iincho to Furyou-kun - Vol. 2 Ch. 27

[MangaDex]

 

[Darkshade13]

She'd be more sympathetic if she wasn't so self-absorbed/arrogant. I hate that these stories so often have the rival that's all "I'm way better than them, why wouldn't the person I like choose me because I'm the best and deserve them the most?"

Recognize your feelings and believe you deserve a shot, but this is such a shallow way to make sure that we don't like the rival that it feels fake and artificial.

 

[AngelVera]

I don’t hate her but I do hate what she is- a love ”rival” (and I use the word rival here veeery loosely). More specifically, the sort of love interest who feels they have some sort of monopoly over the feelings of their Object of Affection because of Reason A, Reason B, etc. 🙄 Whatever the reasons may be!

^^ That has always felt like weak reasoning and justification for me. At the end of it all, what’s important is- does the person have any positive feelings/thoughts about you? Is the affection/interest in anyway reciprocal and equal? Like they see you also as a friend/LI and not some creep or just as a sibling.

What she did was immature but this is a highschool romance manga so 🤷‍♀️ I was disappointed but not surprised XD But I am curious to see how she goes from here now. Will she continue to delude herself? Or will she let her love be?

Very hopeful for the latter one 🤞 Prolonging such situations gets… exhausting for everyone 😅 Thank you so much for the translation! Read from Ch1 to now in one sitting 😊 and excited to see what’s next! ♥️

 

[Oeconomist]

God, I hate harem stories.

 

[potatoawards]

No need to apologize thanks for updating the series

 

[Maxoball]

Nah she just knows she on the losing team

 

[Hikineet]

Thanks for the chapter.

 

[pab101]

God, I hate harem stories.

This literally isn't a harem story. That would mean polygamy, this is just a standard romance story. A lot of love stories have multiple characters pining for another character's affections, it only becomes a harem if the MC tries to be with more than one. This sort of thing is present in romance stories of all kinds, whether they be bl, gl, hetero male MC, or hetero female MC. To say this is the dominant type of non-harem love stories might be a bit of a stretch, but it makes up a sizeable chunk of all non-harem love stories. Even in stories where the MC is the one pining after someone, there's often a rival who wants their crush's affection.

 

[Oeconomist]

This literally isn't a harem story. That would mean polygamy,

Different areas have different vernaculars. For example, in physics, if you hold a great weight in your arms, unmoving, then during that time you are said to have done no “work”.

In the discourse of manga fandom, “harem” includes in its reference scenarii in which multiple females contend for the affection of one person, and “reverse harem” scenarii in which multiple males contend for the affection of just one person.

A lot of love stories have multiple characters pining for another character's affections, it only becomes a harem if the MC tries to be with more than one. This sort of thing is present in romance stories of all kinds, whether they be bl, gl, hetero male MC, or hetero female MC. To say this is the dominant type of non-harem love stories might be a bit of a stretch, but it makes up a sizeable chunk of all non-harem love stories. Even in stories where the MC is the one pining after someone, there's often a rival who wants their crush's affection.

You've verbally larded-up the point that harem stories are common. Indeed, they are extremely common in manga. They are common because readers regard being desired as validation, and being desired by more than one person as greater validation. They regard girls and women as potential sources of validation more than as persons whose hurt is to be regretted.

God, I hate harem stories.

 

[pab101]

Different areas have different vernaculars. For example, in physics, if you hold a great weight in your arms, unmoving, then during that time you are said to have done no “work”.

In the discourse of manga fandom, “harem” includes in its reference scenarii in which multiple females contend for the affection of one person, and “reverse harem” scenarii in which multiple males contend for the affection of just one person.

You've verbally larded-up the point that harem stories are common. Indeed, they are extremely common in manga. They are common because readers regard being desired as validation, and being desired by more than one person as greater validation. They regard girls and women as potential sources of validation more than as persons whose hurt is to be regretted.

God, I hate harem stories.

No site I have seen thus far would agree on your definition of harem. And multiple people wanting the same person while not exactly common isn't uncommon either in reality. Stories with multiple people attempting to win the same person's affections can also be found in romantic TV shows, movies, novels, and other mediums. Everything from Riverdale to Shakespeare. I hate harem stories with a passion, this ain't one. If this story was one I would have dropped it immediately, this is literally just two people in love plus one woman with a one sided love.

 

[Oeconomist]

No site I have seen thus far would agree on your definition of harem.

You are on a site that does, you exceptionally silly person.

And multiple people wanting the same person while not exactly common isn't uncommon either in reality. Stories with multiple people attempting to win the same person's affections can also be found in romantic TV shows, movies, novels, and other mediums. Everything from Riverdale to Shakespeare. I hate harem stories with a passion, this ain't one. If this story was one I would have dropped it immediately, this is literally just two people in love plus one woman with a one sided love.

You are back to verbally larding-up the point that harem stories are common. Which point is no rebuttal at all.

