Daisuke wants to be the Creature Girl Harem King, and basically just have sex with a lot of cute demihuman girls. So far, fe’s had sex with a few arachnes (ch. 4, 5, 8, 10, 13, 27), a harpy (ch. 5), several red caps (ch. 12, 13, 14), and a mermaid (ch. 18). Fe also gets excited about the anatomical structures and potential evolutionary paths of all the different monsters fe encounters. I appreciate these attempts to make classic fantastical creatures biologically sensible. A lot of chapters will end with a glimpse of which monster will be encountered next. Most of the monsters fe encounters aren’t sexual partners and are just dissected or otherwise observed. In fact, the majority of chapters don’t include full-on sex scenes—though there is nudity and some one-off sexy panels thrown in throughout. The wiggly lips, blushmarks, and expressive cute eyes create for very erotic sex scenes. It generally focuses on the human-like traits, like the boobs or hips, more than the unhuman ones. It may lean more loli than some readers are comfortable with. It’s sorta funny how there will be unsexy research notes being read in the narration boxes during the sex scenes.
In addition to the sex and the fantasy field guide, there is also a lot of inventing stuff using semi-primitive technologies (think Dr. Stone or some of those isekai stories). I also have learned to appreciate the storyline involving Oritsue, who was transported to this world independently from Daisuke. I can’t say much without giving things away, but feir lack of confidence and excellence in martial arts has led to some very interesting developments. And I think the trajectory fe’s going down could work very well. I have no idea how things will go down once fe and Daisuke inevitably encounter one another (which just adds another layer of intrigue).
There are good anatomical drawings, as well as scenic expanses. There is some definite unnaturalness in the way some of the creature pictures are clearly pasted onto the background pictures, or the way some of the weapons or buildings are clearly mass-pasted. I suspect a 3-D rendering program was used to generate some of these images, and I think the ocean water was taken from a photograph. The discrepancy between the “photogenic” stuff and the drawn stuff is a bit annoying. They’ll sometimes have background images be blurred out to focus in on something in the foreground. I would love to call this art good, but it lacks consistency.
* * *
From this point onward, it’ll be less review and more philosophical essays. There are two philosophical positions that the author expounds on and explores throughout the manga—regarding human rights and regarding feminism—and since feir views are presented onesidedly, I think it’s worth poking some holes in them and creating something of a discourse-type vibe for readers. Read on if that sounds at all interesting to you.
Regarding “Human Rights”
Okay, so I want to try to avoid insulting the author as much as possible as I respond to some of feir philosophical points, but my gut reaction is to do the exact opposite because of how disrespectful and condescending fe was—fe treats anyone who disagrees with fem as brainwashed and unthinking. I’ll try to limit myself to pointing out what I agree with, what I disagree with, and why.
In regards to “human rights,” the author is reacting to people who speak as though human rights are inherent within nature or are god-given or in some way intrinsic and objective. The author rightly points out that rights are not inherent, that they only exist insofar as communities and societies agree that they exist. That nobody inherently deserves to be treated in any given way, and that nobody is inherently responsible for protecting anybody else. If the author had stopped there and just scoffed at how some people seem to hold baseless beliefs in inherency, I would’ve simply agreed and moved on. But fe seems to have deeper issues with human rights and the attitudes that lead to people appealing to them, and it’s in those areas that I disagree. Fe speaks on people having too much pride, being self-righteous and entitled, and so on. Clearly, there are people the author is reacting to in the real world (perhaps imperialists “saving” other cultures? or maybe activists fighting for reforms?), but since these views are filtered through the manga narrative, I can’t really speak on the core of what the author’s grievances are about. As such, I realize that I may be missing some nuances in feir positions or I may end up generalizing or misapplying some of feir views, but I’ve tried my best to not do so.
First of all, the author is coming from the mindset that peoples’ main goal should be to achieve “happiness” and sees dissatisfaction and entitlement as impediments to being happy. Broadly speaking, fe defines happiness as being when an individual has “no great worries or complaints, and [feir] needs and desires are being met.” Going forward, that’s the definition of happiness I will use (even though that’s not how it’s colloquially used). And while it’s true that a good number of people aim to be happy, there’s nothing intrinsic about happiness that makes it something that everyone should strive for. In fact, many people would view (that definition of) happiness as stagnant and would rather their lives be filled with changes and new experiences—would rather constantly have fresh desires to fulfill. The striving itself is valued and brings them some form of pleasure or, dare I say, fulfillment. To all of those people, the author’s methods on how to achieve happiness are worthless and would only serve to bring them further from the type of life they wish to lead.
