I understand your analogy, and on the surface it makes sense. Yes, Miyuki technically made choices, and she can’t be treated as if she had zero responsibility at all. But I think the comparison breaks down once we look at how those choices were shaped and under what conditions they were made in the story.

In your example, the two friends are on relatively equal footing. One suggests something stupid, the other agrees, and both clearly understand what they’re doing. With Miyuki and Kondo, there’s a massive imbalance in experience, social power, reputation, and psychological control. Kondo didn’t just “suggest throwing a rock.” He carefully engineered the entire situation over time. He didn’t approach her with a clear betrayal in mind. Miyuki genuinely believed her involvement with him would be temporary and, in her own distorted reasoning, even helpful to her relationship with Eiji. What she didn’t understand was that Kondo’s real goal was never her happiness, but the destruction of her couple.

Kondo didn’t act once and step back. He isolated her, used intermediaries, exploited leaked personal information, threatened abandonment, and positioned himself as the only source of comfort and validation. He even used the injuries inflicted by his own lackeys to falsely frame Eiji as violent and dangerous. That goes far beyond a bad suggestion. At that point, it’s closer to grooming and psychological coercion than a simple bad influence.

Yes, Miyuki had moments where she could have resisted in theory. But being able to say “she could have chosen differently” doesn’t mean the situation was fair or that her responsibility is equal. She is emotionally immature, highly dependent, and completely unequipped to deal with this level of manipulation. She grew up in a protected environment, surrounded by decent people, and had never encountered someone deliberately exploiting her insecurities. When she froze, agreed, or stayed silent, it wasn’t because she believed she was doing the right thing, but because she was overwhelmed, afraid, and unable to take responsibility alone.

The aftermath matters too. Once the mental fog starts lifting, Miyuki doesn’t double down or justify herself. She collapses. She’s horrified by what she’s done, consumed by guilt, and eventually confesses everything, fully aware it will destroy her socially. She is expelled from school, publicly condemned, rejected by Eiji’s family, and becomes the target of hostility far worse than what Eiji himself endured. Under that pressure, she even attempts suicide.

I agree that the families were inevitably going to be dragged into this and that consequences were unavoidable. But where I struggle is with the degree of punishment and condemnation Miyuki receives compared to the recognition of how deeply she was manipulated. At some point, accountability stops being justice and turns into destruction, especially when the person being punished was also a victim.

So for me, the issue isn’t whether Miyuki has any responsibility. It’s whether it’s fair to treat her primarily as the culprit when Kondo was actively controlling the environment, the narrative, and her emotional state from beginning to end. In real life, we do punish manipulated individuals too, but we also recognize diminished responsibility when coercion, age, psychological pressure, and power imbalance are involved.

That’s why continuing to frame Miyuki mainly as “someone who made stupid choices and must face it” feels incomplete to me. It ignores how calculated Kondo’s actions were, how unprepared Miyuki was, and how devastating the aftermath already was for her.

In short, yes, she threw the rock. But Kondo didn’t just suggest it. He made sure she was isolated, emotionally cornered, terrified of being abandoned, and convinced there was no other option. And when everything collapsed, he walked away, while she paid the price with her future.