Yuusha Party o Tsuihou Sareta Beast Tamer, Saikyou Shu Nekomimi Shoujo to Deau - Vol. 4 Ch. 31 - The Fairy Sisters

[MangaDex]

 

[serca]

Gaki... 💢💢

 

[Darkshade13]

There are some strong "keikaku means plan" vibes to this translation.

 

[Pokari]

So, to be clear, it wasn't alright for her to go save her sister because it would put the entire village at risk by exposing the entrance, and so nothing could be done—but now that that one knight is gone she's totally replaceable and they can just walk away?

Wut?

(...I don't even know why I'm bothering to complain about this sort of detail in a 100% brain-dead series where the main premise is "hey, slavery is fun kids!!")

 

[androgynous]

So, to be clear, it wasn't alright for her to go save her sister because it would put the entire village at risk by exposing the entrance, and so nothing could be done—but now that that one knight is gone she's totally replaceable and they can just walk away?

Wut?

(...I don't even know why I'm bothering to complain about this sort of detail in a 100% brain-dead series where the main premise is "hey, slavery is fun kids!!")

It was about lowering the barrier, not rescuing the sister, since they were powerless against the shadow knight

 

[dementati]

So, to be clear, it wasn't alright for her to go save her sister because it would put the entire village at risk by exposing the entrance, and so nothing could be done—but now that that one knight is gone she's totally replaceable and they can just walk away?

Wut?

(...I don't even know why I'm bothering to complain about this sort of detail in a 100% brain-dead series where the main premise is "hey, slavery is fun kids!!")

I mean, it doesn't really seem to be slavery in practice. They use the word "control", but he doesn't really force them to do anything, and they would clearly obey him as their party leader even without the contract. It's also hard to imagine that he wouldn't release them from the bond if they asked for it. The only practical consequence of the bond seems to be that he gets a powerup to his own abilities.

It's kinda like how in BDSM people do stuff that would be considered very wrong if not all participants were consenting and nobody is forced to continue if they don't want to. And there's nothing morally wrong with that.

 

[Pokari]

I mean, it doesn't really seem to be slavery in practice. They use the word "control", but he doesn't really force them to do anything, and they would clearly obey him as their party leader even without the contract. It's also hard to imagine that he wouldn't release them from the bond if they asked for it. The only practical consequence of the bond seems to be that he gets a powerup to his own abilities.

It's kinda like how in BDSM people do stuff that would be considered very wrong if not all participants were consenting and nobody is forced to continue if they don't want to. And there's nothing morally wrong with that.

The point is reasonable (maybe minus some possibly-important questions on what the minimum age for giving that sort of consent safely is), but I would instead argue that slavery would still be slavery if (in a time or place with legal slavery) someone agreed to sign themselves as legal property to another person on the premise that the other person would (they trust!) set them free if they changed their mind.

Specifically, the crucial problem here is robbing the agency of the subservient partner to exit the relationship—they're completely reliant on the other person's permission to do so. That's very bad. In the BSDM comparison you use, it would be like if you took out safe-words (or at least the consequences for ignoring them).

Spoiler

(My other issue is that it's not like these are actual people; it's the author engineering these situations artificially. At which point things like the fact that they're all too young, the lack of specific communication about boundaries and general hand-waving of any issues, and the forced plot-point of all of this being a thing in the first place combine to give me a fairly poor impression of the authorial goals here. But that's more subjective.)

 

[dementati]

The point is reasonable (maybe minus some possibly-important questions on what the minimum age for giving that sort of consent safely is), but I would instead argue that slavery would still be slavery if (in a time or place with legal slavery) someone agreed to sign themselves as legal property to another person on the premise that the other person would (they trust!) set them free if they changed their mind.

Specifically, the crucial problem here is robbing the agency of the subservient partner to exit the relationship—they're completely reliant on the other person's permission to do so. That's very bad. In the BSDM comparison you use, it would be like if you took out safe-words (or at least the consequences for ignoring them).

Spoiler

(My other issue is that it's not like these are actual people; it's the author engineering these situations artificially. At which point things like the fact that they're all too young, the lack of specific communication about boundaries and general hand-waving of any issues, and the forced plot-point of all of this being a thing in the first place combine to give me a fairly poor impression of the authorial goals here. But that's more subjective.)

But safe words in BDSM are the same thing. People often get tied up (etc.) with no means of escape other than if their partner willingly releases them, safe words are just an unambiguous signal to do so. In the scenario in the manga, there's no need for a safe word, because all they have to do is ask to be released and there's no risk of confusion over whether they're just engaging in some sort of non-consent play.

As for whether they are of sufficient age and maturity to consent, sure, that's fair, though the exact age at which one can be considered to be mature enough to consent in an informed manner is somewhat subjective, and all the characters in the manga seem to at least be close to the age at which we'd normally consider them to be so in the real world.

Yes, you're correct that the matters of consent are treated in a kind of hand-wavy manner, compared to what we'd consider to be appropriate for real-world BDSM activities, but unless the manga is actually about BDSM, I don't think it would make for very good storytelling to dig into that in extreme detail in an adventure fantasy manga. Maybe it's not ideal, but it's also not that big of a deal imo.

Uh, and as for authorial goals, I mean, female slave harems are kind of a common trope in isekai/fantasy manga, and obviously it's likely originally spawned from some kinda male-targeted fantasy about control and sexual gratification. The whole concept is far from considered politically correct in modern western eyes, and it's sexist and pretty immature, but like, ethically speaking, I feel like you can just treat it as a private sexual fantasy that people to whom it appeals can enjoy privately as long as they keep in mind that it is a fantasy and don't start confusing these ideas with what's appropriate in human relationships in the real world. And if you subjectively find it disagreeable, that's obviously totally understandable.

 

[DarkMatter77]

Seeing as they’re twins. And one of them is called Luna. Is the other one supposed to be called Sola?

 

[thycondrius]

Lolis get? Please don't lewd the poor lolis!

Thanks for the chapter

 

[Toshkotv]

3rd and 4th wife acquired moving back at the designated location

 

[NicholasTurner]

Contract feel better than control since Rain doesn't even control them or make them do anything.
Was the switch translation side or author side?