Honor/Hamish/Emily

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Ok, wrong joke. I thought you were referring to a kzt original that I recently included in the Humor thread that accuses Kuzak of being on crack, for not rolling pods.

I hardly think the FLY or I can be blamed for the joke about Kuzak being a locomotive. Blame the Marines for that.

You are aware that the Honorverse contains very mature subject matter, with very mature, uncensored, normal rhetoric emanating from naval personnel? There's a real world, somewhere, out, there. Whether you like it or not.

I will certainly blame the joke on the Royal Marines, rather than you or TFLYTSNBN, if either of you can find in the text where anyone (but especially the Royal Marines) cast any aspersions on Kuzak's moral character. If it is not in the canon, then it is fanfic as Joat42 was explaining.

I quite agree that the books contain "very mature subject matter"; but that does not excuse forum members, such as TFLYTSNBN, who take juvenile delight in pushing the boundaries. But I have adjeusted my expectations lower for him, because I realize that he only reads the books for the shower scenes.

Perhaps you can give another reasonable interpretation of "locomotive."

That is an unfair characterization of the Fly, simply because he likes shower scenes. I have friends who like intimate scenes in movies, and they often ask if there is an intimate scene in a particular movie I'm "selling."

One of my closest friends is irked because Denzel Washington's "Man On Fire" excluded the sexual content and sexual scenes found in the book, that Denzel had with the mother but left out of the movie, along with the little girl's, Pita's, actual injuries sustained by being brutally raped over and over in the book. It changes the tone of the movie quite a bit. In the book, it is quite easy to identify with the man on fire. If you read the book, you'll also be a Man On Fire. BTW, Pita dies in the book, from her brutal rape injuries and choking on her own upchuck from being tied, gagged and left in a trunk of a running car inhaling carbon monoxide.

Being disrespectful to the author, to the characters, and to forumites is quite different from being a prude, or from being immature.

What's wrong with liking shower scenes, or having "feelings" about a character that include "trollop?" Or incompetent? Or asshole, wholeass, jackass, or, in kzt speak, a crack addict? Personally, I object more to interrupting and/or derailing threads over petty jealousies, grudges, and immaturity in discussing adult books and subject matter, by prudish, immature mindsets.

.

cthia wrote:Perhaps you can give another reasonable interpretation of "locomotive."

That is an unfair characterization of the Fly, simply because he likes shower scenes. I have friends who like intimate scenes in movies, and they often ask if there is an intimate scene. One of my closest friends is irked because Denzel Washington's "Man On Fire" excluded the sexual content and sexual scenes Denzel had with the mother in the book, but left out of the movie, along with the little girl's, Pita, actual injuries sustained by being brutally raped over and over in the book. It changes the tone of the movie quite a bit. In the book, it is quite easy to identify with the man on fire.

Being disrespectful to the author, to the characters, and to forumites is quite different from being a prude, or from being immature.

What's wrong with liking shower scenes, or having "feelings" about a character that includes "trollop?" Or incompetent. Or asshole, wholeass, jackass, or, in kzt speak, a crack addict? Personally, I object more to interrupting and/or derailing threads over petty jealousies and immaturity in discussing adult books and subject matter, by prudish, immature mindsets.

So it is mature to make a misogynistic joke about a character's actions, that is portrayed in the book in a sympathetic manner? Talk about interrupting a discussion, why wasn't it put into the humor thread?

I am not sure what to say about your "closest friend" that wanted more child rape in a movie.

However, you are quite correct to insist that anything that Duckk accepts in permitted in this forum. So I suggest that if people are offended, whether by "mature" or "immature" material, then they need to lower their expectations. But we can take comfort that being disrespectful to another forumite is quite different from being a "prude", or from being "immature"; with a caution that carried too far, it does result in being cut off by Duckk.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Perhaps you can give another reasonable interpretation of "locomotive."

That is an unfair characterization of the Fly, simply because he likes shower scenes. I have friends who like intimate scenes in movies, and they often ask if there is an intimate scene. One of my closest friends is irked because Denzel Washington's "Man On Fire" excluded the sexual content and sexual scenes Denzel had with the mother in the book, but left out of the movie, along with the little girl's, Pita, actual injuries sustained by being brutally raped over and over in the book. It changes the tone of the movie quite a bit. In the book, it is quite easy to identify with the man on fire.

Being disrespectful to the author, to the characters, and to forumites is quite different from being a prude, or from being immature.

