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.'
