Wow an isekai manga where antagonists aren't completely hollow-evil and redeemable? A background-henchman character actually being likeable and a potential bro for MC? MC's allies aren't holier-than-thou honest to goodness perfect and has potential to be developed? Female MCs don't have their attention only on the MC and actually has other relationships developed (friendship in Livia and Angie's case)? Shits fire yo.
Seriously, what the hell is with the princes ? This chapter really gave insight for how shitty they are. A girl they just met buttered them up for a few weeks with them knowing she's screwing around with each one of them, and they just fall head over heels for her ?? Is this because they must follow the otome game, or are they really this retarded ?
@Sh1tPoster: Those same people turn my stomach--they have pedestalized sluts and whores, perhaps turning them into a sort of golden calf, one beyond censure or even criticism.
Clarice got played, there's no doubt about that--but she still had every bit of control over how she dealt with that fact. She chose to be a whore. Therefore she is, in fact, used goods--she wanted to be, her tears at the end be damned. (Thighhighs are wasted on her, though--they should have been given to Angie, pantyhose is ugly no matter what; this, unless Angie's just wearing really high thighhighs.)
Feminists (and their manslaves) imply (some dispense with implication and outright say it) women are superior to men, 24/7, with one side of their mouths--with the other, they continually assert that women (unlike men, who are always answerable for what they do--a fact and state of being which any man worth his salt should embrace) have no agency. Which is it?
@Giga I don't know what the original commenter said, but even if she did make bad choices, is it not nice to write her off as "used goods". I don't get how that means that she doesn't deserve love anymore. I mean, what does her past have to do with her now? I guess I'm feminist or something but like...I don't get...as long as she isn't cheating on the guy during the relationship, isn't it fine?
@RubyG8396: You're correct in that it's "not nice". I agree 100%.
The fact of the matter is that truth does not have to be nice and it, as has often been said, hurts sometimes (not that this should really be hurting any readers...). The reason why people come to the conclusion that she does not deserve love is because, as you said, this was a choice she made. If she could make it then, and make it repeatedly at that, what's to stop her from doing it again in the future? Even if her tears are compelling to some observers in the present, they won't mean much in the long run, because those tears will dry up; what she chose to do before was appealing to her then, and most people do not change easily, especially if they are disinclined toward (or less capable of) personal accountability. Her past is as much a record of her life and an honest description of her character as it would be for a compulsive liar, a recidivistic thief, or a serial rapist. (But don't start thinking that I'm equating what she did with rape--that'd be disingenuous on your part.)
What's more, sex isn't the meaningless act that subversive postmodern ideologues have been passing it off as over the past few decades. It's an act charged with import that can (and frequently does) have long- and far-reaching consequences--particularly for women. By that, I don't just mean pregnancy, I mean psychosomatically--psychologically and physiologically. Women are far more affected by their emotions (the hormonal processes that evoke them) than men are, and thus the diminution of pair-bonding ability hits women proportionally harder. A promiscuous woman will be desensitized to sex, something that should be reserved for one man; by the time that right man rolls around, she may not say it, but her body itself will tell that man, "You're nothing special, you're just the latest." This is the meaning of "used goods", and to willingly choose this fate is why she rightfully has the stigma applied to her.
Speaking of personal accountability, Clarice--a woman--made her choice. It's a choice that was her prerogative. However, that choice came (or should have come) with consequences. When a man chews women up and spits them out every night, he is justly considered a philanderer by those with morals; no man worth his salt would want such a reprobate for his daughter, no real friend of a woman would fail to advise said woman to avoid that man. Why is it that Clarice should get a pass?
The lie told to spare feelings is often the considerably destructive one.
@Giga I guess it's because I'm Christian but I don't think that anyone should be held accountable for their past mistakes. I know that sex is not taken seriously anymore and sin is just overall normalised these days. However, I believe that no matter the sin, everyone should be given a chance. If they are truly sorry for their actions and want to repent, I think that we should forgive them. I understand not trusting a person after they've made mistakes. After all, trust does not come as easily as forgiveness. I believe that trust has to be earned, but I do think that everyone should be given the chance to clear their reputation. There are real stories of even murderers seeing the light one day, and I believe that we should give everyone the opportunity to see the light.
