Uzaki-chan wa Asobitai! - Vol. 12 Ch. 107 - Kouhai and Review Meeting

[IlsaTilsaKilsaMilsa]

LMAO that face.

 

[thedinowarrior]

This is why I'll never get married and father a daughter. I'll become the ultimate cuck.
EDIT : I guess most people just don't care to read the editor's notes smh

True sigma

 

[chusetto]

Chica, esto te pasa por haber liberado AL DRAGÓN 🐉

 

[Zeciby]

OHHHHHHHH LOL xD

 

[vhjhvugyuyg8igyv]

I know he’s gonna come but still.. it’s so funny 🤣🤣

 

[havelmom]

if this doesn't end in the next couple of chapters I will review my rating for this series

 

[HT-Stunner]

Bro smashed her so good that she got sick the next day. Hold your head in pride dude. Massive W

 

[TheCancerFest]

Sakurai: - Ehm Uzaki?-
Uzaki : - What is it Senpai-
I look at borderline angry face of Uzaki’s dad
Sakurai: - I think that the last boss has appeared sooner that we’ve thought it would-

 

[Eighty-six]

That comment on credit page is some OMEGA-Yikes--

"OMEGA-Yikes" is some yikes, as is "yikes".

I agree they can be compromised on, to an extent. It's a fine line between compromise and crossing their boundaries. For instance, any of those hypothetical qualities could be very important to a person, making compromise more difficult.

This ideology is a baffling excuse for premarital sex (if you're not explicitly abstaining from it, you shouldn't need to justify it), and it improperly localizes actual issues with broad implications (e.g. those of communication and empathy) to the domain of having sex.

If you love someone to the point of wanting to marry them, your relationship isn't going to fail because of an unmatched desire for reverse cowgirl. It's going to fail because of a failure to compromise or acquiesce-- which isn't even primarily a sex issue.

This isn't "fine line" business-- you both accept and adapt for the sake of the other. At least, when the requests aren't hazardous to life (but, again, that's not primarily a sex issue).

Imagine a woman breaking off her engagement with her fiancé strictly because she found out he's got L strokes...

 

[Exile]

I have heard men try to defend the position that it is ok for them to have many partners, but not for women, which is the most illogical argument.

Of course its a logical argument, we always know who the mother of the child is but the father is far less apparent.

The argument hinges on responsibility and biology 101, if a man gets a women preggp its very easy to point the finger who the parents are were if a women is heavily involved in cross-pollination then who the father is? I will assume that said women will act on her best interests and claim the father will be the more financial sound choice, there is a word for this derived from the Cuckoo bird.

For the record, monogamy have been for the longest time the norm, neither should have many partners.

 

[outinthegardener]

This ideology is a baffling excuse for premarital sex (if you're not explicitly abstaining from it, you shouldn't need to justify it), and it improperly localizes actual issues with broad implications (e.g. those of communication and empathy) to the domain of having sex.

It was only limited to having sex because of the context of this chapter's events. I think you could make a similar argument about any relationship experience you don't find out about until after marriage/cohabitation. Even when you spend a long time with someone, get to know them in the context of dates and hanging out, it's not the same as experiencing living together. Discussing your relationship boundaries is not the same as living them. Communication/empathy isn't a solution to all problems, sometimes it results in finding out the problem is bigger than you initially thought.

If you love someone to the point of wanting to marry them, your relationship isn't going to fail because of an unmatched desire for reverse cowgirl. It's going to fail because of a failure to compromise or acquiesce-- which isn't even primarily a sex issue.

"Love someone enough" is much less equational than this implies, as it's a judgment based on incomplete and shifting information, that varies from person to person. Love is an amorphous concept, people change, economics change, sexuality can change, etc. The things you loved about someone when you're 20 might not be the same when you're 30, and that's ok. The word "fail" is unnecessarily judgmental, why not call it "ran its course" or "realized we're better apart?"

This isn't "fine line" business-- you both accept and adapt for the sake of the other. At least, when the requests aren't hazardous to life (but, again, that's not primarily a sex issue).

"Hazardous to life" is too strict a criteria. People deserve the freedom to change their minds or adapt to their experiences. What you should be willing to adapt or refuse is not a strict set of rules, but a negotiation. Your values and boundaries are the foundation of the disagreement. If you deny the possibility of rejecting the terms, it's not a negotiation but an ultimatum.

Imagine a woman breaking off her engagement with her fiancé strictly because she found out he's got L strokes...

