Honor/Hamish/Emily

cthia wrote:

Joat42 wrote:Also, what you are describing is from an outsiders indignant viewpoint that disregard everything Emily felt.

Everything Emily felt? Look in the mirror yourself.

Do you truly not realize that Emily is human? She is a real together woman, no doubt. Hamish certainly didn't deserve her. But do you truly think she wasn't hurting a bit inside because of their relationship? Do you really believe there was a button on Emily's chair that she could push, to give her stims that "voila," made her automatically okay with it, internally? Really? Without any of the human element of human nature, like wondering if Honor is making Hamish "coo" or whether he slobbered all over her like a satiated baby, any of the many cute things he used to do with her. Do you think she wasn't hurting when she witnessed Hamish's raging erection battling the fabric of his slacks?

Why? Simply because she is part of a story?

Disregarding your extremely inappropriate graphic description about Hamish's supposed mood, why are you projecting your indignation on me? You have locked onto only one aspect of Emily's feelings and proclaimed that is what counts and nothing else, which is why your indignation disregard everything else Emily actually felt.

The books clearly spells out that Emily was in a better place after Honor came into her life. If you don't believe that's the case, you can't really have read them.

Your indignation taken at face value also means it's better to have 3 people totally unhappy rather than 3 people who can have happiness together. If you think that's the better alternative, I don't think you know what love truly means.

cthia wrote:You frequently get tripped up on the purely legal, to the letter, aspect of things.

In the spirit of love, true love, you've already cheated when your dreams are of another woman. Lest you've never been in love, or just forgot.

And you frequently get tripped up by your preconceived notions because of your cultural baggage.

True love isn't something that is exclusive to 2 people, 3 or more people can love each other. In many cultures polygamy is quite common, and was actually the norm if we go back enough in history.

I am going to restate something I've said several times over. I'm willing to bet the quick fix of having the wedding vow's rewritten, isn't really as simple a fix as that. It might have broken more than it fixed. How is it working out at the center of Emily's and Hamish's religion, their church? Their faith? What problems is it causing the church? What effect did it have on Emily, spirituality? Did she feel she had wronged God, and forsaken the traditional beliefs, her traditional beliefs?

Emily was swept up in a whirlwind romance that wasn't hers. She was rushed to the altar, with Honor and Hamish.

Joat42 wrote:

cthia wrote:You frequently get tripped up on the purely legal, to the letter, aspect of things.

In the spirit of love, true love, you've already cheated when your dreams are of another woman. Lest you've never been in love, or just forgot.

And you frequently get tripped up by your preconceived notions because of your cultural baggage.

True love isn't something that is exclusive to 2 people, 3 or more people can love each other. In many cultures polygamy is quite common, and was actually the norm if we go back enough in history.

I said the same thing in my post reminding everyone that America has its Mormons and Amish. Besides, I have been out of my back yard, that is America, quite a bit, so you can bet I've come across many "cultures" and mindsets.

Preconceived notions is your thing.

The handle on my baggage that you refer to is the grip I've got on the human element found in human nature. It's the same in the Honorverse as well.

MC1560 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Why do the Royal Mantivcoran Marines refer to Admiral Theodosa Kizac as "The Locomotive?"

I don't know. Why?

Because she enjoys pulling a train.

George J. Smith wrote:ISTR there was a passage in one of the books where Emily confided in Alison that had she been fully fit she might have taken Honor to bed herself, or words to that effect.

I would enjoy reading that scene.

Daryl wrote:Don't forget that this universe has 80 year olds looking like and feeling like 20 year olds. Neither forget that multiple wives were the norm in Grayson, or that thousands of years have passed since our time, and values change.
I'm in my 70s, been happily married for about 45 years, but if we were both rejuvenated, and told that we have another 250 years together I'm sure it would change things.
Some Christians puzzle me as they condemn sex before and outside marriage, but accept multiple divorces and marriages. The Bible Belt supports Trump, for an example.

The Bible belt also supported Reagan.

Christianity is predicated on the concepts of grace and redemption.

Some of us recall that the Democrats were so desperate to smear Governor Palin in 2008 that they were actually counting the months between her wedding date and her oldest son's birth.

In Trump's case, Christians are also motivated by pragmatism. Who else could survive the costs of the inevitable ethics probes?

The paradigm for monogamy appears to have originated in Judaic culture after the return from exile in Babylon. Until then, plural marriage appears to have been the norm in Judaic culture. Those arguing that inviting Honor into the marriage (which not her idea - she was blind-sided by the suggestion) constituted cheating have clearly bought into the current Judaic paradigm. Given that we are talking about 2000 years into the future here, and the addition of prolong extending lifetimes to centuries, the chances that there will be significant changes to the mores of the culture.

It is probably time to put this subject to bed (pun intended), as it appears that there is a dichotomy between the two sides that is not going to be bridged - let us just agree to disagree and move on - perhaps to begging for more snippets.

MC1560 wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Why do the Royal Mantivcoran Marines refer to Admiral Theodosa Kizac as "The Locomotive?"

I don't know. Why?

Because she enjoys pulling a train.

And because she's had lots of men in her caboose. The trollop.

Personally, I objected to Hamish being with Kuzak because, IMO, the relationship was the complete opposite of the book's claim of being discrete or respectful. It crossed a line Hamish should never have crossed.

Courtesans are supposedly classy professionals. They may or may not have other "jobs." But if that other job is at the office of my husband, if you work with my husband, then it isn't professional. It's one thing to avail yourself of a courtesan. It's quite another to sleep with one of the "boys" or "girls" on your job.

Emily made her mark on the world as an actress. She cared what people thought of her. Hamish owed her a line he wouldn't cross. Honor should have been off limits for the same reason as Kuzak, they were part of Emily's husband's job, even if they weren't actually the "secretary" herself.

Honor actually represented more salt in the already open wound of Hamish sleeping around on his job. Emily never meant for Hamish to bring home some of his stray cat. Even if it is Sphinxian.

cthia wrote:I am going to restate something I've said several times over. I'm willing to bet the quick fix of having the wedding vow's rewritten, isn't really as simple a fix as that. It might have broken more than it fixed. How is it working out at the center of Emily's and Hamish's religion, their church? Their faith? What problems is it causing the church? What effect did it have on Emily, spirituality? Did she feel she had wronged God, and forsaken the traditional beliefs, her traditional beliefs?

Emily was swept up in a whirlwind romance that wasn't hers. She was rushed to the altar, with Honor and Hamish.

Since the idea of changing the wedding vows was presented to Honor, Emily and Hamish by leading churchmen from Grayson and Manticore; all the anguish you express is clearly your own, and not that of anyone in the books. If it were all the bother that you think it is, then the leaders of the churches would have been among the first to object.