Koushaku Reijou ni Tensei shiteshimatta node, Mental Otome na Ore wa, Zenryoku de Onnanoko wo Tanoshimimasu - Ch. 20.1 - I learn of the prince's secr…

[mem]

Man, these comments

Do you really mind people loving each other for who they are rather than what is in their pants that much?

 

[Drumboo]

🏳️‍🌈?

 

[Strela]

Now that they resolved it, let's hope that Miranda isn't into pegging or the prince isn't into being pegged

 

[Nylodale]

Well, that's pretty darn convenient. Like, in so many ways. I kinda like it this way.

 

[Hakurei06]

That’s weirdly cute and wholesome. Also yeah. This is the best possible person each one of them can date, though things might be a bit awkward on their wedding night lol

should be fine with some crossdressing.

 

[hevensdragon]

They like BL in terms of fiction yes, and likely also in terms of seeing it occur. I doubt that means they want to be the one it is done to though. It is kind of like how I like the concept of doggos, but I don't want to become a dog, nor live with the hassle that comes with owning one.

But yes, the author is prolly going to gloss over it rather than use it as a plot-point/topic. So odds are mc will be into it off-camera. Perhaps it will even be a "only when it is my gf, but not other men" kind of thing.

You have some odd logic here, at no point are they stated to be straight in the first place, in terms of sexuality the info we know is that they enjoy BL and GL, while not confirmation that points to them being bi not straight, but because it doesn't out right state they are bi it equals they are straight? That's just pure assumption with no evidence backing it. Its also very narrow minded, the entire labeling of sexuality is just stupid, everyone has their own likes and dislikes, trying to force them under a cookie cutter mold to fit a label is just nonsense. As is your quite literally making a assumption, and are stating annoyance based on that assumption, despite all info we have been given goes against it.
Also as your dog tangent isn't even sexuality based but rather existential based I am just ignoring it, as its just not related at all.

 

[hevensdragon]

Seems weird they dont remember their old names but remember all these other smaller details.

It would be weird for normal memory loss, but its very clearly not normal. So I would specific things were wiped intentionally. I actually wonder if that specific memory was left so clear intentionally to get them to mention and tip each other off.
Also is it implying that the girlfriend (prince) took her own life in grief to follow the MC?

 

[feha]

You have some odd logic here, at no point are they stated to be straight in the first place, in terms of sexuality the info we know is that they enjoy BL and GL, while not confirmation that points to them being bi not straight, but because it doesn't out right state they are bi it equals they are straight? That's just pure assumption with no evidence backing it. Its also very narrow minded, the entire labeling of sexuality is just stupid, everyone has their own likes and dislikes, trying to force them under a cookie cutter mold to fit a label is just nonsense. As is your quite literally making a assumption, and are stating annoyance based on that assumption, despite all info we have been given goes against it.
Also as your dog tangent isn't even sexuality based but rather existential based I am just ignoring it, as its just not related at all.

I never claimed they were stated to be straight.

They stated that they were a bf&gf coupling in the real world before they died. This means that mc is at the very lest interested in girls.
They have not stated to actually have been bi, and that would obviously have been mentioned by now if they were. Particularly as we had a whole mini-arc on how much mc was against an engagement with a prince.
Adding those 2 factoids together, we know that mc only likes girls. Which is generally what is called "being straight" (though the nomenclature is arguably a bit more complex if you take into account his recent sex-change etc. Which is why I avoided picking any specific term until you decided on one for us to use, just now).

And to correct some of your arguments:
Liking BL and GL as fiction has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation - unless they are specifically talking about porn.
i.e: I can enjoy som BL (if it is not too explicit. which sadly a lot is. and porn is definitely too explicit), despite being entirely straight (rather, I would argue that the people who can't are often those that are insecure in their sexuality and sense discomfort of not being able to entirely disassociate from the characters). Maybe not my favorite subgenre on account of a much limited immersion (can't really empathize with the characters, can only sympathize), but with some good writing it can still be engaging (it is sort of like how I felt about reading romance back before I had ever fallen in love, except + an aversion to the explicit scenes).

It is not "narrow minded" to acknowledge literary rules such as how unless something is explicitly stated, one should expect it to follow the norm, as it has been established by other literature (no idea how you came up with the idea that it was; Edit: on re-read, I realized I am tired and had in your comment misread a period as a comma, and a comma as a period. So I likely misread that part a little bit). It is actually a really valuable literary rule, as it is why authors really don't need to be overly specific on all details. Though it does sadly have the side-effect of allowing the reader to know that (unless it is a mystery novel with red herrings) every detail explicitly mentioned is likely to end up relevant in some way.

