yay's Topics (11)

A nachal or 나찰 is the Korean equivalent to Rakshasa. I'm guessing the fan translators chose the word that more people would know while Webtoons is always cherry picking or making strange translation choices.

ohhhh that makes more sense thank you (⌒▽⌒)

There is a website of it but it's raw. But it has english mtl tho

OHH YAY!! can you please tell me the website
╰(*´︶`*)╯♡

https://www.fortuneeternal.com/novel/debut-or-die-raw-novel/

I suggest you use the app Adblock cuz the website itself is pretty annoying ♀and the translation isn't always the best but what choice do we have ╮(￣▽￣)╭

YAYYYY THANK YOUUU SOSO MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!

apparently it should be coming back early this year!!!!!

I am fine with cheaters. Cheaters are cool. As long as you are not the kind of bitch that decides how much you love your kids and whether you are going to fulfill your primary duty to them and treat them as your topmost priority depending on how attracted you are to the other people that you share those kids with, there's nothing immoral about cheating. Date whoever you want, however many you want, two-time, three-time, hundred-time, all that is a-okay as long as you do not compromise with the interests of your people and do not betray the obligations of your social and legal contracts.

The seme deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth because he is an unrepentant abuser not because he is a cheater. The only reason that he regrets his actions at all is only because he was romantically into the MC and not because he understands that abusive behaviour is inherently wrong irrespective of whether the target is family, friend, colleague, lover or some stranger you couldn't care less about. Had he not been attracted to MC, I don't think he'd have cared.

yeah i totally agree with you on the 2nd paragraph. i mean im a victim of abuse too, so i totally understand and its sad that people dont take it seriously.

but for cheating, idk if its just different in my culture, but its taken very seriously. tho i guess dating/marriage culture is different everywhere. ik in places its normal to be dating different people left and right even if you share no feelings for them.
i just dont understand why you would cheat when SERIOUSLY committing yourself to another person yk? why would you swear to be faithful to only choose to be unfaithful? its not possible to be in a genuine, loving, lifelong relationship if the relationship is built on lies and distrust. i feel like it would make more sense to properly communicate with your partner to see if they would be accepting to this type of open-relationship.
to sum it up, imo cheating is a very immature thing to do when you can figure things out in a well mannered fashion.

(sorry if this seems passive aggressive, im not trying to be. js tryna explain my pov)(*^^*)

I dunno if you can tell but your mommy n daddy issues are leaking

Did your parents need to ask your permission before having other kids? If your parents send you to live with your uncle, and you grow to see him just as you do your father, are you being disloyal to your dad? Do your friends need to make sure that you are completely comfortable before making other friends, and forego doing so if you are insecure? No other relationships, relationships that are far more fundamental and essential, demand exclusivity. Why should a mere romantic relationships of all things be granted such privileges over your personal life that even your own family and lifelong friends wouldn't dare to impose?

Yes, a lot of cultures historically treated adultery as a sin and persecuted people for it. But that is because a lot of cultures were patriarchal and andro-centric. Marital rape, cool. Adultery, sin. F***ing hilarious if it wasn't so horrific.

The men called the shots and forcing their female reproductive partners into exclusive arrangements with them enhanced their own reproductive success while reducing that of other male competitors. It also helped men shed off most of childcare burden because they could cut off the mother of their child from her siblings, nephews, nieces as well as ensure that she would have any kids that did not also belong to you. Thus, she was forced to invest all her energy into your kids, because she couldn't have any other progeny.

This, if you take a moment to think about it, is outright coercion and abuse. And this was essential to sustain a patrilineal society because men can't ever be sure of the genetic heritage of a kid that they have with a free woman and they would not want to invest any parental care if the child wasn't their kin. Male parental care only exists in two conditions:

1) Matrilineal society because you get two-fold benefits. You get to keep sowing your seeds everywhere but don't have to invest any parental care into them. You only invest parental care in the next generation if you get to live with your family even into adulthood. Because then you are invested into children that you are sure are related to you. Your sister's children.

2) But, if you must have a patrilineal society, well, then that leaves you with no choice but to essentially kidnap mates and make sure they can't do anything without your approval.

Take a moment to think what good could there be for someone who is not your family to want to control who you chose to enter into a consensual sexual relationship with? Who stands to benefit from restricting their partner's reproductive freedom? And is it ethical for an unaffliated person to have that kind of right over you? Why should a sexual partner be owed that kind of a sacrifice? It makes no sense.

