Badreader

Probably just a spoiler to hype up(?) the story or something

the korean title of chapter 0 is literally just "prologue"
:') its just a little teaser so we can expect it to happen but the author can change their mind anytime ;;

What third people at love?

They probably meant love triangles.... And honestly, same....

I asked because I don't see what they're talking about with regards to 'third people at love' or 'love triangles' or however someone wants to put it.... And I don't really care about threesomes. I'm reading a gay manga. I think it would be kind of hypocritical if I disliked one but not the other. T.

I'm a bit confused.... Love triangles are just when the person someone likes likes someone else, it has nothing to do with threesomes..??
Most threesomes start out with two people liking the same person, which instead of being a triangle is more linear lmao

Love triangles are when any two people within the triangle like the third person in that triangle. Since the older brother likes the guy with the girlfriend and the younger brother likes the older brother and the girlfriend likes her boyfriend it would be more closely related to a love square although not exactly given that a love square has more requirements than a love triangle.

There you go !!
You seem pretty informed, so I don't understand what's the issue here anymore lol Unless you're just finicky & wanted them to specify that there's more than 3 people in the story currently in love lol

Since this seems like it could continue for awhile, let me just say this: Like I said there are more rules to make a love square than a love triangle. Love triangles (which include threesomes) are non linear. Love squares are linear. Since neither of the requirements are fulfilled in the story my confusion remains for obvious reasons; and we can leave it at that.

sorry, I must have skipped that day on fanboying school.

Seriously? I don't remember ever having taught you my opinions on love triangles/squares so maybe that's why you think you skipped it...? Do you get it, now? I was merely stating my opinion, of which the OP failed to make their own clear, therefore my confusion...? Thanks.