What's wrong with liking shower scenes, or having "feelings" about a character that includes "trollop?" Or incompetent. Or asshole, wholeass, jackass, or, in kzt speak, a crack addict? Personally, I object more to interrupting and/or derailing threads over petty jealousies and immaturity in discussing adult books and subject matter, by prudish, immature mindsets.

So it is mature to make a misogynist joke about a character's actions, that is portrayed in the book in a sympathetic manner? Talk about interrupting a discussion, why wasn't it put into the humor thread?

I am not sure what to say about your "closest friend" that wanted more child rape in a movie.

However, you are quite correct to insist that anything that Duckk accepts in permitted in this forum. So I suggest that if people are offended, whether by "mature" or "immature" material, then they need to lower their expectations. But we can take comfort that being disrespectful to another forumite is quite different from being a "prude", or from being "immature"; with a caution that carried too far it does result in being cut off by Duckk.

It probably wasn't put in the humor thread because it isn't remotely humorous to have to censor one's actual feelings about a character or characters! The book burning era is long gone. I recently had to step on another person's erroneous thinking that he can force his feelings about characters on me. I was told to stop calling Havenites Peeps, when they will always be PEEPS, to me.

You should really stop overusing "misogynist." Simply because one detests or disagrees with a character, isn't necessarily because he's a misogynist. Most of the characters I dislike in the book are male. FYI, I don't dislike Georgia Sakristos. I wish she hadn't done what she did, but who am I to judge until I've walked a mile in her shoes or slept in her beds.

Try leaving the comfort of your prudish country and mores. See the world. The world outside America isn't "Afraid of sex or any discussions pertaining to." A charge levied on Americans by many of my foreign friends. One amusing quip they've shared is the happiness they feel that the great nude works of art are in Europe, than in America. "Or there would be no nude works of art." LOL

My friends dislike that the book was changed so much. Pita died in the book, but lives in the movie. The deleted romantic relationship between Denzel and the mother was racially motivated, in his opinion. And the deleted rape scenes remove lots, tons, of anger carried over to the readers in the book, in his and her opinion. It could have been handled in a tasteful manner, offscreen. And brought up in a conversation.

She says, "In the book he is certainly a man on fire. In the movie, he is simply smoldering."

Let's get another thing clear. I respect the author, but he is only human. I don't expect him to totally adhere to physics, or fail to make miscalculations according to the sciences. Any sciences, including mother nature, and the human element. He is an author, not God. I am not a yes man, and I'm free to disagree, as are other posters. That does not betray respect.

I wish many here would brighten their horizons beyond their prudish American backyards, so I won't have to lower my expectations of mature conversations with adult-like mindsets, if not adults themselves.

cthia wrote:It probably wasn't put in the humor thread because it isn't remotely humorous to have to censor one's actual feelings about a character or characters! The book burning era is long gone. I recently had to step on another person's erroneous thinking that he can force his feelings about characters on me. I was told to stop calling Havenites Peeps, when they will always be PEEPS, to me.

You should really stop overusing "misogynist." Simply because one detests or disagrees with a character, isn't necessarily because he's a misogynist. Most of the characters I dislike in the book are male. FYI, I don't dislike Georgia Sakristos. I wish she hadn't done what she did, but who am I to judge until I've walked a mile in her shoes or slept in her beds.

Try leaving the comfort of your prudish country and mores. See the world. The world outside America isn't "Afraid of sex or any discussions pertaining to." A charge levied on Americans by many of my foreign friends. One amusing quip they've shared is the happiness they feel that the great nude works of art are in Europe, than in America. "Or there would be no nude works of art." LOL

*** snip ***

Let's get another thing clear. I respect the author, but he is only human. I don't expect him to totally adhere to physics, or fail to make miscalculations according to the sciences. Any sciences, including mother nature, and the human element. He is an author, not God. I am not a yes man, and I'm free to disagree, as are other posters. That does not betray respect.

I wish many here would brighten their horizons beyond their prudish American backyards, so I won't have to lower my expectations of mature conversations with adult-like mindsets, if not adults themselves.

I did a global search on the word "misogynist", where I am the author of the post and only find it in this thread. Do you know of other examples?

I have been to Sweden, a country which you did not characterize as prudish (although you considered Joat42 "prudish", do you believe he grew up in the USA?). I thought it was very nice and I really liked Stockholm.