She should, if having great sex is an important value to her. Better to break it off sooner than later. I would want the right to break off an engagement or marriage for any reason I find significant enough, sexual or mundane. Doesn't brush their teeth enough? Refuses to let me eat meat? Won't let their partner open a bank account? Belittles their favorite TV show? It's dependent on your values.

Tying people down is anti-freedom.

 

[Shay_Mendez]

A furious father is stronger than even the strongest man. They have some inhuman strength when they sense their daughter's chastity is in jeopardy.

I just wanna talk to him, I just wanna talk to him, I just wanna talk to him, I just wanna talk to him, I just wanna shoot him, I just wanna talk to him.

 

[Furiousgod]

The baki face is real

 

[Eighty-six]

People deserve the freedom to change their minds or adapt to their experiences.

Tying people down is anti-freedom.

None of this has to do with my point. The freedom of choice is presumed in my argument-- it doesn't function without it, and my argument conversely doesn't accommodate the forcing of choice.

Pretty much everyone in this conversation, and most who have this kind of conversation elsewhere, are concerned with the implications of those decisions-- and all pertinent subsequent ones-- on the people involved in the relationship as well as the relationship itself.

That is, we're making moral judgments about the kinds of choices people make and why, and the acknowledgment that someone can divorce another strictly because of their inability to take backshots is separate from the matter of thereafter identifying that such a decision is boneheaded and is based on boneheaded priorities.

"Love someone enough" is much less equational than this implies, as it's a judgment based on incomplete and shifting information, that varies from person to person. Love is an amorphous concept--

It would be, if you consider "love" and "lust" to be synonyms, as opposed to considering "love" to entail a sacrificial commitment.

If you don't agree with that, you're likely being inconsistently cerebral about the matter.

The word "fail" is unnecessarily judgmental,

Not when you explicitly make a commitment to have a persistent relationship with no defined endpoint or termination conditions, only for you to be surprised when it turns out that the person you coupled with at 20 became 30 and accordingly changed.

 

[ThreeTakeWonder]

Fight! Fight! Fight!

 

[outinthegardener]

None of this has to do with my point. The freedom of choice is presumed in my argument-- it doesn't function without it, and my argument conversely doesn't accommodate the forcing of choice.

Pretty much everyone in this conversation, and most who have this kind of conversation elsewhere, are concerned with the implications of those decisions-- and all pertinent subsequent ones-- on the people involved in the relationship as well as the relationship itself.

That is, we're making moral judgments about the kinds of choices people make and why, and the acknowledgment that someone can divorce another strictly because of their inability to take backshots is separate from the matter of thinking that such a decision is boneheaded.

Saying things like "pretty much everyone" and "we're making moral judgments" implies a universal position. This is contrary to what I'm trying to say. Moral "norms" do not apply to every individual, even if they're socially commonplace. I'm not taking a moral argument at all. I'm making a practical argument. Granted that some people will naturally sexually "click" and others will "flop," it makes sense to spend some time finding out before you commit to a legally binding relationship. Just like you should find out how you approach handling money, how you want to divide household chores, if one partner has more authority or if it's shared, etc. And when it comes to sex, you don't know what you're into until you experiment.

Even deciding if it's boneheaded or not is a subjective position, because how willing to compromise you are is dependent on individual circumstances.

It would be, if you consider "love" and "lust" to be synonyms, as opposed to considering "love" to entail a sacrificial commitment.

If you don't agree with that, you're likely being inconsistently cerebral about the matter.

I think if you ask 100 people what "love" is you'll get dozens of unique answers. And if you asked them the extent they should accept sacrifice, you'll get dozens of answers. I'm not sure what you mean by inconsistently cerebral.

Not when you explicitly make a commitment to have a persistent relationship with no defined endpoint or termination conditions, only for you to be surprised when it turns out that the person you coupled with at 20 became 30 and accordingly changed.

Not everyone views marriage as a relationship with no defined endpoint or termination. More likely the opposite, since we all know divorce exists. Some people even make contracts which define endpoints or termination conditions. Even without a contract many people would agree on some obvious reasons to divorce, like abuse or adultery or self-destructive behaviors.

 

[albl1122]

With another dragon.

What dragon?

It took way too long to look that up since I looked through like every chapter from 57 since I couldn't remember where it was.

 

[Eighty-six]

Saying things like "pretty much everyone" and "we're making moral judgments" implies a universal position.

Firstly, it doesn't. Secondly, I didn't say "pretty much everyone", I said "pretty much everyone in this conversation". I also further qualified with "most" when talking outside the boundaries of this thread. Me saying that "we're making moral judgments" does not at all imply a universal position-- it is me characterizing the kind of discussion of various such positions that takes place to begin with.

