Saku-chan to Nozomi-kun - Vol. 2 Ch. 6
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Fed-Kun's army
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2018
- Messages
- 428
Thanks for the new chapter!!
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,511
@givemersspls Thats the problem... Most of time I hate this sort of love rival characters, where they're always potraying their happiness as right for the love interest. The moment he said "I'll make you forget him" , it made me realise how self-centered he is. He doesnt care what shes going through, he doesnt feel that his constant pushiness is making her uncomfortable. Its clearly his desires that should be quenched
Honestly if they potrayed him as more friend-intentioned (concern for her outside of romance) but still has feelings for her, itd be at least easy to stomach. I wouldnt root for him, but I still find some respect for him.
This ....this is just obsessive clinging , plain and simple and kinda troubling
Honestly if they potrayed him as more friend-intentioned (concern for her outside of romance) but still has feelings for her, itd be at least easy to stomach. I wouldnt root for him, but I still find some respect for him.
This ....this is just obsessive clinging , plain and simple and kinda troubling
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,511
@givemersspls And I agree .....if he had just left it at she should move on from him
The fact, that he made romantic advances in the form of helping getting over it is what struck a nerve
Well intentioned or not , that only comes off as insidious and manipulative (at least to me).
He apologized, great...but that doesnt mean people see you as a great person, much less a great partner. Maybe it might takes months or years, maybe itll never happen. You should be respectful and give her time to breathe.Earn her trust and respect out of pure and honest goodwill
On a side ,why should it only be him to help her get over her heartbreak. Another random person who connects with her could be a better match. What makes this guy think he's a viable canidate for her affection
The fact, that he made romantic advances in the form of helping getting over it is what struck a nerve
Well intentioned or not , that only comes off as insidious and manipulative (at least to me).
He apologized, great...but that doesnt mean people see you as a great person, much less a great partner. Maybe it might takes months or years, maybe itll never happen. You should be respectful and give her time to breathe.Earn her trust and respect out of pure and honest goodwill
On a side ,why should it only be him to help her get over her heartbreak. Another random person who connects with her could be a better match. What makes this guy think he's a viable canidate for her affection
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,511
@givemersspls
The primary purpose of marriage is not to make the partners as happy as possible, it's to produce a good environment for child-rearing (as far as the lawful and societal tools employed allow).
There's another point to be made regarding genetic compatibility - as much as humans have lost most of their instincts for picking partners with which they would have "genetically superior" offsprings, there's still something leftover - often informally referred to as "chemistry" between two partners. In that regard happiness is not and should not be the only metric considered. Especially if you're referring to marriage.
As it happens marriage is probably not something that should be considered off teenage romantic feelings though. Because the parties involved are pretty much still children, and their feelings are in most cases quite shallow, and their life experience non-existent.
The primary purpose of marriage is not to make the partners as happy as possible, it's to produce a good environment for child-rearing (as far as the lawful and societal tools employed allow).
There's another point to be made regarding genetic compatibility - as much as humans have lost most of their instincts for picking partners with which they would have "genetically superior" offsprings, there's still something leftover - often informally referred to as "chemistry" between two partners. In that regard happiness is not and should not be the only metric considered. Especially if you're referring to marriage.
As it happens marriage is probably not something that should be considered off teenage romantic feelings though. Because the parties involved are pretty much still children, and their feelings are in most cases quite shallow, and their life experience non-existent.
@givemersspls
I did not say that some groups of people should not marry. However I explained what the main purpose of marriage and the resulting family structure is from a societal perspective.
As far as "should single people have children" goes, it really depends in what context the question is asked. From a purely utilitarian perspective it's a bad idea to raise a child with only one parent, as is evident from publications on psychology and even from statistical data where children having a single parent correlates strongly with multiple negative outcomes.
And as I explained realistically marriage discussions are not exactly applicable to what we see in the manga.
I did not say that some groups of people should not marry. However I explained what the main purpose of marriage and the resulting family structure is from a societal perspective.