 

[pab101]

You are on a site that does, you exceptionally silly person.

You are back to verbally larding-up the point that harem stories are common. Which point is no rebuttal at all.

Except it literally doesn't follow that definition. If it did this and countless other mangas with similar love rivalries would have the harem tag. At this point I'm just gonna assume you're a troll.

 

[Oeconomist]

Except it literally doesn't follow that definition.

As I said:

Different areas have different vernaculars. For example, in physics, if you hold a great weight in your arms, unmoving, then during that time you are said to have done no “work”.

In the discourse of manga fandom, “harem” includes in its reference scenarii in which multiple females contend for the affection of one person, and “reverse harem” scenarii in which multiple males contend for the affection of just one person.

and I gave a substantiating link:

You are on a site that does

Most of the manga tagged do not have polyamorous stories, but do have multiple girls or women seeking the affection of the MC. QED.

If it did this and countless other mangas with similar love rivalries would have the harem tag. At this point I'm just gonna assume you're

Nope. Some manga have no tags at all. The idea that a term only has a meaning if it is used everywhere possible would also be silly. Manga get tagged as harem stories when someone with the ability to tag them takes note of that aspect, and appropriate tags are often not applied if the aspect is not introduced early.

At this point I'm just gonna assume you're a troll.

No, you're going to try to save face with a claim that no one is buying.

Okay, we get it. You like fantasizing about being validated by the desires of multiple girls (which is why you lard-up the point that such stories have been normalized), but you don't want people to mistake you for a polyamorist. So the vernacular here really bugs you. Although I hate harem stories, I don't like this feature of the vernacular either; but don't resist it by using complicated expressions. (Similarly for how economists use “rent”.)

 

[pab101]

As I said:

and I gave a substantiating link:

Most of the manga tagged do not have polyamorous stories, but do have multiple girls or women seeking the affection of the MC. QED.

Nope. Some manga have no tags at all. The idea that a term only has a meaning if it is used everywhere possible would also be silly. Manga get tagged as harem stories when someone with the ability to tag them takes note of that aspect, and appropriate tags are often not applied if the aspect is not introduced early.

No, you're going to try to save face with a claim that no one is buying.

Okay, we get it. You like fantasizing about being validated by the desires of multiple girls (which is why you lard-up the point that such stories have been normalized), but you don't want people to mistake you for a polyamorist. So the vernacular here really bugs you. Although I hate harem stories, I don't like this feature of the vernacular either; but don't resist it by using complicated expressions. (Similarly for how economists use “rent”.)

I'll be honest I legit didn't understand how this sites tag system worked or that was a link. I just assumed you might be some troll as in my head that literally made no logical sense, and I didn't want to be one of those people baited into arguing for 4 pages. So apologies for that. Honestly as for the last one, at the end of the day you're just some random person on the internet, and while I don't generally like being misunderstood, I don't care how anyone on this site or any site chooses to view me. I still don't agree with you, but I can respectfully disagree.

 

[Oeconomist]

I don't care how anyone on this site or any site chooses to view me.

A performative self-contradiction is involved in any such statement. If you didn't care, then you wouldn't care to say that you didn't care.

I didn't want to be one of those people baited into arguing for 4 pages.

You weren't baited. I made a simple statement

God, I hate harem stories.

and you responded with 120 words, the first seventeen of which said something wrong, and the remaining 103 of which did the work of four (“such stories are common”). And no one asked you to keep at it.

 

[pab101]

A performative self-contradiction is involved in any such statement. If you didn't care, then you wouldn't care to say that you didn't care.

You weren't baited. I made a simple statement

and you responded with 120 words, the first seventeen of which said something wrong, and the remaining 103 of which did the work of four (“such stories are common”). And no one asked you to keep at it.

I said it because as mentioned I don't like to be misunderstood, and it felt weird not to address it while simultaneously addressing the rest. I never said you actually baited me and in fact said I recognized you weren't, I thought your statement was nonsensical and assumed you were just trying to get a response. As for the last one, I don't understand what your saying. At this point I won't respond to anything else as I have better things to do than have an argument that's going nowhere with a random stranger on the internet.

 

[Oeconomist]

As for the last one, I don't understand what your saying

You had written as if you didn't want a lengthy argument:

I didn't want to be one of those people baited into arguing for 4 pages.

And I responded that the lenghtiness

you responded with 120 words, the first seventeen of which said something wrong, and the remaining 103 of which did the work of four (“such stories are common”)

and the continuation had always been yours to avoid

no one asked you to keep at it.

And, again, it is inconsistent to claim both

I don't like to be misunderstood

and

I don't care how anyone on this site or any site chooses to view me.

Choose one or neither, not both.

I have better things to do than have an argument that's going nowhere with a random stranger on the internet.

I wish that you'd held that position before you launched your ill-informed and wordy argument against me. Try to stick with it now.