The dog "tangent" (actually an analogy and not a tangent) was entirely related, and meant to show how equating taste in fiction or taste in concepts (or however I best phrase it), to personality/desires/etc is an erroneous logic. Basically, one can like something intellectually, without it actually being a part of themselves, if phrasing it that way helped?


I do like that you at least realized that people have their own likes and dislikes though. Unsure why you decided to mention it in this context - particularly as it almost sounded like you tried to use that to argue that there is no use in broad descriptive terms for sexual preferences to explain the motives and actions of fictional characters - but at least it is good that you don't think everyone are the same just cause they associate themselves with the same label.

 

[hevensdragon]

I never claimed they were stated to be straight.

They stated that they were a bf&gf coupling in the real world before they died. This means that mc is at the very lest interested in girls.
They have not stated to actually have been bi, and that would obviously have been mentioned by now if they were. Particularly as we had a whole mini-arc on how much mc was against an engagement with a prince.
Adding those 2 factoids together, we know that mc only likes girls. Which is generally what is called "being straight" (though the nomenclature is arguably a bit more complex if you take into account his recent sex-change etc. Which is why I avoided picking any specific term until you decided on one for us to use, just now).

And to correct some of your arguments:
Liking BL and GL as fiction has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation - unless they are specifically talking about porn.
i.e: I can enjoy som BL (if it is not too explicit. which sadly a lot is. and porn is definitely too explicit), despite being entirely straight (rather, I would argue that the people who can't are often those that are insecure in their sexuality and sense discomfort of not being able to entirely disassociate from the characters). Maybe not my favorite subgenre on account of a much limited immersion (can't really empathize with the characters, can only sympathize), but with some good writing it can still be engaging (it is sort of like how I felt about reading romance back before I had ever fallen in love, except + an aversion to the explicit scenes).

It is not "narrow minded" to acknowledge literary rules such as how unless something is explicitly stated, one should expect it to follow the norm, as it has been established by other literature (no idea how you came up with the idea that it was; Edit: on re-read, I realized I am tired and had in your comment misread a period as a comma, and a comma as a period. So I likely misread that part a little bit). It is actually a really valuable literary rule, as it is why authors really don't need to be overly specific on all details. Though it does sadly have the side-effect of allowing the reader to know that (unless it is a mystery novel with red herrings) every detail explicitly mentioned is likely to end up relevant in some way.

The dog "tangent" (actually an analogy and not a tangent) was entirely related, and meant to show how equating taste in fiction or taste in concepts (or however I best phrase it), to personality/desires/etc is an erroneous logic. Basically, one can like something intellectually, without it actually being a part of themselves, if phrasing it that way helped?


I do like that you at least realized that people have their own likes and dislikes though. Unsure why you decided to mention it in this context - particularly as it almost sounded like you tried to use that to argue that there is no use in broad descriptive terms for sexual preferences to explain the motives and actions of fictional characters - but at least it is good that you don't think everyone are the same just cause they associate themselves with the same label.

Liking is different from indifference. Your example of you are straight but can still enjoy the works if the surrounding content is interesting is indifference to the BL content. Your not there for that content your there for what's around it. Vs here they specially enjoy BL and GL to the point they bound over it, they are actually there for specially that content.
As for the MC being against dating the prince, the motive is not fully clear. The MC clearly dislikes formal settings and doesn't like the restrictive noble lifestyle. So a pollical marriage is something they were always going to be against. And one that will require even stricter manners at that. So there are factors other than gender for why they would be against it. So while it can be taken into consideration, its not confirmed as the reason why. Also the level of resistance was rather low, with how the MC just accepted it after hearing the other girls love story.

And a straight relationship isn't contrary to a character being intrested in both. So using it to point at only one doesn't make sense. (also a lot of IRL BI people get attacked and called fakers and face persecutions from lgbtq+ groups even to the point many of the rallies and what not will not even include the BI flag on merch like shirts and pins and other things. As somehow a BI person dating someone of the opposite sex its a betrayal of some kind as it makes them "straight" no BI.) It's a very stupid argument and logic, and the same argument you just used.
As for the use of terms and me calling you narrow minded. Yes you clearly misread a lot of that, as your reply just makes no sense to me.
I brought up the faulty nature of the terms because they are needed to be able to talk about this as we need words, but that their is problems with them as words that need to be taken into acount.