In order to achieve happiness, the author basically believes that we should lower our expectations and standards, because if we aim high and then fall short we will be unhappy. But if we aim low, then we can surpass that and will achieve happiness. Fe also talks about how pride is a hamper that prevents people from being happy. People who are weak are unwilling to accept that they are weak, people who have bad lots in life are unwilling to accept those lots and will senselessly strive to improve their situation. Like Don Quixote, they will refuse to give up on their impossible dreams. But by doing so, they embed within themselves an unhappiness about their current situations. It would be better for them if they resigned themselves to the realities that they can’t change. And honestly, on some level, I do agree that people should be willing to resign themselves to situations. Like, I’ve seen people who are very dissatisfied with their job purely for the reason that they think it’s below them and not because the job itself is necessarily bad. Or, I’ve seen people at airports maintaining a pissed-off state when their flights get delayed, despite their anger doing nothing to help the situation. I don’t want to say that aiming to improve your situation or venting your frustrations don’t hold value, but I think that resignation can also hold value as it can allow you to focus your energies on the things that matter to you the most. It’s all about what you value and how you choose to prioritize your values.
And I think that’s where the author isn’t portraying the idea of letting go of pride and resigning oneself in a very nuanced manner. Fe disregards out of hand any values people could hold that could lead them to not resign themselves to a situation as being worthless and stemming from the warped “human condition” of selfishness and egoism. On the extreme side of things, fe talks about how if you remove your pride, then you could be raped and not feel any sense of dissatisfaction or abuse. And, I mean, yea it’s probably true that people could throw away certain values and achieve an emotional state that allowed them to view rape as a non-issue, but is that something that everybody should want to do--as the author suggests? First of all, in this situation, saying that people would be throwing away their “pride” isn’t the most accurate. What people would actually be throwing away would be their bodily autonomy and sense of personal will (where they’d then care more about the will of others than their own). The author suggests that when faced with death as the alternative, everyone should choose life even at the cost of bodily autonomy. And many people might agree, but there’s no actual intrinsic reason why life should be everyone’s top priority. In such a situation, some people would choose to prioritize bodily autonomy over life, and while the author might not understand or personally agree with that decision, there’s nothing inherently wrong about it. It’s just that they value different things.
Fe also implies that it should be an easy decision to know when to resign oneself. But that is far from the case. Resigning oneself means giving up on one’s goals. It’s often the last resort, especially for goals that you really, really care about. Even animals have the fight-or-flight response which is often activated before resignation. Likewise, when faced with a situation of rape-or-death, many people might try to fight or flee before the idea of resigning themselves even comes to mind. Or to hold off on action until an opportunity to fight or flee comes up. And that’s not some sense of pride or entitlement that’s preventing humans from somehow immediately recognizing that their situation is hopeless. People often need to attempt and fail at all possible alternatives before recognizing that there’s nothing they can do and then choosing to resign themselves. Especially when it involves something they value highly and would want to avoid having to give up if at all possible—like bodily autonomy or personal will. And on the topic of trying all the alternatives, that’s exactly what appealing to human rights often is. When people appeal to human rights, they are appealing to a set of (potentially) shared principles. And while the appeal may not work (perhaps because the principles aren’t actually shared by all parties involved), it’s not as though the attempt itself is self-righteous or entitled or something. It’s just people working through their options.
To tie it to the manga: Let’s say there was a single centaur woman who was forced to work every day while everyone else had weeks worth of free time. Would that woman immediately just resign femself to the fact that fe has to work more than everybody else? I mean, maybe, but it also wouldn’t be strange for fem to appeal to the communal right to free time, to feel that fe is being unfairly disallowed that time off that fe should be entitled to. And if fe made such an appeal, would that mean that fe was being prideful or entitled? Well, honestly--yea probably. But there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with having some level of pride--call it self-love--where you’re willing to stick up for what you want. Having goals involves fighting for those goals, which involves pushing your will onto the world around you. And that sounds pretty prideful to me. There’s also nothing intrinsically wrong with having some entitlements, because communities are built around (often unspoken) social contracts and understandings that people will treat each other in certain ways. Among the centaur community, there is a social understanding that you have a right to free time as long as you work hard for a few days and do your fair share. At their core, this is what rights are—communal or societal understandings, promises of reciprocation and fairness. Yes, they’re not inherent in nature, but they do exist. Of course, not everyone will agree about what should be a right or not, but that’s okay. Opinions are never unanimous on all issues in any social group. But the important thing is that appealing to these “human rights,” or even suggesting new rights that could be implemented, doesn’t seem like the self-righteous and abhorrent act that the author is portraying it to be. It just seems like people taking an active part in their communities and society at large.