Is most of the great nude art in Europe? It is possible; because it was produced under the patronage of people with great wealth, which occurred for a much longer time in Europe than in North America. Then when the period of great wealth occurred in the USA with the Gilded Age, it also corresponded with a period of religious revival. Since modern art is is likely to be non-representational; there might not be great nudes created now, except in the field of photography.

True that the author is not a god in many respects, but he did create the Honorverse. So you are free to disagree; but when your arguments contradict canon, we are free to depreciate them. Certainly there has been enough discussion in the forum about choices RFC has made in books such as AAC, so being contrary to canon does not close off all discussion.

If I understand you: you say the "joke" was not humor, because it accurately describes what you feel about Kuzak (I am not trying to words in your mouth, instead I am trying express what I understand you to have just written. I am sure you will correct any misunderstanding). She was Hamish's friend, who understood that he was hurting and attempted to lessen that pain, Indeed Hamish felt that it did help and afterward they both moved on. So you think she interfered in a marriage and deserves to be considered a slut that was probably banging any man in (or out) of uniform as the non-joke implies?

Yeah, so how does any of this factor in with her not rolling pods again?

Star Knight wrote:Yeah, so how does any of this factor in with her not rolling pods again?

Apparently she was an idiot or on crack. There is a minority opinion that she was off the command deck banging, but that view had been depreciated.

cthia wrote:Oh FCOL, would someone sell me a sigh, I'm fresh out. What does the author's post have to do with normal participation in this forum and an age old pasttime discussing books? Now you are confusing fanfic with book discussions that go over your head.

I'm not going to engage you, again, in another one of your immature arguments.

Again. Report. It. To. The. Real. Moderator. !.

Every time you drop one of your little "scenes" in a discussion you are essentially doing fanfic. That you don't understand that it can have consequences for rfc, even though the rfc-quote I gave spells it out quite thoroughly is astounding.

If you can't make coherent arguments without making up stories with sexual innuendos in them that has no basis in the books, calling others immature is really some serious projecting.

If this had been a closed forum I would've only pointed out the silliness in what you where doing, but since this is a public forum where the posts can be read by anyone on the internet only a fool posts stuff which can have negative consequences for rfc and you more or less blew up at me when I told you take it elsewhere.

tlb wrote:

cthia wrote:Ok, wrong joke. I thought you were referring to a kzt original that I recently included in the Humor thread that accuses Kuzak of being on crack, for not rolling pods.

I hardly think the FLY or I can be blamed for the joke about Kuzak being a locomotive. Blame the Marines for that.

You are aware that the Honorverse contains very mature subject matter, with very mature, uncensored, normal rhetoric emanating from naval personnel? There's a real world, somewhere, out, there. Whether you like it or not.

I did say the the "joke" was earlier in this thread.

I will certainly blame the joke on the Royal Marines, rather than you or TFLYTSNBN, if either of you can find in the text where anyone (but especially the Royal Marines) cast any aspersions on Kuzak's moral character. If it is not in the canon, then it is fanfic as Joat42 was explaining.

I quite agree that the books contain "very mature subject matter"; but that does not excuse forum members, such as TFLYTSNBN, who take juvenile delight in pushing the boundaries. But I have adjeusted my expectations lower for him, because I realize that he only reads the books for the shower scenes.

It seems that I have stirred up a Shit Storm Rising with my joke about Admiral Kuzac. Given the context of this thread, I don't think that a somewhat juvenile jest about the moral character of another woman that Hammish had engaged in an extramarital affair with would be considered offensive. The difference between Kuzac and Honor is that Honor refrained from consumated the emotional bond that had unexpectedly developed with Hammish until Emily granted her blessing while Kuzak seems to have developed a far less profound affection while covertly comforting him with sex.

As for the entire debate about polygamy, I find it amazing that people find the idea offensive. Polygamy is a very, very common institution throughout history. While it is a feature of economically stratified, patriarchial societies (the rich guys get multiple wives while the poor guys get an occasional tryst with a prostitute), it is also an adaptation to differential mortality rates. Women have better immune systems then men so pandemics will kill off more men than woman. Polygamy maximizes the reproductive capacity of the society to recover.