And when it comes to sex, you don't know what you're into until you experiment.

You'll never know, because you still don't know the future. You won't know if they'll become less devoted to the act of sex after settling into an intimate relationship/marriage, or whether their tastes will change, or whether they'll lose general interest in you for reasons both in and out of your control. You don't know if they'll suffer some kind of dysfunction or disease either randomly or on account of some unforeseeable accident that impairs or entirely prevents them from having sex-- and not only can I go on, but you don't know if any of that will happen to you.

The above is the primary reason why I identify the ideology at hand as a highbrow excuse for weedling premarital sex out of others-- the only thing it actually does is provide a sexual experience that may or may not be indicative of any subsequent sexual experience with the same person. It doesn't actually perform your claimed purpose, despite generally being more psychologically and sexually costly than anything else in the course of dating/courting.

Even deciding if it's boneheaded or not is a subjective position,

Nobody claimed otherwise. Subjective positions aren't equal, since the strength of their underlying arguments isn't equal.

I'm not taking a moral argument at all. I'm making a practical argument.

These aren't mutually exclusive, especially in your stance. The value you seem to be upholding is "freedom" (regardless of me presuming it in my argument), and you take it as a given that the value should be upheld.

I think if you ask 100 people what "love" is you'll get dozens of unique answers.

...and? I wasn't talking about how many people think that way-- I was pointing out that your saying love is "amorphous" would be consistent if you thought "love" and "lust" to be synonyms, and would be correct if they actually were (but they aren't).

You're inconsistently cerebral because-- despite generally speaking as if you're just talking about practicalities, you presuppose a moral value on freedom while denying any deeper meaning to the concept of "love" by calling it "amorphous". When confronted, furthermore, you appeal to the existence of wrong ideas to justify doing so.

Not everyone views marriage as a relationship with no defined endpoint or termination.

Everyone views marriage as a relationship with no defined endpoint or termination conditions, because it is consistently an institution defined in part by those characteristics. When two people marry, every facet of their lives are so intermingled that the termination of the marriage contract has to be performed by the legal system/religious institution responsible for marrying them in the first place. A marriage itself does not have conditions that automatically trigger a divorce-- even "faults" that legitimize a divorce do not force divorce on their own.

The existence of divorce isn't an indication that a marriage can have a defined (or, rather, pre-defined) endpoint or termination conditions. On the other hand, the difficulty involved in divorce is proof positive that the expectation of divorce isn't factored into the act of marriage itself.

 

[outinthegardener]

Firstly, it doesn't. Secondly, I didn't say "pretty much everyone", I said "pretty much everyone in this conversation". I also further qualified with "most" when talking outside the boundaries of this thread. Me saying that "we're making moral judgments" does not at all imply a universal position-- it is me characterizing the kind of discussion of various such positions that takes place to begin with.

It would be helpful if we state what we consider a "moral position," because I can see multiple meanings. One is a culturally adopted rule (or soft rule) that creates social cohesion. Another is a minority-enforced rule used to enact social control. Which of these positions are you thinking most in or outside this conversation are using, and are any of them using them interchangeably? The former tends to have practical origins while the latter tends to be a universal declaration. I think of them in terms of Kant's Hypothetical and Categorical Imperative, and I find the hypothetical imperative more useful and accurate. If you're not making universal moral judgments then I'm guessing you mean hypothetical imperatives and soft rules.

You'll never know, because you still don't know the future. You won't know if they'll become less devoted to the act of sex after settling into an intimate relationship/marriage, or whether their tastes will change, or whether they'll lose general interest in you for reasons both in and out of your control. You don't know if they'll suffer some kind of dysfunction or disease either randomly or on account of some unforeseeable accident that impairs or entirely prevents them from having sex-- and not only can I go on, but you don't know if any of that will happen to you.

Yes, and? This doesn't mean you shouldn't find out what your preferences are in the present. Are you denying the concept of learning if you might change in the future?

The above is the primary reason why I identify the ideology at hand as a highbrow excuse for weedling premarital sex out of others-- the only thing it actually does is provide a sexual experience that may or may not be indicative of any subsequent sexual experience with the same person. It doesn't actually perform your claimed purpose, despite generally being more psychologically and sexually costly than anything else in the course of dating/courting.

I object to the term "highbrow excuse for weedling" which implies one party wouldn't want to have premarital sex without the excuse. Plenty of horny people consent to premarital sex without challenge or harm. A friend had their first sexual experience whose partner wanted to do anal, because "anal didn't count as premarital sex." If that's not a real-life hypothetical imperative in action, then I'm at a loss to explain.

