bruh

I don't think that they meant it that way, maybe it's because it's his brother?

oh no they definitely meant it that way. "the prince who was locked up in chains could not resist" they were talking about his tragic story and how his dad locked him up so tightly he couldnt commit suicide and his homosexual brother raped him. It was chapter 19 or something

how's that homophobic?

exactly. its tragic

because it directly implied that due to his being gay he didnt hesitate to touch his chained up brother???

That means he touched everyone who was in his preference, including his brother who was not in a situation to resist.

Rapists can be gay and still commit rape, consent is the variable here

and how is that homophobic?? the novel isn't implying (AT ALL) that all gay people will do things like that.

that... is exactly what it's implying. they didnt say the prince famous for rape didnt hesitate to touch his brother, they said the prince, was famous for being gay, and in DIRECT connection to that statement, due to his being gay, he would not hesitate to touch his brother. which means that the reasoning given for why the prince raped his brother, is because he was gay. nobody says "the prince who was famous for being straight, did not hesitate to touch his sister" because it makes no fucking sense. you being straight does not equal you raping your sibling of the opposite sex. how are yall unable to see this???

I can see how you would think its homophobic, and how others think it isn't. I honestly dont know if it is or it isn't. Tho I do feel like it might be because as u said "the prince who was famous for being straight, did not hesitate to touch his sister" makes no sense if they were to use it like that. So the same could be said about the gay part. But like.. what exactly did u mean when u said "you being straight does not equal you raping your sibling of the opposite sex" ? Cuz that's kind of confusing me

what i meant was "Being straight does not mean you would rape your sibling just because they are the opposite sex." kinda confusing. I guess I get how someone might think it was just weird wording and not homophobic but idk. doesn't sit right with me.

while I agree that "the prince, who was famous for being straight, did not hesitate his sister" doesn't make sense,

wait, no, i think i understand how the manga's homophobic now
i thought you were talking about something else, like the specific syntax of the sentence
but no, i get it

the manga portrays LGBTQ+ as something foreign/strange/"special" which is homophobic

I see where your coming from now, and now it does seem homophobic. I'm not sure whether the author did by accident or not, but they'll probably get some backlash from that on official sites that you can read it on. Anyways thxs for clarifying it!

Not allowing rape and incest is not homophobic.

and here we have the most confusing comment so far

It would seem that in those times men were presumed to be straight unless they claim to be other wise.This just shows an evil character who raped his brother,It's not uncommon for royalty to abuse their power to obtain countless women and in this case since he was gay he must have used these means to get men to sleep with himwhich is what made him famous as a homosexual.The way I read it,it was stated as a matter of fact. It is just a situation

I guess I see what you're saying but it just seems weird to assume that he would have been an evil character. feels like him being famous for being a rapist and us assuming that makes him a homosexual since they are two men makes a lot more sense than him being famous for being homosexual and us assuming he's a rapist. I get your point of view though, it could be those were the authors intentions. could be translation errors too who knows

It isn't technially rape when emperors use their political power to get people to sleep with them.They know that if they refuse they'll be killed so they oblige to whatever he says,he didn't use any physical force to bind them but the people ordered ,came to him of their own accord in the end.Well,I just assumed all of this as it's the first thing that occured in my mind as I read this as a result of all the historical Mangas I've read before this one,but yeah it could be anything.We wouldn't have said it is sexist if the person raping him were his sister, right?
It could also be seen as a way of throwing light on issue of men being raped by men which does happen but in many countries isn't even accounted as rape.Or it could be that the author did write it with that intend and I might be wrong but it could be as a consequence of his own or some friend's encounter with a homosexual person who tried to rape him.Which is common in Korea during military service (even some straight men could be the abusers).if a male character is said to be a rapist wrt a female I obviously wouldn't label all men as rapist and so should be the case with gays.
Well,in the end whatever it may be.

?????????????????????????????????????????
What? It absolutely is technically rape, It's rape in every sense of the word. Someone being in a position of power able to force their victims to comply makes them a rapist. you don't need to physically force someone to rape them. if youre telling someone "Have sex with me or else" you are raping them. Also sexist??? it's not sexist? what? "all men are not rapists" i didnt say they were?? you've really lost me here

Oh sorry I actually searched the defination of rape and I didn't know manipulation was also considered rape(guess all those victims in the yaois I read could have landed their abusers in jail..but oh). Also I'm saying that homosexuals can also be abusers a news article talking about a homosexual who raped a guy wouldn't mean that newspaper is homophobic.In the same way as saying a straight man raped a women wouldn't mean a newspaper is against guys in general.And as you said if it's not sexist to say "A woman raped a man"

Aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh now I'll pretend I didn't see this comment at all
Pls don't be homophobic author nim