By odd coincidence, one of my favorite movies was on TV, Anna and the King with Jody Foster. They actually got an Asian actor to play the king although he is from China rather than Siam. (I can't recall the modern name for the country.). A major plot element in the movie is the newest wife wanting to be with the man she loves rather than the king. It is gut wrenching when the British teacher realizes that the King was intending to pardon the lovers and release his wife from the marriage, but her public meddling compels their executions. The movie ends with the King and the British teacher realizing that it is only her inability to accept polygamy that prevents them from being together.

I view Manticore's moral standards as similar to may be modern America or 1980s Europe. (You Eurotrash are actually morphing into geriatric prudes as you take that plunge into demographic oblivion.). Premarital sex is not considered immoral. Promiscuity seems to be acceptable (Admiral Henke). I get the impression that homosexuality and gay marriage are accepted. People being people, I would expect that infidelity within marriage is not at all uncommon although socially unacceptable. I expect that even a few Grayson Steadholders were not the biological offspring of their putative fathers.

Given these realities, I am somewhat amazed that polygamous marriage would not be an accepted alternative on Manticore much less cause for political scandal. While Emily's situation is tragic, I am not at all surprised that she is willing to accept a sister wife into her marriage.

TFLYTSNBN wrote: It seems that I have stirred up a Shit Storm Rising with my joke about Admiral Kuzac. Given the context of this thread, I don't think that a somewhat juvenile jest about the moral character of another woman that Hammish had engaged in an extramarital affair with would be considered offensive. The difference between Kuzac and Honor is that Honor refrained from consumated the emotional bond that had unexpectedly developed with Hammish until Emily granted her blessing while Kuzak seems to have developed a far less profound affection while covertly comforting him with sex.

As for the entire debate about polygamy, I find it amazing that people find the idea offensive. Polygamy is a very, very common institution throughout history. While it is a feature of economically stratified, patriarchial societies (the rich guys get multiple wives while the poor guys get an occasional tryst with a prostitute), it is also an adaptation to differential mortality rates. Women have better immune systems then men so pandemics will kill off more men than woman. Polygamy maximizes the reproductive capacity of the society to recover.

By odd coincidence, one of my favorite movies was on TV, Anna and the King with Jody Foster. They actually got an Asian actor to play the king although he is from China rather than Siam. (I can't recall the modern name for the country.). A major plot element in the movie is the newest wife wanting to be with the man she loves rather than the king. It is gut wrenching when the British teacher realizes that the King was intending to pardon the lovers and release his wife from the marriage, but her public meddling compels their executions. The movie ends with the King and the British teacher realizing that it is only her inability to accept polygamy that prevents them from being together.

I view Manticore's moral standards as similar to may be modern America or 1980s Europe. (You Eurotrash are actually morphing into geriatric prudes as you take that plunge into demographic oblivion.). Premarital sex is not considered immoral. Promiscuity seems to be acceptable (Admiral Henke). I get the impression that homosexuality and gay marriage are accepted. People being people, I would expect that infidelity within marriage is not at all uncommon although socially unacceptable. I expect that even a few Grayson Steadholders were not the biological offspring of their putative fathers.

Given these realities, I am somewhat amazed that polygamous marriage would not be an accepted alternative on Manticore much less cause for political scandal. While Emily's situation is tragic, I am not at all surprised that she is willing to accept a sister wife into her marriage.

The country formerly known as Siam has been called the Kingdom of Thailand since about 1939. I do not remember if there is something disparaging about the former name, but the change was made in a period of anti-Chinese feeling.

The main problem with the joke is that it turns a "friends with benefits" situation into describing the woman as a slag, who would have sex with multiple men at the same time. It should have been posted in the humor thread. I do find your jokes juvenile, but usually do not complain about them; this one just happened to be a useful cudgel in a different argument.

I think you are wrong about Manticore's social standards in that as far as we can tell from the text, polygamy is very acceptable there; the church has long established procedures for such a marriage. The scandal in the book was the suggestion that Honor and Hamish were disrespecting Emily by cheating on her, a woman that had almost saintly status in that society; particularly when Hamish and Emily had written monogamy into their vows (another sign that polygamy was accepted). The scandal about polygamy itself is due to the personal feelings of some members of this forum.

Joat42 wrote:

cthia wrote:My "fantasies" are disturbing to a denizen hailing from a sexually open society that is Sweden? Awww, yet you never quite acted all grown up.

I have a suggestion for you, find a Sesame Street forum.

1. This is not a fanfic-forum, and rfc has himself said that he doesn't want to see any fanfic here. Imagine if someone searches for his name and YOUR post containing sexual innuendos and fantasies shows up in the results. Do you really think rfc would be happy about that, especially if someone starts asking him questions about what's going on here?

