Post by Zyppora on Dec 10, 2007 13:58:35 GMT -5
yumecosmos said:
I'm not sure if Michiru was aware of Seiya being Fighter at that point or not... though she does seem to be aware of it later. I'm also not sure if the characters themselves are aware of the all senshi are women "rule." But in any case, I don't think Michiru felt any actual attraction toward Seiya. The way she says it seems more like intrigue than flirting.Yes, it was indeed a play to get Haruka jealous, I realize that. The question I'm posing, is whether or not she would have done it if she had been aware of Seiya's gender. There's also a side-effect: the tricky part is figuring out what the bigger threat would be to Haruka: a guy or a girl
yumecosmos said:
Anyway, my point was that if you're going to argue that Makoto may be bi on the basis that there is no proof that she isn't, then I'll point out that there is also no proof that Michiru is not bi. It's hard to prove that anyone isn't bisexual because even a direct statement from the character can be written off as denial. Even Usagi and Michiru's being in a relationship at the moment doesn't mean that at some point off-screen they weren't attracted to the other gender. Still, that's not canon.Naturally, but I'm not reading the lack of proof as proof of lack, please let that be clear. What i'm saying is that there is little that makes me discard the idea of Makoto as a bisexual girl. Of course, a lot of it is speculation, I'll admit to that. It's still fun and inspirative though
yumecosmos said:
What exactly are you defining as "true love"? Maybe I'm having a hard time seeing your point because I don't believe in such a concept. But I don't think any relationship can survive without some level of compromise, especially not between two people with such markedly different personalities and interests.Okay, lemme first say this: I mentioned Minako and Rei, and I mentioned true love. I never said it would be 'true love' between Minako and Rei. Like you said a few posts back, they'd be really hot for a while, but they'd fall apart after that. That's not what I mean with 'true love'.
Let me cite a quote I tend to agree with: love is the acceptance of something or someone. Extrapolating would bring us to true love being the complete and unconditional acceptance of someone, and naturally, in order to speak of 'love' in any viable context, it would be mutual. Such a condition would create a situation that requires no compromise, as compromise is an agreement on terms where differences become a problem.
I'm not going to say that there are many people who meet such requirements, and that's mainly because people are willing to make compromises in order to 'keep what they have', but I'm pretty sure there is at least one couple on this planet that loves each other unconditionally and without compromises.
yurisailormoon said:
Huh may be some people find there true love but in all relationships there must be some sort of compromise. Things will work out I'm sorta confused with that do you mean when a couple is arguing and fighting instead of compromising or talking about it they just say that things will work out and it'll get better that way huh You could say that things will work out but you have to put some sort of action behind it talk compromise make an agreement something, you gotta do something about it, not just say stuff "things will work out" if you explain yourself over may be I'll understand better cuz I'm sorta confused.The 'things will work out' was an example. See my above explanation of what I think qualifies as 'true love'. Two pplz who have an argument or fight wouldn't meet those requirements, as arguments/fights happen because either is not willing to accept another's trait.