Search results

"Her curiosity was piqued" doesn't change anything about the scenario unless "her curiosity" forced an involuntary and un-premeditated action. She still decided to open the container when he wasn't in the room without indicating that she was moving to do so, in the conversation they were...

"Wasn't even being sneaky about it"? She only did it when he wouldn't be able to see her doing it, and she carried a conversation with him without indicating that she was opening the container. Just because her Sneak level is 0 and she was too transfixed by the sketch to remember her situation...

There's been at least one instance where he wouldn't have wanted her looking at certain material in his possession, however early it was. The things that he doesn't go out of his way show off to her, in general, have not been 100% open to her. She gets that, here, which is why she only opted to...

You also can't have a relationship built on lies. Nagatoro also had to have known that he'd have to do this-- she was in the room when the bet and its conditions were made-- so there's even less reason to have lied, since he'd be at most reminding her of something. Nagatoro is entitled to not...

You didn't acknowledge his first reason at all, even though you quoted me alluding to it. You're doing exactly that-- in the same sentence, no less. That was what the guy I was originally responding to was doing, too. You're trying to quantify blame. In fact, most commenters here are trying to...

It's not simply because he's the man in the relationship, though-- it's firstly because he's the one that caused the situation to spiral out of control to begin with by concealing what he did (even though what he was concealing wasn't a wrongdoing). Even if you're sure "because he's the guy" is...

It's the second reason he gave for why he should apologize, the first being that he had a part in this situation going out of control. I'm also failing to see how the assertion is prejudicial or discriminatory.

He's saying that Naoto has to apologize because (in part) he's the dude in the relationship, regardless of how wrong he actually is. That is, the apology isn't about who's at most fault to begin with.

I'm curious about the "you" at the end. I assume that Naoto addressed Nagatoro with お前 and she picked up on that, which harkens back to early on in the manga (chapter 3, p. 5). Then, it was clear he was trying to push back against Nagatoro's teasing at the time, trying to assert himself. This...

>this will be a pornographic manga from now on ...motherfu--

You "half-assed" your answers by duly answering sincere responses? You don't care for this conversation, but have never stopped responding on top of--at multiple points-- prompting me with questions? You thought your role as akin to calming down a kid having a temper tantrum while lobbing...

Please stop making stuff up to save face. I reiterate:

This is a pretty ridiculous cope for someone who could have stopped responding at any time. I'm not holding a gun to your head so you can make half-assed responses and then get angry when I take issue with them (naively believing them to have been made in earnest, like you would expect of...

You've obviously been extremely willing to have this conversation from the start. How is it that it's only now, after me quoting that word repeatedly in order to address it, that you want to downplay that part as a "joke"? "Female femininity" is redundant-- "femininity" itself relies on the...

Just because I recognized you weren't being literal doesn't mean that the belief behind the statement wasn't serious. You've repeatedly stressed that what you said was a joke, but in explaining yourself you sincerely expressed the exact things I sought to comment on-- I understood the meaning of...

Wait, were you the one that had Half Succubus and Kouhai's ratings escalated to "Pornographic"? Because I'm disinclined to believe that they are-- especially Half Succubus, from what I recall. Erotica? Maybe for the former, definitely for the latter. I dunno, I'm not certain about how content...

There's no operating joke in the statement-- you're just saying what you believe, as you've made clear. What you're doing is like saying "the sky is blue" and calling it a joke. "It's highly subjective"? Absolutely-- that doesn't mean that there's any reason to seriously entertain the idea that...

But it's not funny-- it's not even trying to be funny. You completely believe what you said. In which case, what makes it a joke? If it's not that you're unwilling to stand by what you said (you are willing), the "joke" label is superfluous. Right, and I'm saying that such things may be...

...no, that remark was separate from the rest of what I was talking about, and related to an earlier inquiry about the practice of just appending question marks to declarative statements (as opposed to phrasing questions as declarative statements). This is the second time you've said "it's just...

I don't think my example was wrong per se, but you're correct in demonstrating that a declarative question is only properly discerned in context. That is, "You want to join?" can be short for "Do you want to join?" if, say, the context is that someone just explained that he's going out for...