2. The administrators of the site CAN fall afoul of the COPPA act if someone thinks what you write is harmful for children and files a complaint; and trust me, there are some real puritans out there that'll happily do that. Do you think somehow it's okay to inflict that risk on this forum and rfc?

3. A sexually open society doesn't mean it's okay to dump whatever sexual innuendos you like into a public forum or debate.

The above should be blindingly obvious to anyone, but apparently not to you.

This is the last time I'm going to entertain this nonsense. Any further ruminations of this kind will get you placed on my personal ban list. Not that you care, but more as a forewarning of why you aren't being responded to -- which indicates a bit more courtesy and respect given to you than in return. This is the last time I'll attempt to have a mature conversation with you. And no, I'm not trying to get you to change your core values, but to get you to realize that I am also entitled to my own.

Attempting to stifle my opinions and feelings toward a character with rude, immature statements like "Keep your disturbing fantasies to yourself," is the kind of immature tone created by posters I spoke of earlier. I will not tolerate that kind of behaviour. If I crave that kind of exchange, I can locate the politics forum. You are entitled to your opinion of characters and their actions, as well as I am entitled to my own. If you truly feel that way, then you should report my posts to the moderator, and you should do it across the board and not just with me. Tlb is incorrect that the notion of Kuzak being somewhere on the ship banging is deprecated. I came across it for the first time in the last month. It was not stepped on at all, by anyone. And it shouldn't have been. Only when I make a "sexual innuendo" is it frowned upon. Which leads me to the very certain possibility that it is all out of some childish vendetta against me. My guess would paint the Beowulf-Karma thread as the source. That thread alone made many enemies. Shrug.

Tlb also says the notion is of a minority. Dunno where he gets his stats on that. I'll assume he polled everyone.

At any rate, let's wrap this up, for the last time . . .


The book states that Kuzak acted out of kindness for a friend; indeed, it is what the book tries to portray. I accept and acknowledge that fact. And I agree with it, for the most part. Kuzak acted out of a kindness for Hamish.

However!

Kuzak DID NOT act out of any kindness towards Emily (and incidentally happens to be what the thread is about). That is my problem with Kuzak, as I stated upstream. But alas, people will assimilate what they will, regardless of what I write, a recurring mistake emanating from a reading impediment or some latent grudge, or from preconceived notions about me because I dare to speak what I see as truths; truths which are oftentimes divergent from the collective concensus on the forum. I don't jump off of bridges or board busses heading in a certain direction just because the masses do.

In America, there is a thing called Freedom of Speech. And I am entitled to my opinions and common sense.

All around the world, especially in America (certainly as witnessed on this forum) there are varied opinions about prostitution, legal or otherwise. Many neighborhoods frown on -- even legalized forms of -- prostitution in their backyards. They feel that these kinds of services would lead to the breakup of marriages, because spouses would be one of the biggest customers. Instead of . . .

1. Non married clients who have a problem securing a sexual partner for whatever reason.

2. Non married clients who are too busy in their professional life to have a normal relationship. (See Jessica Chastain in the wonderful movie, Miss Sloane. One of my favorites. Everytime my sister recommends a movie to me, she nails it.)

3. A young client having his/her first sexual encounter, perhaps as a gift.

4. Married spouses who have the consent of their significant other. Or semi-open marriages. Again, I don't recall Hamish getting pre-authorization from Emily.

5. Etc.

IN MY ENTITLED OPINION, that is where Kuzak screwed the pooch. Many professional courtesans refuse to entertain married spouses. Others don't have that same measure of "values" and simply guarantee anonymity instead, by being discrete or also as an alternative. Sleeping with someone in your own office, or circle of colleagues or friends, IS NOT being discrete. When Hamish slept with Kuzak, there is a very significant line that he crossed. Being a naval officer as well, makes Kuzak "one of the girls" at Hamish's "place of employment," placing her off limits. A professional courtesan who truly engages in professional encounters where further contact is unlikely until "next time" is one thing. But Kuzak getting to interact with Hamish as a colleague is quite another. Emily deserved better than that. If anyone can't see the huge difference between a sexual encounter with a professional stranger who is completely removed from the client's social circles, as opposed to a colleague that one may see frequently, is absurd. And, I WILL NOT keep that opinion to myself, just because YOU don't like it.