@Giga And BESIDES, I think it's like saying that men are naturally more sexual than women to explain rape and sexual assault. I don't think it's intentional, but those people who say this in response to a rape case unwittingly ignore the fact that the majority of men out there don't sexually assault women. I think that it's justifying it in some way. I think that how horny you are has NOTHING to do with it, and that it's entirely your choice.
I think that sex is by choice. I don't think that anyone is addicted to sex. I think that anyone who cheats is entirely in control of their bodies and choose whether or not they will cheat. Sure you are not saying that cheaters are forced to cheat, but I'm saying that in the same spirit that everyone has a choice, that everyone can choose to be faithful. I get not trusting people, and that's a whole other obstacle to overcome. I just think that if someone really cares about a person, they won't do something as stupid as cheating, whether they are horny or whether they have had a past. I think that instead of judging a person by their past, that you should judge them by their current actions, but be aware that in any relationship you could get hurt.
@RubyG8396: Feminist and also a Christian? Last time I checked, more than a few of the tenets of feminism are at diametrical odds with some of those of Christianity. Then again, perhaps you were saying that you were a "feminist" rhetorically, and not literally.
That aside, what you said first isn't something I disagree with. In its entirety, anyway--I do think that everyone should be held accountable for their past mistakes. Once they take responsibility for what they've done, express penitence, and work honestly toward distance from whatever the mistake was, that's when forgiveness can come into being. As long as you live, you have the chance to turn over a new leaf--starting with the moment after you make a mistake. But, as I said, the problem is with people who do not/will not take responsibility for what they do. Talk is cheap; plenty of people will issue an apology just to lose heat, and keep on moving along the same path that got them the heat in the first place, thinking that the only real problem was their getting caught. There is also another underlying problem with oblivion of one's past: people will think that, given enough time, they can eventually (but surely) acquire forgiveness for their misdeeds; knowing this, they'll willfully do wrong--after all, it'll only require endurance of a wrath that will not last. This is related to what I said above--forgiveness can be and is exploited by these types, and when it is in this way, the threat of upsetting those you harm stops being a deterrent.
Regarding what you said second, I can't agree with that first sentence--it isn't the same. Indeed, saying that to explain rape/sexual assault is in fact the sexism they detest--there's more to it than that, especially when you have rape committed by men and women on men and women alike. However, what I said about certain psychological characteristics that make an individual less able to accept the pressures of self-accountability is a phenomenon that's easier to find manifesting in women than in men, though it manifests in both; what I said about physiological characteristics that render an individual less able to accept those pressures is exclusive to women. There's a reason why a man generally cannot talk about a woman's weight with her; a reason why it's long been held that it's "impolite" to ask a woman about her age; there's a reason why there are tons of jokes and comedic routines revolving around the man of a couple cursing his fate to be asked by the woman if a certain garment makes her look fat; and finally, there's a reason why--especially in this day and age--a man is expected not to care about a woman's past.
Continuing further, I would have to say how horny one is of course is a factor in rape, it's just not always the only one. But you are right--going down that road is still one's choice; that's what separates humans from animals.
Further along, I disagree--people can become addicted to sex, but that isn't quite what my focus is on, nor was it what I was referring to. I was not saying that it's something that had to be done, but that it would have become something acceptable. People can indeed choose to be faithful, just as they can choose to engage in infidelity, but walking the straight and narrow is harder if you've had more than a taste of the wide and crooked--this is because of human nature.
Human nature squares human sentience with human instincts toward self-preservation and the pursuit of comfort (which, by the way, is not to be underestimated, as nature is a very uncomfortable place) in a way that's heretofore uniquely vicious in the world's biosphere: humans can think of various ways to do harm to ensure survival and comfort; this also goes right down to our feelings, should they hold greater sway over us than logic/rationality does. This becomes significant in an effete and dissolute society that has become such because of an excess of comfort.