You enter romantic arrangement for the sake of your kids, not because you need a permanent sexual partner for your own sake. Even birds that are largely monogamous are only socially monogamous(not sexually), and that too only for a couple of seasons. Only a very few species of birds are monogamous over several mating seasons and the ones who are only do so because their babies take longer to reach maturity. Even for them it's always about the kids, not about the mating partners. Birds have frequently been observed to revert to polygamy and maintain many nests in times of abundance.

And, we are not birds. It's not as if we have to settle for a compromise like this because resources and mates for us are few and far in between. Among mammals, social monogamy even for only a few seasons is exceedingly rare. The whole purpose of being a social animal is to enhance your evolutionary success by improving the survival chances of your progeny and your kin. Not to find mates. If you can raise progeny while sticking with your kin, that's what you would do. That's what is in your best interest. Monogamous units where they exist are only a response to environmental stresses. They are arrangements of convenience, not of natural duty.

But, the culturally imposed monogamy that existed in some human societies and some other primate societies isn't anything as dignified as that. It is always monogamy for you, not for me. The only reason some patriarchal cultures imposed monogamy on both genders was not because they wanted to do right by women. Nope.

It was because they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They wanted to bind women to only have their kids and to spend all their time and energy on the care of their families but they also needed to cooperate with other men and to make inheritance easy and straightforward to govern even if they were moving around to different places and acquiring different properties. As a man, you don't want to compete with your colleague over mating rights.

As a father, you'd like to get your daughter out of the way to make things easier for your sons who will inherit your estate but you'd also like to make sure that you can take care of your daughter's interest the best you can within the limits of your social structure. If you can use her as a tool to improve the prospect for your family, while you're at it, all the better. The answer, social monogamy for men as well. Set the condition that the man who marries your daughter will get to own her in return for making only her children his heirs. If he can do that, he can rely on the unequivocal support of her father, brothers and nephews. I'm sure you can understand why for expansionist tribes that would be a beneficial arrangement for both the father of the bride as well as the groom.

Even the most respectful form of mate-control is always going to benefit men and cost women. Because evolutionarily speaking, women are the limiting reagent and they hold all the power. Men are abundant. Monogamous arrangements for reproduction purpose were problematic and abusive but at least, someone was benefiting from it so I can understand how they might have tolerated it as a necessary evil. But, it is just insane that even non-reproductive sexual arrangements feel far too comfortable in carrying on this nonsense. Neither party stands to benefit in any way.

The reason why so many feel uncomfortable with cheating is not because it's unethical by definition. It's because we have been indoctrinated by our largely, patriarchal upbringing. Also, the majority of family laws are lacking where they are essentially putting the cart before the horse when it comes to child welfare. As a result, children suffer a lot as a consequence of their guardians changing or adding sexual partners and why many of us have a negative perception of sexual and reproductive freedom, in general.

The laws are focusing on marriages, because they are easier to police, hoping that children will automatically be taken care of as a byproduct. Treat someone's co-parent as just a custodian, a representative for their shared kid's claim on their property, not as a direct heir to their spouse's property. That's it. Use legal, social and cultural means to direct people in a way where they have no choice but to put their family, especially their dependent children, before anyone they have sexual relationships with. Change marriage laws and social expectations so that two or more co-parents who live together while raising kids are not forced to become dependent on each other. They should still be able to easily maintain separate personal finances and personal lives.

Govern marriage contracts with the same legal philosophy that underlies business contract between two or more co-owners of a business. That's how you prioritize the interests of children while also making sure that the adults aren't being forced into humiliating and unnecessary restrictions on their personal freedoms.

As I said in my previous comments, as long as children aren't being affected, I don't think anyone should have any problem with people dating whoever they want. If you don't owe exclusivity to your friends, considering that they are almost always the oldest and closest of your social relationships, you definitely don't owe it to a romantic partner. The only relationship that demands exclusivity similar to a romantic relationship is employment contracts with their non compete clauses. And there's a strong push against those because they are quite unethical as well. Romantic relationships often exceed even employment contracts in how intrusive they are.

I think I can end my rambling here. I believe I have given you enough background and counter arguments so that you can make an informed decision on your own.

I dunno if you can tell but you are in a desperate need of a psychological evaluation. Spending inordinate amounts of time getting too deep into the fucked up stories on here and romanticizing the most pathological behaviour in there has clearly messed up your brain in a bad way. It'll be pretty clear to any mature, sane person reading through the thread that the one most likely to have had inadequate parenting is you.

oo tell me more