As far as "should single people have children" goes, it really depends in what context the question is asked. From a purely utilitarian perspective it's a bad idea to raise a child with only one parent, as is evident from publications on psychology and even from statistical data where children having a single parent correlates strongly with multiple negative outcomes.
That's a tricky question, because miserable parents does not translate into good child rearing conditions. A loveless marriage also goes against the genetic factor I mentioned - when there's "chemistry" between two people you can hardly call this loveless. Granted the characters of the partners may be so contradictory due the environment in which they grew up, that a stable marriage is impossible, even if their genetic compatibility is great. I am not arguing against this.
Marriage is a contract, and make no mistake contracts have little to do with love, and very much to do with legal implications. Its purpose is to incetivize good child rearing conditions, to punish partners that threaten those conditions (cheating, divorce), to provide resources for single parent kids, and to redistribute wealth.
And as I explained realistically marriage discussions are not exactly applicable to what we see in the manga.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2018
- Messages
- 5,360
@criver "From a societal perspective" is a description that sounds more definitive than it actually is. Which societal perspective? Societies aren't monolithic, and they contain many groups and individuals with divergent interests. The more or less dominant societal perspective is often invested precisely in suppressing other societal interests, and it often doesn't even represent the majority. Just what society "wants" or what is "in society's interest" is very much contested. So it sweeps a lot of issues and interests under the rug to say marriage is X "from a societal perspective". Among those are the interests of individuals who place value on love--and there are a lot of such individuals. You can't just say "Oh, what the people in society want doesn't matter because society"--they are society.
Meanwhile, speaking as someone who's been married 23 years (and in love, thanks), marriage isn't a contract. Heck, in my country it's not only not reducible to a contract you don't even have to sign one--common law is equivalent for legal purposes and it kicks in automatically after 6 months of cohabitation. Not that that's what I did, I got formally married, but the lived experience of marriage doesn't have a whole lot to do with contractual obligation.
Indeed, even if you take it that marriage was somehow invented by "society" with no individuals involved, for "society" purposes, what people actually do with it remains up to them. And if an institution doesn't meet individual needs it will wither away. Individuals will use marriage for their own personal purposes, and claiming that society's will has moral force on their actions ("happiness is not and should not be the only metric considered" my emphasis) is questionable. Even if there was a unitary "society", do people have a moral responsibility to do with their marriage what society wants, rather than what they want?
Don't get me wrong--I'm not a fan of pure atomized asocial individuality. I think society is important. But if a society is no good at helping people be happy and in love, then it's in need of reform.
As a side note, studies about single parenthood need to be very careful, and generally aren't because they're so often done by people who want a particular answer. It's true that children having a single parent correlates statistically with negative outcomes--but that's basically because single parents are mostly poor. Compare across equivalent income levels and the effects mostly disappear. So then it's in "society's"--or at least, the children's--interests for either children to be raised by two (or more) people or for society to help support single parents.
Meanwhile, speaking as someone who's been married 23 years (and in love, thanks), marriage isn't a contract. Heck, in my country it's not only not reducible to a contract you don't even have to sign one--common law is equivalent for legal purposes and it kicks in automatically after 6 months of cohabitation. Not that that's what I did, I got formally married, but the lived experience of marriage doesn't have a whole lot to do with contractual obligation.
Indeed, even if you take it that marriage was somehow invented by "society" with no individuals involved, for "society" purposes, what people actually do with it remains up to them. And if an institution doesn't meet individual needs it will wither away. Individuals will use marriage for their own personal purposes, and claiming that society's will has moral force on their actions ("happiness is not and should not be the only metric considered" my emphasis) is questionable. Even if there was a unitary "society", do people have a moral responsibility to do with their marriage what society wants, rather than what they want?
Don't get me wrong--I'm not a fan of pure atomized asocial individuality. I think society is important. But if a society is no good at helping people be happy and in love, then it's in need of reform.