That said, I agree with you when you say that if one really cares about another, they won't do something as stupid as cheating, even if they are sexually aroused...but that's where my agreement ends. A person may care about someone else, but if they're the type--when gripped by emotion--to engage in wanton sexual activity, and have already done so for that reason in the past, then it'll only take a similarly strong grip by emotion to defenestrate love and caring. It may not always go down this way, but for some (especially women, as strongly emotional as they tend to be), it is more likely. Regarding judging a person by their past, I think it ought to be done. You can't tell the future, but some aspects of the pasts of many people are indeed an accurate predictor of the paths those people will take, going into the future. As I said previously, most people do not change. It takes effort and strong will to change, particularly if it's away from vices one has become comfortable in. At least if one remembers that they will be stigmatized, then at least fear--if thoughts of one's own dignity, honor, and morals aren't enough--of shame will keep them from stepping off the straight-and-narrow.
Consider what you said here:
I know that sex is not taken seriously anymore and sin is just overall normalised these days.
The concept of "slutshaming", and the condemnation thereof is why women specifically are behaving this way--why they aren't taking sex seriously anymore, and why their profligacy is normalized; it's a derivative of the message that women are equal to men, and those same people pushing that message are the same ones who think that all men are mindless rape machines and that being such is how women can level the playing field.
I confess, I didn't quite read everything you said. I kinda skimmed. I'm sorry. I'll probably read through later or something (cuz I get bored and scroll through comments but let's move on) Also I'm a hypocrite seeing you made a long comment, but look at me, I only speak in eight line paragraphs. I guess I hate what you did because I see the same thing in me.
It sounds kinda sad that you don't trust people. I am not insulting you or trying to make you look like less. I just think that more less, you harbour negative feelings towards people for their past. I just came from church today. I know that these kinds of arguments just go back and forth and back and forth. You tell people to forgive and forget, and you get a million different answers for what that actually means.
It just sounds kinda sad to want to be in a relationship after you've sinned. I know that you have this feminist narrative clouding your mind and that you are trying to prove that those women are hypocrites and that none of that hypocritical behaviour is getting past you...but I think that instead of looking at what a girl represents, you have to look at her for who she is.
Listen, I agree with you. Feminists are wrong sometimes...or lots of times...actually feminism is a little complicated. There are good ones and bad ones...and a lot of bad ones. I just know that I am not sinless. I wouldn't want people constantly bringing up my mistakes. I mean, I would probably feel guilty about it. But that's just me. I want to know that the person I love sees me for me and not my past. And I'm sure you agree with me. I just think that you are trying to speak out against the women that don't feel guilty. I guess nothing is wrong with speaking against that, I just think that you really shouldn't constantly bring up things you don't like about somebody.
That's the crux of it. No matter how much I think people deserve it, I don't think you should insult people. You get me right? Sure feminists suck, but you at least think that good women should be given a chance, right?
Also, giving you more to read cuz ultimately...once I start it's really difficult for me to stop so I'm sorry.
ANYWAYS. Sure feminists suck, but you at least think that good women should be given a chance, right? And even if you don't give them a chance (with you cuz you're entitled to do what you think is best for you), pretty please, don't slut-shame. That kinda hurts - even if the woman really deserves it. Either she's going to throw the insult right back at you with feminist shenanigans or she's not gonna be aggressive and accept the insult passively. Either way, that's how insulting people works. They either deflect the blame or they don't.
It's not even about sex (for me...at least what I'm talking about), it's about the principle of just not bringing up past mistakes. People getting defensive is kinda annoying to deal with on both sides so if I'm gonna talk to somebody about something, I'll wait until they are more receptive to advice.
@Giga also reading your reply over each time is kinda interesting because different things sink in at different times because it's kinda a lot to process. Yes that's it. That's all I want to say. I'm a hypocrite doing the same thing you did. Therefore I shall remark, "TLDR-guy my brudda. May you continue in the tldr way, as will I."