At the end of the day the author will decide their sexuality not you, not me. You assuming it and calling it bad writing if it doesn't go your way is pathetic.

 

[feha]

Liking is different from indifference. Your example of you are straight but can still enjoy the works if the surrounding content is interesting is indifference to the BL content. Your not there for that content your there for what's around it. Vs here they specially enjoy BL and GL to the point they bound over it, they are actually there for specially that content.
As for the MC being against dating the prince, the motive is not fully clear. The MC clearly dislikes formal settings and doesn't like the restrictive noble lifestyle. So a pollical marriage is something they were always going to be against. And one that will require even stricter manners at that. So there are factors other than gender for why they would be against it. So while it can be taken into consideration, its not confirmed as the reason why. Also the level of resistance was rather low, with how the MC just accepted it after hearing the other girls love story.

And a straight relationship isn't contrary to a character being intrested in both. So using it to point at only one doesn't make sense. (also a lot of IRL BI people get attacked and called fakers and face persecutions from lgbtq+ groups even to the point many of the rallies and what not will not even include the BI flag on merch like shirts and pins and other things. As somehow a BI person dating someone of the opposite sex its a betrayal of some kind as it makes them "straight" no BI.) It's a very stupid argument and logic, and the same argument you just used.
As for the use of terms and me calling you narrow minded. Yes you clearly misread a lot of that, as your reply just makes no sense to me.
I brought up the faulty nature of the terms because they are needed to be able to talk about this as we need words, but that their is problems with them as words that need to be taken into acount.

At the end of the day the author will decide their sexuality not you, not me. You assuming it and calling it bad writing if it doesn't go your way is pathetic.

Hmm, a couple good points there. I always imagined liking BL means that you like the themes it explores, and as such what you like is actually the "surrounding content" that naturally generates from the BL plot-device. But if as you say they like specifically the plot device itself, then that is indeed a difference.
And I suppose you might be right that it was the political (and high-profile) nature of it that she disliked, and not that it was a guy. I just read it to be more the latter than the former, but that might very well just be a matter of bias.
The mc didn't agree because of the love story though, but more because they learned that the alternatives was old and fat men, as opposed to an "at least androgynous boy" (if I correctly remember what mc mentioned in his internal monologue).

To repeat my prior comment, I weren't saying that it [a straight coupling] was contrary. I was saying that that PLUS that other part (the lack of explicit mention otherwise, in a literary work), was indicative. Both criterias needed to be true, to be able to draw an inference.
And did not know that people try to gatekeep the label like that, interesting (though depressing) tidbit.
No I was not using the same argument. For starters, you are talking about real people. Real people ideally keep things private until needed (the opposite is called "tmi" or "oversharing"), while in literature what's not been said, does usually not exist.

And yeah, like I said I had probably misread that portion. I was kinda really really sleepy

I don't think I ever said it would be bad writing otherwise. It all depends on how and when and why the author did what they did, and sometimes authors diverge from standard literary rules exactly to create an unexpected twist or surprise (or other reasons). I was saying that it was unlikely to be otherwise, as authors rarely do diverge. If I don't misremember, I even used qualifiers like "(un)likely", "expect", "doubt", "suspect" and the like, at various places, to make it clear that it is not hard rules. Though I might have missed it at places (or simply opted for brevity because I had it at other places in same comment).

 

[EchoGirl]

It worked out? XD; although i wonder if it'll be an issue if they're expected to have children lol

 

[KamikoAki]

I’m really happy with this development, I was honestly kinda saddened by the mc needing to be married to someone they didn’t like as it would just be kinda depressing, especially when it would come to giving birth to a child.

I was originally hoping for a yuri twist but I also knew how unlikely it was given the social norms of the world they’re in and the massive problems it would cause for the characters and their family’s.

Im also glad that they’re both smart enough to talk like adults and not just get stuck in an endless hell of ”oh maybe they’re also a reincarnator, but what if they aren’t” then proceed to draw it out for forever.

Praying to the high heavens that they both crossdress at some point as it would be hella cute lmao.

Glad this also isn’t a situation of “wow I’m now mentally 37 planning to marry a 9 year old,” as manga that do that always just kinda feel a bit weird.

 

[Kampfarsch]

 

[SL14_qwz153]

damn that's true love