y’all this isn’t pushing an “anti-poly agenda” it’s two highschool boys who just...

I mean, while you could look at it that way, it seemed more like they were just talking heads for the authors opinions
Saying stuff like "you can only love one person at a time" and implying that "love=jealousy and possessiveness" is a little much and arguably unnecessary when it was just tacked on to their other argument that was already totally sound

So unless the author is going to actually challenge that notion at any point in this work (prove what they said wrong by having an actual poly romance between named characters at some point) it was just straight up anti-poly

Idk about any "agenda" and I wouldn't go as far as calling it propaganda but it definitely seems to have a pro-monogamy stance

Plus less blatantly stated stuff, like how the direction this arc is going seems to be implying that this character is only "poly" because they're young, lonely, and confused and was saturated in a different culture. A culture where the people of that country have so far been depicted as more animal and less human than the other characters so... that's a choice. (Admittedly, it could have been a choice just to show how bunny boy felt extra ostracized)

And I'm really sorry if this comes off as overly combative over an actual non-issue ┗( T﹏T )┛

But I also just think it's funny that you said "y'all" when there was literally one person in the comments (as far as I could tell) calling this anti-poly propaganda and you didn't even respond directly to them

I say y'all because I’m country, and just because you haven’t seen any more comments doesn’t mean they don’t exist so calm that narrative. But back to your paragraphs:

I mean, I think you’re making a pretty big leap from “these characters said something monogamous” to “the author is pushing an anti-poly message.”

These are literally CHILDREN in high school They’re childish, clueless, and barely understand their own feelings, let alone complicated relationship dynamics. They’re basically going “we like each other, please leave us alone and go bother the older brother instead” lmao. So I don’t think them saying “you can only love one person at a time” automatically means they’re mouthpieces for the author. Characters can have limited or incorrect beliefs without the narrative immediately correcting them, and I don’t think the author needs to introduce a named poly couple just to prove two inexperienced teenagers wrong…

And there’s a difference between the story currently favoring monogamy and the story being anti-poly. A monogamous main romance doesn’t automatically make polyamory something the narrative is condemning.

Same with the bunny boy. You can interpret his loneliness, age, confusion, and cultural background as influencing how he views relationships, but that’s still an interpretation of his characterization, not proof that the author is saying “poly people are lonely/confused” or that his culture is inherently less human. Especially when his cultural difference could just be there to emphasize how ostracized he feels.

Like, you can absolutely read the story as having a pro-monogamy lean. I just don’t think that means these two teenage boys are secretly delivering the author’s relationship philosophy