As a side note, studies about single parenthood need to be very careful, and generally aren't because they're so often done by people who want a particular answer. It's true that children having a single parent correlates statistically with negative outcomes--but that's basically because single parents are mostly poor. Compare across equivalent income levels and the effects mostly disappear. So then it's in "society's"--or at least, the children's--interests for either children to be raised by two (or more) people or for society to help support single parents.
@givemersspls
@Purplelibraryguy
I won't have time to answer this anytime soon, since I am going on vacation to a nice place without Internet. Just regarding the last part: this may be anecdotal evidence, but I recently did feature selection on a database with various features precisely for predictors regarding crime rate. Single parents were up there on the first places, while wealth wasn't as much. So I don't believe this statement is correct:
Psychology would also disagree on the subject. I am sure you can find a wealth of scientific literature denying this assertion too.
I never denied that, reread what I wrote - you are misinterpreting it. From what I wrote it does not follow that I am denying that people may be in love while being married (which is the majority of cases). The point is that marriage is an orthogonal notion which has a clear purpose, and that purpose is not love. You can argue that most marriages result from love, and you would probably be right, that still doesn't affect the purpose of marriage. The rational reasons to marry are not love if you look at the legal implications, by marrying you gain certain tools to legally enforce rules upon your partner based on a contract. As much as it sounds non-romantic that is what it is. That is not to say that there are no people that marry without taking into account the legal implication, just due to social pressure or because they just go along with what others do. The point being that you cannot be legally forced to love someone, but you can be made to face repercussion if you cheat, divorce, or break the contract in any way.
They are, as far as the legal and objective aspects of those go. Which is what one should take into account first and foremost when considering a civil marriage.
I did, not due to the marriage part though. My comment was more regarding the fact that marriage shouldn't have been mentioned there as it takes away from the point you were making due to the outlined reasons. Precisely because marriage is associated with more things than just love.
@Purplelibraryguy
I won't have time to answer this anytime soon, since I am going on vacation to a nice place without Internet. Just regarding the last part: this may be anecdotal evidence, but I recently did feature selection on a database with various features precisely for predictors regarding crime rate. Single parents were up there on the first places, while wealth wasn't as much. So I don't believe this statement is correct:
Psychology would also disagree on the subject. I am sure you can find a wealth of scientific literature denying this assertion too.
Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2019
- Messages
- 331
I find all your reasoning very interesting at both anthropological and sociological levels, but I fear you have escaped a fundamental point of view; The manga talks about kids struggling with their first teenage loves, and I don't think (as long as years and years of shojo teach us how children of three years old make promises of marriage that they then keep) none of them really think "so... I really want to share with this person my whole life or at least a good section of it putting my heart, my mind and my body at his disposal, have children together, deal with the daily difficulties and all the problems that will meet us, shoulder to shoulder until death does not separate us?"
no, their main thought is "I like this person, I'm fine with her/his. I'd like to be there more". Period.
They are also the season of life in which it is easier to fall in love and recover from the love retorts you receive, because you have all your life to recover; I think that none of us has been so traumatized by the fact that the boyfriend of high school has left us (or that we have said no) to give up forever to fall in love again, while instead when you leave the person you may live with for years, at the threshold of 40 years maybe think twice before returning immediately to the market . . .
no, their main thought is "I like this person, I'm fine with her/his. I'd like to be there more". Period.
They are also the season of life in which it is easier to fall in love and recover from the love retorts you receive, because you have all your life to recover; I think that none of us has been so traumatized by the fact that the boyfriend of high school has left us (or that we have said no) to give up forever to fall in love again, while instead when you leave the person you may live with for years, at the threshold of 40 years maybe think twice before returning immediately to the market . . .
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2018
- Messages
- 473
just a common passerby commenting on random manga~
dont mind me
dont mind me
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- May 27, 2019
- Messages
- 650
Arikawa is low key the best written character in this manga. some dumb guy who used to be an even dumber kid when he was young and made some dumb mistakes, but learned to reflect on it and didn't hesitate in apologizing. if people are not allowed to change, then what can we really hold them responsible for at all?
