The Dresden Files > DF Spoilers
Who dies in Peace Talks
Mira:
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on August 13, 2019, 12:58:11 AM ---In the words of Thomas when explaining how he feeds at the hair salon, it's not sex, it's intimacy. Though it seems physical contact is also required. Therefore it's probably intimate physical contact that's required. There aren't too many acts of physical contact that are even arguably more intimate than sex. Sex between two people in "true" love would be both physically and emotionally intimate, and that level of intimacy is what's required to leave the protection. The intimacy act of sex would seem to be the minimum amount of intimacy to remove the protection.
Also, Madeline Raith had it figured out in Turn Coat.
--- End quote ---
But it is more complicated, because one can have sex without sentiment, but that will still blow the protection.. But things like wedding rings even flowers exchanged in true love can burn..
Bad Alias:
Can any human action be entirely devoid of sentiment? Can sex be devoid of physical intimacy? Will I ever learn to spell intimacy without spell check?
Mira:
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on August 13, 2019, 08:08:07 PM ---Can any human action be entirely devoid of sentiment? Can sex be devoid of physical intimacy? Will I ever learn to spell intimacy without spell check?
--- End quote ---
Yes, in my opinion if sex is used as a weapon as in rape.. Or when the act is a mere physical release as when pays for it with a prostitute, detachment on both sides. It is perhaps why if true love happens before the first kill the Hunger burned away.. After the first kill, sexual pleasure can be felt and fed upon like Thomas did as a hair dresser.. There does seem to be a difference between carnal pleasure and true love... Carnal pleasure is what the Hunger stimulates in the victim and then in turn feeds upon it until the victim usually dies.. However true love is more than mere pleasure, and the Hunger is burned by it...
Bad Alias:
I'll admit that your examples are devoid of positive sentiments, but not sentiment. It's difficult to use a weapon without sentiment. Also, we're talking about Jim "sex has consequences" Butcher's world, not the real one. I think he has a more traditional view of the meaning of sex than our culture at large does these days.
Another thing, is that the in book theory about why human practitioners have side effects is because they always have at least two conflicting motivations for their actions. Therefore, all human action has sentiment.
I don't think you addressed my point about physical intimacy.
Mira:
--- Quote from: Bad Alias on August 14, 2019, 03:10:44 PM ---I'll admit that your examples are devoid of positive sentiments, but not sentiment. It's difficult to use a weapon without sentiment. Also, we're talking about Jim "sex has consequences" Butcher's world, not the real one. I think he has a more traditional view of the meaning of sex than our culture at large does these days.
Another thing, is that the in book theory about why human practitioners have side effects is because they always have at least two conflicting motivations for their actions. Therefore, all human action has sentiment.
I don't think you addressed my point about physical intimacy.
--- End quote ---
Rape does not equal physical intimacy... Turning a trick in the back of an auto doesn't, nor does selling one's body.. Yet all of those will blow the true love protection...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version