I do think trying out different sexual behaviors is useful for learning. Especially since most of western sexual education is either shrouded in puritanism (it's bad don't do it or even think about it! Now you're married, good luck!) or shrouded in media spectacle/pornography (This is a simulation of sexual activity that will confuse you).

Experiencing psychological costs could happen regardless of marriage, but finding out in a marriage is harder to deal with. Waiting for marriage does not mitigate the risk. Likewise, you could experience psychological costs from eating undercooked meat, but we don't make categorical rules about eating all meat. We make hypothetical ones about making sure our food is cooked.

Nobody claimed otherwise. Subjective positions aren't equal, since the strength of their underlying arguments isn't equal.

Agreed, which I why I choose to make nuanced hypothetical imperatives.

These aren't mutually exclusive, especially in your stance. The value you seem to be upholding is "freedom" (regardless of me presuming it in my argument), and you take it as a given that the value should be upheld.

I'll clarify that a categorical imperative moral argument would not consider nuanced practical reasons. The hypothetical imperative overlaps with practical reasons.

In a general sense yes, I do think freedom is a desirable outcome. Since you presuppose freedom in your argument, I think you do too. There's argument about which positive and negative freedoms, and I think that supports my claims.

...and? I wasn't talking about how many people think that way-- I was pointing out that your saying love is "amorphous" would be consistent if you thought "love" and "lust" to be synonyms, and would be correct if they actually were (but they aren't).

Saying "love" and "lust" are or are not synonyms depends on how an individual defines love. Other ways people define love is infatuation, emotional attachment, devotion, desire for self-sacrifice, enjoying spending time together, etc. It can be a combination of those things. There is not a singular definition of Love, which is why it's amorphous. "Love" signifies a social construct that is in constant flux.

You're inconsistently cerebral because-- despite generally speaking as if you're just talking about practicalities, you presuppose a moral value on freedom while denying any deeper meaning to the concept of "love" by calling it "amorphous". When confronted, furthermore, you appeal to the existence of wrong ideas to justify doing so.

I don't deny a deeper meaning to the concept of love, I identify that there are multiple meanings of love. What do you mean by deep meaning, as opposed to regular meaning? Moral value? Hypothetical imperatives use practical consideration when making judgments. And freedom is a necessary concept when we're talking about making judgments. I don't think I'm being inconsistent.

Everyone views marriage as a relationship with no defined endpoint or termination conditions, because it is consistently an institution defined in part by those characteristics. When two people marry, every facet of their lives are so intermingled that the termination of the marriage contract has to be performed by the legal system/religious institution responsible for marrying them in the first place. A marriage itself does not have conditions that automatically trigger a divorce-- even "faults" that legitimize a divorce do not force divorce on their own.

You're ignoring the experiences of people who contradict your claim. Say, someone who agrees to marry for enough time to grant someone citizenship, at which point they will divorce. Or two people who have an unplanned pregnancy and decide to marry until the child is an adult. Or two people who are pressured to marry by their families (say, to get an inheritance) then agree to separate once the inheritance is claimed. The idea that the institution is defined with no defined endpoint is only generally true, as a cultural construct. There are multiple cultural constructs of marriage.

The existence of divorce isn't an indication that a marriage can have a defined (or, rather, pre-defined) endpoint or termination conditions. On the other hand, the difficulty involved in divorce is proof positive that the expectation of divorce isn't factored into the act of marriage itself.

Yes it does. If there was no legal mechanism for divorce, you suppose a marriage must exist for perpetuity. With legal divorce, you allow that a marriage can end. That includes ending for unsuspected reasons, or for planned ones. And the difficulty of divorce isn't much different from selling a house- you agree to terms, you fill out some forms, you might need a lawyer to sort it out.

I'll restate my argument one last time. Granted that generally people do get married with the intent to get old together, I think you should have a good discussion about your expectations in the marriage, to avoid needing to make painful compromises. That includes beliefs about money, sexual practice, if you want kids or not, where you want to live, and much more. To develop your expectations you should take risks and experience a variety of things. Learn from your bad experiences.

This is getting overwrought, now that I'm bringing up Kantian Ethics and Post-Structuralist Semiotics. Probably time to agree to disagree! It was fun discussing with you.

 

[Eighty-six]

I think of them in terms of Kant's Hypothetical and Categorical Imperative--

What the hell?

You are either going out of your way to hyper-complicate this conversation, or you're experimenting with ideas in real time. What's baffling is that you quote "moral position", even though I never used that term-- it's the second time you misattributed terms to me.

How did you not consider that I was speaking of people's individual moral opinions before you started talking about Kant for no reason?