Re: LOL, well...(r) -- La Femme Nikita Fan Fiction Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Tuesday, January 31, 08:08:26am
Author: Nell
Subject: Re: LOL, well...(r)
In reply to: JayBee 's message, "LOL, well...(r)" on Monday, January 30, 08:38:45pm

The stumbling block I had with the question you posed had nothing to do with legal definitions, but my sense that you were focusing on an oddly narrow (to me) realm of personal fidelity: that is, sexual fidelity *only*. In a context where people lied to and betrayed others on such a massive scale, it seemed to me you were giving a disproportionate importance to one, fairly trivial (IMO) aspect of that larger betrayal. So I honestly didn't understand why the issue seemed to carry such weight for you.

I think what I was getting at was that just about the only realm where section operatives had any consistent independence to make their own decisions that affected other people was where their 'off-duty' sexuality was concerned. It was here that they had the opportunity to show us whether or not they were concerned to act out of concern for both others, and their view of themselves, or, well, not.

So I was interested in it not because I think it's the only issue that matters in some sort of global sense - because it is a very narrow thing, but more because that's about the only long term look at the operatives as independent decision makers we got was in this very narrow spectrum of action.

So how they made those decisions comes to bear a lot of weight, perhaps disporportional to someone not in section, but for those inside it, it's about all they have to show us and others 'who they are.'

If that makes any more sense? Now?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Ah! (r) -- JayBee, Tuesday, January 31, 11:39:10am
- Phoey -- Nell, Tuesday, January 31, 05:51:03pm
  - I understand your metaphor, now that (r) -- JayBee, Tuesday, January 31, 07:13:06pm
    - Actually, I was also thinking of Paul's relationship (r) -- Nell, Wednesday, February 01, 06:58:26am
    - I think the reason that I was interested in this (r) -- Nell, Wednesday, February 01, 09:13:49am
      - Hmm. Well. OK. (r) -- JayBee, Wednesday, February 01, 09:50:25pm
        Drifting back - -- Nell, Saturday, February 11, 09:01:43am
        Re: Drifting back - -- JayBee, Saturday, February 11, 03:01:02pm
      - Specifics re Paul (r) -- JayBee, Wednesday, February 01, 10:29:39pm
        Re: Specifics re Paul (r) -- Nell, Saturday, February 11, 09:10:54am
        I might come back and elaborate on this (r) -- JayBee, Saturday, February 11, 03:07:54pm