Horror
: I usually stay out of comments, but the reading comprehension on this platform keeps proving my point.
At this stage, it’s obvious a large portion of the discourse around You Are My World lacks basic narrative analysis. When someone is responding to multiple people with threats of death and violence over fictional characters, I’m not obligated to take their media criticism seriously. That’s not analysis. Ya’ll are emotionally projecting.
Let’s restate what actually happens in the story:
Su-Ah did not wake up with an evil master plan. He didn’t scent Juhyeok to control him, dominate him, or ruin his life. The text shows he was uncomfortable with the dynamic shift, insecure, and trying to protect someone in a system that stigmatizes omegas and makes heats dangerous. His decision was flawed. It had consequences. But flawed ≠ malicious.
Juhyeok agreed to the scenting. He made a choice under pressure in a dangerous situation. You cannot retroactively erase his consent because the long-term outcome wasn’t ideal. That’s not how consent works.
“Just go see a doctor” ignores the world-building entirely. This is an omegaverse narrative. The stigma, the danger of public heat, the lack of safe solutions — all of that matters. Applying modern real-world medical logic to a fictional social system is surface-level reading.
Yes, dependency happened. That’s unhealthy. But dependency alone does not equal sexual assault. Abuse requires intent to control or exploit. Nothing in the text demonstrates Su-Ah acting with predatory intent. He acted emotionally and shortsightedly, not maliciously.
And since people are stuck on the broccoli analogy — it was never about authority. It was about imperfect care. Someone can do something believing it will help and later realize it caused harm. That doesn’t automatically make them abusive.
You can critique the execution. You can critique the consequences. But turning every flawed romantic decision into “predatory mastermind” is reductive and ignores character motivation entirely.
If the response to a fictional disagreement is threats of violence, that’s not literary analysis, you need to touch fucking grass.
And that immaturity keeps proving my original point.
avocadofortae
: for my own mental health, i will not continue reading this knowing it's dropped. however the story seems really interesting so pls let me know if there's any other bl series like this that 50/50 on romance / plot, or plot heavy around martial arts / murim. i love power op murim manhwas, I wish bl was incorporated into some of my faves ugh.
Feeds
At this stage, it’s obvious a large portion of the discourse around You Are My World lacks basic narrative analysis. When someone is responding to multiple people with threats of death and violence over fictional characters, I’m not obligated to take their media criticism seriously. That’s not analysis. Ya’ll are emotionally projecting.
Let’s restate what actually happens in the story:
Su-Ah did not wake up with an evil master plan. He didn’t scent Juhyeok to control him, dominate him, or ruin his life. The text shows he was uncomfortable with the dynamic shift, insecure, and trying to protect someone in a system that stigmatizes omegas and makes heats dangerous. His decision was flawed. It had consequences. But flawed ≠ malicious.
Juhyeok agreed to the scenting. He made a choice under pressure in a dangerous situation. You cannot retroactively erase his consent because the long-term outcome wasn’t ideal. That’s not how consent works.
“Just go see a doctor” ignores the world-building entirely. This is an omegaverse narrative. The stigma, the danger of public heat, the lack of safe solutions — all of that matters. Applying modern real-world medical logic to a fictional social system is surface-level reading.
Yes, dependency happened. That’s unhealthy. But dependency alone does not equal sexual assault. Abuse requires intent to control or exploit. Nothing in the text demonstrates Su-Ah acting with predatory intent. He acted emotionally and shortsightedly, not maliciously.
And since people are stuck on the broccoli analogy — it was never about authority. It was about imperfect care. Someone can do something believing it will help and later realize it caused harm. That doesn’t automatically make them abusive.
You can critique the execution. You can critique the consequences. But turning every flawed romantic decision into “predatory mastermind” is reductive and ignores character motivation entirely.
If the response to a fictional disagreement is threats of violence, that’s not literary analysis, you need to touch fucking grass.
And that immaturity keeps proving my original point.