Can anyone remind me why is Naoto's privacy something that we actually give a shit about all of a sudden
Throughout this entire manga we haven't had a single molecule of respect for his boundaries but now that they told each other their feelings it does? Because that sounds like bullshit if you ask me
This is exactly what I have been thinking.
She always snooped through his stuff even before they confessed and not even once he had such a strict and hard reaction.
He is in the wrong for suddenly acting like it matters, and all while lying to her about what he drew only to hurt her by amplifying her insecurities regarding her body.
So whine and dine """""""privacy""""""" advocates, you should have been insulted by her since day one when she literally looked at his own drawings without his permission. Or when he did the same with her own sketch book. Let's just hope that this BS ends by next chapter.
Normally, when Nagatoro's violated Naoto's privacy, she's done it to his face. The entire matter of the violation is adjudicated right then and there, with Naoto either relenting or just being "defeated".
It isn't proper behavior in its own right, but it was
their "normal", Naoto went from not having the backbone to tell her off to outright wanting her around regardless, and it never caused any serious harm, so we the readers got used to it.
(It needs to be noted that early Nagatoro
was enough of a turn off for some readers that they initially or permanently dropped the manga.
We, the ones who have been following since, are the ones who got used to this dynamic that can come off as too much for others, and
we may have not all perfectly accepted the dynamic-- personally, I wasn't offended by it since I had read the CGs at that point and I knew how bad it could have gotten.)
It was also a "normal" established by Nagatoro as part of her way of worming herself into Naoto's life as well as defending her fairly fragile self (I don't mean that derogatorily).
What happened last chapter was in its own class because Nagatoro
didn't do it to his face. She did it when he was out of view, and didn't indicate that she was going to do it (either while in conversation with him, or in the proximity of the finished conversation). I'm willing to argue that the action itself shouldn't be considered to be in the same vein as what their "normal" was before their loverhood, because-- if nothing else is known-- it didn't stem from the above attack/defense mechanism, but from being used to the act itself (the act being a feature of the aforementioned attack/defense mechanism).
Since last chapter, I suspected that part of the point of this specific conflict was to recontextualize their "normal" in the setting of a formalized intimate relationship (I'm increasingly more sure of this in this chapter, where Nagatoro intended to do her usual routine of ribbing Naoto with her friends only for her to be unable to complete the routine while discovering that she's become more vulnerable). Among other matters: regardless of what Nagatoro was really feeling when she made the casual violation of his privacy part of the foundation of their relationship, it
did demonstrate a lack of respect for him (to whatever degree, since she clearly had limits herself and wouldn't stand others disrespecting him).
That also means that to say that she's "always done this" is a self-defeating argument-- a tendency partly borne from and premised on disrespect is not something you can (or ought to) carry into a normal intimate relationship. Even if she continues to freely view his art as she has, the justification probably will not be "that's how we've always been".
I don't need to talk about Naoto-- we already knew he was in the wrong for lying. He was already speedrunning the realization from "I made you feel a certain way" to "I did something wrong to you".
Not completely a fan that suddenly Naoto is the only one to blame here.
It won't do for Naoto to apportion blame like an actuary when he
is at fault.
More generally: it doesn't make for thorough discussion to try to weigh against each other the abstract sense of badness of two faults that don't even rise to "cause for divorce", let alone "criminal".