Regarding “Feminism”
The author suggests that men and women in so-called “patriarchal” societies actually have comparable social power, just in different spheres. But that “different” shouldn’t be confused with “lesser.” Fe believes it’s hateful to women for feminists to act as though the woman’s sphere is inherently lesser by saying that women in patriarchal societies are disenfranchised or oppressed or whatever. I disagree with this assessment, but I will concede that a concept like “social power” is a vague one and can involve a lot of subjectivity in comparisons. But in a broad sense, I think it should be obvious that women in classic patriarchal societies are in worse social positions than men. The reason for that is simple. Could a man in such a society live on feir own and provide for all of feir needs on feir own? The answer is Yes. Could a woman do the same? The answer is No. If women are disallowed from getting jobs or owning property or otherwise engaging in the economic side of society (the man’s sphere), then they become dependent on men for their survival.
The author does seem to have taken that into account, as fe suggests that it’s not actually a weakness for women to be dependent on men because they are placed in the unique position of being able to manipulate men (and, thus, society at large) by making men fall in love with them. And perhaps that’s true that women could be in a strong social position comparable to that of men solely through this type of backroom influencing, but that’s only taking into account the best-case scenario. Husbands aren’t guaranteed to love their wives, and wives aren’t guaranteed to be able to make their husbands fall in love and care for them, regardless of how much effort they may put into it. Not to mention that many women are too ugly and unlikable to even attract a husband in the first place, loving or not. What happens in all those situations? The women are left with no power or real ability to improve their lot in life, and must simply suffer through it. This is why feminists say that men have the power in patriarchal societies—because women are entirely dependent on the goodwill of the men, while men are allowed to forge their own paths forward regardless of what any woman thinks.
To the author’s credit (I guess), fe doesn’t seem to believe that women must always be the reliant gender. The arachnes have a matriarchal society and that is portrayed as an equally viable option. It’s just egalitarian set-ups that are portrayed as bad. But why? Why does one gender need to be the protector and the other gender the protected? Why does there need to be a preset system of gendered roles? Now, of course, there’s nothing wrong with couples having set roles within their marriages, but there is a problem with there being preset roles—which is what the author is presenting as the ideal. Let’s be generous and say that 90% of couples would be best served with having the woman in the role of Homemaker and the man in the role of Breadwinner. That’s great for them and they should for sure organize their relationships in that way, but what about the other 10% that would be better served with an alternate dynamic? In a society that forces everyone to conform to some preset roles, that 10% ends up getting oppressed. If a woman doesn’t want to marry, a society that requires women to marry to survive would be oppressive. But since the author seems to get triggered by people victimizing women in these conversations, let’s victimize the men for a second. In a patriarchal society with preset roles, men are disallowed from being Homemakers even if that’s what they would rather do. Everyone, men or women, should have as much freedom as possible to live how they want to. There aren’t any preset roles that will work for everybody, so any society that pushes preset roles of any kind onto people will inevitably be oppressing some segment of the population that would rather do things differently.
On the other hand, in an (ideal) egalitarian society, there is no default dynamic being pushed onto couples. The default is for couples to talk to each other and hash out amongst themselves how they want to divvy up responsibilities and chores and stuff. Many couples may choose to assign roles like Homemaker or Breadwinner, while others may choose to split things based on their individual talents and interests. You can even choose to have a dominant/submissive relationship, a hierarchy. People in the BDSM community do exactly that. There’s nothing wrong with a wife being submissive as long as it’s consensual and the wife wasn’t coerced into it because of social pressure. Some people may argue that an egalitarian society does create a default of sorts because it will educate and prepare both men and women for the work force, thus leading to women being less likely to choose to not make use of that preparation. And perhaps that’s true, but that is literally the only way to actually give women an option, a choice of whether they want to work or not. If you go the other route and don’t educate women the same as men, then even if they “choose” to go into the workforce, they can’t. Because they are unprepared and unqualified. I think we should educate both men and women in every aspect, so either of them could be a Breadwinner or a Homemaker if that’s what they choose.
In conclusion, a society with preset roles like the author idealizes has the benefits of having a default marital dynamic that has been tested and shown to work for many/most couples and allows people to know what to expect and thus not waste energy learning things from both spheres of influence (i.e. women would learn about womanly things and men would learn about manly things)—it’s efficient. But an egalitarian society, while being a little less efficient in its education, makes up for that by creating a system where 100% of couples can live with a set-up that best suits them. Couples would still be able to adopt those same marital roles as the other society, but they would also have the option of organizing their marriages in personalized ways that may fit their individual circumstances better than a generic mold could. An egalitarian society is also a lot less dependent on certain people having goodwill (on the best-case scenario) in order for everyone to have a high quality of life; it allows for either member of a couple to decouple and take care of femself on feir own, if need be. I just don’t think the efficiency that comes from having preset roles is worth the inherent oppressiveness and the potential harm, in the same way that I don’t think the efficiency of a monarchy makes it a preferable form of government to a democratic republic.
[Reviewed at chapter 30]
Add to list