I don't think I have much left to say either. The irreconcilable differences of philosophy are pretty clear, and nothing would be accomplished by arguing. I understand now why my MC was/is getting a hostile response though, so I feel the original purpose of the thread was accomplished.
Only if they think they're being hurt, right?
This doesn't necessarily mean you have to become part of the problem rather than part of the solution, though.
Well, then, to be consistent you should have agreed with me that the Peeping Tom in my hypothetical scenario should show the pictures to anyone who wants to see them. That way, he'd be making the most number of people happy. Rather than, you know, being selfish about his (child) porn collection.
I disagree. By the end of the story things get convoluted before they collapse back to simplicity (a classic story pattern I'm quite fond of). But her thoughts build logically over the course of the story.
You are factually wrong, but there's no benefit for either of us in arguing over my personal philosophy. It's completely irrelevant to romance at this point, and you seem upset, which combines badly with online discussion. I enjoy and respect absolute write and I don't want to contribute to starting a flame war. As I said, the thread's purpose has been accomplished, if not in the way I originally imagined it would be, and our irreconcilable differences have been clearly established. Can I stop replying now without people feeling that I rudely left them hanging?
Perhaps I am. It would be a short step from being disgusted with activities you consider crimes to being disgusted with me because I don't consider them crimes. And of course on my side it would be a short step from imagining someone was disgusted with me to me feeling honor-bound to fight in defense of the idea that I am not deserving of disgust.
Yeah, that's been pretty well established.
When the concept of soulmates, which is somewhere between lust and love, all about instincts, hormones, and the subconscious, comes into the picture, should that kind of logic really be expected? If we set the fantasy terminology aside, we could say she has a crush or fixation on him and by contrast other men seem unacceptable for a whole range of purposes, including sex, marriage, and her committing to and investing herself in their genetic contribution. More simply, she is convinced on a deep level that all other men are inferior to this one, and though she tries to change or overrule this feeling, that attempt fails. And really, her subconscious, or soul, has the right idea while her rational mind that wants to walk away form her soulmate and never see him again has the wrong idea.
I think it would be more directly comparable to the guy being a vegan and the girl hiding meat in her own food so he wouldn't judge her for eating what she wanted to eat. That's not pathological nor immature, though it's a gray area between tact and neurotic insecurity or fear of conflict. Unless you want to argue that maturity and insecurity are incompatible. There's a point there, but in my experience more than 60% of adults are insecure, so it might be an unreasonably high standard for maturity.