It is the same shortsighted, twisted mindset which is responsible for driving one of the main reasons many spouses don't want those types of businesses in their neighborhoods. Just because the girl next door becomes/is a registered courtesan DOES NOT make it okay for that courtesan to sleep with the neighbor's husband. Especially when she knows her client's marital status, and also knows the wife, as Kuzak damn well knew Emily. Everyone in the Star Kingdom knows Emily. IMO, that is what makes Kuzak a trollop, hiding behind her legal license and status. IMO.

What Kuzak should have done was referred Hamish to someone who was NOT in the Navy, a line that should not have been crossed! IF, and, ONLY IF, she couldn't do the RIGHT thing, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, and consider the pain that Hamish's decision would inflict on one of the most beloved women in the Star Kingdom who has already suffered aplenty, and told him EXACTLY where else he could SHOVE it, if he wasn't man enough to discuss the notion with his beloved wife, first. Why wasn't that an option, if he loved her? If she was as strong as all of you portray. Would it have hurt Emily? Of course it would have. Though I'd hazard a guess and bet the farm it wouldn't have hurt her nearly as much as hearing it from a scandal manufactured by the tabloids or from that wholeass of a cretin, High Ridge. And, it just might have endeared Hamish to Emily even more, showing her just how much he truly loved and cared about her to consider her feelings enough to get prior authorization. It could have turned out to be a very tender moment.

I understand that Kuzak represents a convenience for Hamish. Colleagues at any place of employment are convenient as well, even if ill advised. My mother always taught me to "Never shit where you lay." The fact that Kuzak was convenient for Hamish won't lessen the pain inflicted upon Emily, his wife.

It is odd that nobody seems to want to consider the fact that textev does confirm that Emily WAS INDEED, HURT. Finding out your spouse slept with a professional stranger is one thing, but finding out he/she is sleeping with a colleague and both are fond of each other is quite the bull in the china shop.

On to the other battered fish awaiting the pan . . .

Personally, I have absolutely nothing against professional courtesans, or legalized prostitution as I've stated in other threads. I welcome legalized prostitution, because I personally think it would greatly reduce sexually transmitted diseases, as well as prevent many needless deaths. And it would consider the desperation of women, oftentimes single struggling mother's, who are simply trying to put food on the table.

BUT!

Registered courtesans ARE NOT absolved of their responsibility to the community, moral or otherwise. If they cannot determine what it truly means to be discrete, or if they willingly choose to abandon morality and respect towards the other spouse, then they should NOT be a courtesan selling sex or discreteness. Many will argue, "What do you expect from someone who chooses to sell sex?" That isn't fair to someone who is truly professional and discrete, and it gives the disgruntled spouses towards the profession cause.

The other fish . . .

My assimilation of your included post by RFC is talking about the publishing of fanfic for profit. Book discussions, at least loosely, fall under the protection of the Fair Use Act. And certainly would on this forum since the author himself created the forum to discuss his work. That is not to say that someone should attempt to circumvent those wishes by brilliant means, but I hardly think that's what I try to do. And since I am the person in cthia's head, I can assure you, it isn't. I have woven a piece of fabric in David's universe, which comprises some eight to ten thousand words revolving around Honor and Michelle as undergrads. My friends love it (though their taste is sometimes questionable). I wouldn't dare publish it here on the forum, and probably won't publish it elsewhere, despite the prodding.

Lastly, the question of what I think the author would think of any sexual discussions of sexual subject matter found in his books, well, you'd have to ask him. I won't discount the possibility that he'd be dismayed, considering his reaction to discussing that damn grav lance. But I can hope, that he'd not be upset as long as it is done tastefully. I don't think, think, he'd be upset that I considered Kuzak a trollop as part of a joke, even if it bears some resemblance or not to how I actually feel about her or any woman who chooses such a profession as a hobby or as a living. But, then, to be fair, Kuzak could have been hurting for money.

And if she wasn't hurting for money, and yet still chose to become a professional on the side, is her business. And it is my choice, and right, to consider her a trollop, if indeed I do.

I will NOT be relieved of my opinions, religion, or freedom of speech.

****** *

Respectful rebuttals and disagreements are welcome. Otherwise, my personal ban list is a real possibility. My time is limited, and my patience grows weary.


Late edits to placate the grammar police and to wrestle with my spellchecker who seems to be a woman scorned.

.