I'm mostly arguing that with Ivy and Holly becoming friends, they're probably considerably less uptight about "mah privacy" in the context of sending sexy selfies to another friend they've been sexual with. And that it's perfectly plausible for Ivy to be upfront with Holly about sharing these pictures with Lena, instead of doing it behind Holly's back.Mark sending the picture to Ivy without Holly's permission doesn't exempt Ivy from her responsability for forwarding it to Lena (and god knows who else) without permission. I think that people are entirely within their rights to expect other people to not share private and explicit pictures of them without their consent, not really something where you can argue "Holly should have known better" while simultaneously excusing Ivy's behavior and saying she isn't "corrupting" Holly.
It is also worth noting that if this is invasion of Holly's privacy, then Lena shows zero concern about it and doesn't bother to check even once with Holly if maybe her precious privacy was compromised by evil Ivy.
Existence of these factors doesn't mean people are incapable of saying no, or expressing displeasure or discomfort when they were coerced into doing something that caused them either of these feelings. If not to the person responsible, then to one's other friends. Not only Holly shows no signs of such reactions, but she also willingly participates in casual sex entirely on her own and without any input from Ivy. So i think it's reasonable to accept simple possibility her continuous participation is out of her own volition.I don't know how far into the "radical free will" direction you want to argue, but unless you want to ignore the existence of pushers, enablers and deny the existence of any kind of social influence, then I will point out once again that Ivy is really insistent in propagandizing her lifestyle and targetting insecurities to manipulate other people.
Stubbornness *and* very little interest in trying to see things from other person's point of view, or even showing any real interest in the feelings of those other people. Both Cindy and Alison are mostly concerned about what they want and the problems in their own lives. They expect to always be listened to, but rarely listening themselves.Idk what you were cooking with Cindy (I guess the single-minded stubborness?) or with Alison (she's in a midlife crisis and easily suggestible towards anything, her "tough" personality is barely allowing her to cope).
Emma regularly tries to push her views of Seymour on Lena despite earlier disagreements, and she dislikes Lena disagreeing with her about it, to the point where it'll damage the relationship score. She'll similarly dislike it if Lena displays opinions on other subjects which don't match her own.Emma actually has several conversations about how she won't push her lifestyle on other people, the vegan thing is an easy example, I do not recall any instances of her acting condescending or treating someone as lesser for disagreeing with her, even her beef with Seymour is much more about opposing his actions and their consequences.
My argument is that the whole "corruption" thing is bullshit and the idea that Ivy shows Holly how to have fun in ways Holly hasn't experienced, and that Holly has the nerve to enjoy this experience, isn't really basis for any sort of hand-wringing how bad Ivy is for doing it. Holly isn't becoming a worse or "corrupted" person because she learns that casual sex is something she likes.Is your argument that the literal corruption route results in a corrupted Holly?
Really, enjoying casual sex makes Holly a "baddie"? Why would you say that?Holly will embrace her inner lust and become a baddie alongside Ivy or whatever and everyone lives happily ever after.
Last edited: