Talk:Yuri undertones

Category

I think this belongs to Articles, no? - Prima 04:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Added. I'll also add a link on the articles page when there's no more placeholders. --Homerun-chan 09:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Spin-offs?

Just wondering, but should the spin-off manga get sections on here as well? There's plenty of yuri subtext to go around in those, especially Oriko Magica. --CrownClown 23:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess we can make them into a subsection but we need to see alot of the materials and the manga is still running, so far I dont know if we have enough material to work on. --Mutopis 00:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Kazumi has it's share as well. Umika and Kaoru going out dating with... no one else, apparently; some "suspicious" hugs, etc. Speaking off, next chapter comes out tomorrow. To think that I'm going to have to update all the Kazumi pages.... bleh --BrickBreak 00:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I remember the debates regarding this scene, some people interpreted the letter as Umika and Kaoru going on a date with guys and some yurifans went ape, until someone pointed out the cafe scene and there was no guys, then there were more debates with the anti-yuri saying maybe teh guys where on the bathroom etc... --Mutopis 03:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That definitely falls under "yuri subtext", at least. The foe yay between Yuuri and Kazumi might, too, with all the manhandling the former does to the latter. --CrownClown 04:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to work with Oriko and Kirika, specially with Kirika's crazy/twisted love. Also we need a comparison between HomuMado and KiriKo as a couple, their reasons, their failures, and their motivation. I will put some stuff but someone needs to work with the rest, I dont think I can do much on it since I dont feel much passion on writing on KiriKo couple. --Mutopis 06:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What I mean I am no fan of KiriKo, I just dont care much for them, not in the same way as KyouSaya or HomuMado... --Mutopis 06:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Interview

I am not sure if I did justice to the interpretation of the interview, anyone is more than welcome to make changes to it. --Mutopis 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why that much of the interview had to be quoted. Most of the time, people have been referencing interviews to support their argument. I'm also not sure why you'd think Gen Urobuchi is only talking about the emotional aspect of relationships when neither are skirting from the topic of sexual relationships. In fact, Uno brought it up earlier in the interview with the topic of them not having sex by the legal definition of it and being able to have children. I made the editor's note to show he's saying they can't have sex by procreation essentially, not saying they can't have sexual relations...in fact, in wording the way he did and the context of the interview, it's clear that he isn't ruling out the possibility of them having non-procreative sex, which is what would happen between two women. Gen never refutes that but only continues on to discuss the nature of Homura and Madoka's relationship. In the part you have quoted, Urobuchi is then very clear that he considers the love of a heterosexual couple to be possible for a same sex couple, "whatever relationship that could exist between male and female, it should also exist between couples of same sex." By implication, that also refers to the sexual aspect of things. Nowhere does Gen state or suggest in the interview is he believes only an emotional relationship would happen between two people of the same sex (e.g. Homura and Madoka). The only difference he made in the interview was the difference in body parts, e.g. "Other than the involvement of penis in traditional sex definition, I don't believe a male/female relationship is more special nor unique compared to other relationships." Is that clear now? I'll go ahead and change the section. --randomanon 23:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I wasnt sure if I was correct with the interpretation, I knew there was some confusion there... --Mutopis 23:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be stretching out to add (the possibility) that Homura was probably chasing a romantic/sexual non-reproductive relationship with Madoka if regard some of Urobuchi's word, or is there an issue of canon? --Mutopis 00:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be speculation. Anything sexual is left off-screen for both the manga and anime, which is typical for a non-ecchi/hentai magical girl anime. Madoka deviated from some magical girl conventions, but this is one where they stayed true to form. You don't even hear Hitomi's confession to Kyousuke or see them do anything more intimate than holding hands. It's not unusual though to find out the background information on characters tell you things that are or would never be shown for one reason or another. Like we know for certain from interviews that Kyousuke didn't harbor romantic thoughts towards Sayaka. As interesting as this interview is about Gen's thoughts on Homura and Madoka, as well as his thoughts in general about same sex relationships, so far what we know about their relationship only is about the feelings and outcome of the end of the anime, which was one-sided by Homura until the end where, well a physical relationship would be impossible. There's been no evidence yet to talk about Homura and Madoka's past relationship (like say in timeline 2 or so) where there could have been something more there. By timeline 5, with them growing more and more distant, the evidence in both the manga and anime doesn't make it look like Homura had any notions of romantic pursuit in mind (although her feelings were always there)...she just wanted Madoka to not contract and let Homura protect her. There's the drama CDs, voice commentary for episode 10 and some very big interviews and an official fanbook coming out that might give some more insight. Right now, we don't have the evidence. --randomanon 01:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

"well a physical relationship would be impossible" -- unless they make an OVA where Madoka visits Homura on her dreams and they end up having a "wet dream" More incentive for them to make an OVA to answer some of these questions, even another Drama CD would be nice... I mean they can milk this thing if they wanted to! --Mutopis 01:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I should say a physical relationship impossible as of now. The anime left it open-ended as to how they'd meet again although Madoka is emphatic they would...and who is going to argue with omniscience? The manga and anime are known to deviate and even the manga ending doesn't preclude the possibility that they could meet in person in the physical world prior to meeting again in the afterlife. It would be just like Shinbo to come up with some way to bring those two together again in a future sequel. --randomanon 01:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this case is like Sayaka killing the train guys, where he intentionally wrote it so that strict canon Nakazawas it and allows either interpretation. In both cases he was obviously considering the fun interpretations, and doesn't object to them, but would rather let the viewer decide which is "correct" since these are tangential to the point of the story, yet highly controversial, and he's more concerned with conveying the main point than risking viewers getting bogged down by inhibitions or moral objections.

As for physical stuff, magic can do a lot of things. KM 03:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed most of the speculah and confusing things (like that QB joke) that was added to this. The interview is already long and possibly confusing on the issue of sex, I don't think it needs anything else added to make remo possibly confusing. It's also one of the clearest and most important official evidence of yuri that's been given on Madoka, so I think it should be treated as a newsworthy item, e.g. leave the speculah out put it in a different section....although I notice the page hasn't separated out canon analysis from speculah and fan-based things. --randomanon 12:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)