Hanako's route is indefensible

[Disgruntled]

Nothing I have read in my life is even remotely this bad. And you cannot deny the facts in this image.

[FrauPerchta]

This entire argument is based around viewing Hisao as some sort of perfect stand in for the reader. He's not. He's a kid who's psychological state is in shambles as much as if not more than his physical state.

Its harder to tell because its from his perspective, but Hisao is messed up in much the same way Hanako is, he just isnt able to realize it- its less visible. Hisao didn't "rape" Hanako. Two people completely misunderstood eachother, Hisao included. Experiences like this arent... entirely foreign to me, but what was portrayed certainly wasn't nonconsentual sex. To suggest it was is borderline insulting.

[Disgruntled]

The fact that he's mysteriously "messed up" and can't even understand nonverbal cues like flinching and literally reluctance is also indefensible. So messed up that he doesn't even recognize when she tells him verbally that she was just showing her scars. What was so hard about making a good character, instead of one that only exists to make things worse? The other routes were able to do it, and Hanako did not influence him suddenly becoming a retard.

To suggest this is okay is flatly insulting.

[Oddball]

The fact that he's mysteriously "messed up" and can't even understand nonverbal cues like flinching and literally reluctance is also indefensible.

This is Hanako. Do you know who Hanako is? Are you familiar with how she acts? Flinching and reluctance is how she responds to everything.

Also, it seems like none of the people responding to this actually read the good ending where Hanako explains her motivations completely. No, people would rather be upset because "oh NO! Hanako was put through something unpleasant. Poor thing! How could anyone ever do anything that would make her uncomfortable! Hisao is a monster!"

Nothing I have read in my life is even remotely this bad. And you cannot deny the facts in this image.

Was it unpleasant for her? yes. For him too. And for the player. It was meant to be. There were two very messed up individuals that couldn't communicate with each other or tell each other how they feel and their relationship was a mess despite how much they really did care for each other.

I guess it's just easier being offended than actually thinking.

... and really? the worst thing you've ever read? Hisao is a predator who attacked her? Are you people trying to make yourself sound as ridiculous as possible?

[brythain]

I guess it's just easier being offended than actually thinking.

... and really? the worst thing you've ever read? Hisao is a predator who attacked her? Are you people trying to make yourself sound as ridiculous as possible?

Ha, I guess we can chalk all that up to inexperience.

[Disgruntled]

The fact that he's mysteriously "messed up" and can't even understand nonverbal cues like flinching and literally reluctance is also indefensible.

This is Hanako. Do you know who Hanako is? Are you familiar with how she acts? Flinching and reluctance is how she responds to everything.

Also, it seems like none of the people responding to this actually read the good ending where Hanako explains her motivations completely. No, people would rather be upset because "oh NO! Hanako was put through something unpleasant. Poor thing! How could anyone ever do anything that would make her uncomfortable! Hisao is a monster!"

Nothing I have read in my life is even remotely this bad. And you cannot deny the facts in this image.

Was it unpleasant for her? yes. For him too. And for the player. It was meant to be. There were two very messed up individuals that couldn't communicate with each other or tell each other how they feel and their relationship was a mess despite how much they really did care for each other.

I guess it's just easier being offended than actually thinking.

... and really? the worst thing you've ever read? Hisao is a predator who attacked her? Are you people trying to make yourself sound as ridiculous as possible?

Hanako is not "always meant to be like this" and you fundamentally fail to understand her character (and possible development) by saying so.
It being bad on purpose is still indefensible, as they billed this as a romance game and then suddenly came way out of left field with the edge, as a bait and switch. You can't claim her "route" to be some avante garde masterpiece when it's a tonal clusterfuck compared to all the others, which were handled actually tastefully.
And then you present more evidence of yourself not actually knowing what happens. It was not unpleasant for him, he finished, he didn't give a shit. But I guess making worthless replies is easier than actually thinking, at least for you.

[Mirage_GSM]

You know this whole argument was invalidated the moment you tried to present your opinion as a "fact". I don't even need to read beyond that to know that it's useless to even try to argue any further.
Also, you should learn to quote correctly, because Oddball never wrote Hanako was "always meant to be like this". You are mixing up two completely seperate statements.
Finally, it's kind of ridiculous that you show up here and in your third post accuse people who've been around for years, written fanfiction and analyzed all the characters to bits of "failing to understand her character".

[Disgruntled]

"What Hanako is always like" was his first sentence. You've been here for years and still fail to understand her

[Downix]

Has the OP ever actually played the route? The direct text within it discredits the claims made. And without the route text there is no basis for the discussion to begin with.

[Disgruntled]

Has the OP ever actually played the route? The direct text within it discredits the claims made. And without the route text there is no basis for the discussion to begin with.

None of the text in it discredits the claims made.

[brythain]

Has the OP ever actually played the route? The direct text within it discredits the claims made. And without the route text there is no basis for the discussion to begin with.

None of the text in it discredits the claims made.

For every text, it is possible to make claims not directly addressed by the text, and which the text does not explicitly discredit. This doesn't validate the claims either. In fact, if there is no basis at all for the claims within the text, it is still possible for the text to not discredit those claims directly. For example, none of this text I've just produced will discredit the claim that I'm a 25-year-old girl. If I made that claim, there'd be no basis for it in the text, and also the text would not discredit it.

[emmjay]

"What Hanako is always like" was his first sentence. You've been here for years and still fail to understand her

Uh, no, "This is Hanako" was his first sentence. The words "What Hanako is always like" appear nowhere in his post.
And that's all I'm going to say on this matter, because it's obvious your mind is made up, and no amount of reason will convince you.

[Downix]

Has the OP ever actually played the route? The direct text within it discredits the claims made. And without the route text there is no basis for the discussion to begin with.

None of the text in it discredits the claims made.

Yes, it does. The entire closing act, to the point.

[Downix]

Has the OP ever actually played the route? The direct text within it discredits the claims made. And without the route text there is no basis for the discussion to begin with.

None of the text in it discredits the claims made.

For every text, it is possible to make claims not directly addressed by the text, and which the text does not explicitly discredit. This doesn't validate the claims either. In fact, if there is no basis at all for the claims within the text, it is still possible for the text to not discredit those claims directly. For example, none of this text I've just produced will discredit the claim that I'm a 25-year-old girl. If I made that claim, there'd be no basis for it in the text, and also the text would not discredit it.

But this case the text would be describing something. In Hanako's case, all she is, is text.

[AdamL]

Nothing you've read in your life is this bad? I suggest you could read more.

People who start off just friends can have sex. People who've never met before can have sex. People can have sex that isn't perfectly wholesome and fulfilling and orgasmic, and can even have sex when consent is not clear-as-crystal verbally confirmed (they shouldn't, but they do).

I don't see how "full frontal explicit" relates to the rest of your argument.

Hisao wears a condom having sex with Emi at least once; I don't recall every instance of the other routes, and it's probably problematic that he doesn't think about contraception as much as he ideally should, but again, this seems tangential to the central consent issue.

I don't see much "mystery" in why Hisao is "messed up". And his "finishing" (and I speak from personal experience on this) doesn't mean that the sex was wholly enjoyable, or free from any difficulties or uncomfortable moments.

On a tangent, does the OP (or anyone else for that matter) concur then that, if we are to consider Hanako and Hisao's first sexual encounter as a rape, would Shizune and Hisao's first encounter not also fulfil that definition? She does not receive his express permission (taken to its fullest extent *nobody* ever asks "May I have sex with you?" in the whole of KS), but moreover ties his hands to a chair so he is literally unable to give consent to a deaf-mute.