- May 16, 2019
- 1,979
- 2,573
Half truths breed the best lies, after all.I feel like Axel is being honest isn't something to take for granted. Maybe he is being honest, maybe he is not. He has shown himself to be dishonest in the past.
Half truths breed the best lies, after all.I feel like Axel is being honest isn't something to take for granted. Maybe he is being honest, maybe he is not. He has shown himself to be dishonest in the past.
only interested in hiring "a new model for the summer campaign "and they gave that spot to another candidate can just as easily refer to any or all of them. "New model" for wildcats, someone they haven't worked with before. Like referring to someone as a "new employee" usually doesn't denote whether that person has previous job experience or not. And even if it did, the text you showed doesn't indicate they consider Lena or Ivy seasoned models, or that it was the reason Lena wasn't chosen. Open to interpretation, but it reads as if they only had one model slot to fill, for the summer campaign, and weren't looking for new models for any other campaigns at this time. They just happened to think Cindy was more right for it than Lena, despite liking her portfolio.Err, i feel you're making up some sort of headcannon that isn't quite there in the game? Axel is pertty explicit about the Wildcat thing in his texts:
Wildcats was interested in hiring new model and that requirement ruled Lena out. Not having her portfolio presented late, or anything. So we can conclude from this that Lena does have some modeling presence that goes beyond "instagram girl very few people know of" and Ivy likely even more so, given she's working more actively on her modeling career.Python:x "{i}Anyway, I just wanted to update you on the modeling agency situation.{/i}" x "{i}I presented them your portfolio and they liked it, but they were only interested in hiring a new model for the summer campaign and they gave that spot to another candidate.{/i}" (...) l "{i}Just one more thing... Out of curiosity, who was the girl that was picked by the agency? Was it Ivy?{/i}" x "{i}No, it's the other girl I've been working with. Cindy.{/i}" l "{i}I see... Ivy won't be happy about it.{/i}" x "{i}I tried to get her in, but her style isn't quite what Wildcats is after. They're looking for something more... sophisticated.{/i}"
The "sophisticated"/"sensual, artistic" thing is probably right, although i suspect it boils down more to Cindy not (yet) being used/comfortable with being openly sexual with her posing. Though it, again, strengthens the idea that Ivy and Lena have some modeling presence that's known to more than few people, and in this case that worked against Ivy -- if they were unknowns then having more bold shots in the portfolio would matter little; modeling is largely about presenting required persona after all.
Hence we go back to why my definition of corruption (as an active conduct) cares about method and intent.Okay, I hear where you're coming from. Obviously the actual criminals are guilty while others can share responsibility but not the blame, it's not even a discussion. I guess our difference lies in who we see as the criminal in this analogy. You think it's the person doing the corruption, but I see the person being corrupted as a future criminal on their villain arc (IF they end up doing bad / irresponsible things according to their own starting morality). And because the person is on their villain arc I just don't see much point in finding the person guilty for making them a criminal (aka "We live in a society"), criminals aren't always pressured or coerced to do the crime, they choose to act based on external influence and their internal justification but they can only blame themselves for making that choice to go through with the crime.
One last thing (it's too engaging). If you think of a person doing the corrupting as a criminal it paints the person getting corrupted as an innocent victim which robs them of agency. They're a human being with their own agency and they're making a choice when they do bad or irresponsible things. Lena can't blame Seymour for making her cheat on Ian (the moral action here is either to break up with Ian or just be honest with him and explain her problem if he promises to keep it a secret) or blame Jeremy's dick for making her treat Louise like trash and gaslight her into becoming a cuckquean. Just like Jeremy can't blame Lena for making him a bad friend to Ian or poor boyfriend to Louise if he can't man up to reject her and do the right thing. Just like Ian can't blame Cindy for being sexy or Wade for being a bad boyfriend or Axel for making his moves on her if he ends up banging Cindy and betraying Wade. Well, they can but it just wouldn't be mature or convincing.
That touches on whether Jeremy is innocent victim or a criminal (the one being corrupted or doing corruption) and whether Lena is corrupting Jeremy or not by disrespecting his initial rejection and half-hearted reluctance. All valid and good reasoning. What about the corruption of Lena in this scenario? You said it yourself that the person can't be blamed for corrupting by simply existing, so Jeremy can't be at fault for Lena developing the BBC fetish. So, how would you classify this fetish development if not corruption? That fetish is directly tied to Lena being irresponsible and doing things she would blame Ivy for (like seducing Jeremy or being mean to Louise) or, like she blamed Ian for kissing Holly and compromising their friendship. On Jeremy's path not only is she willing to sleep around with Jeremy behind Louise's back, she also doesn't care that he's a friend of Ian and it might ruin their friendship as well if they ever were caught or Jeremy slipped when he was too relaxed, etc.I like that you brought the BBC storyline up because, obviously only up until the cuckqueen part of it, Jeremy really wasn't responsible for any kind of corruption even while carrying out behaviors that many would consider immoral. Jeremy did nothing to Lena, she spied on Jeremy and Louise and developed her obsessive fetish all on her own. He was lying to and manipulating Louise to try to sleep around, but until the cuckqueen part he wasn't really trying to change her in any way (it is possible that he pressured her into agreeing to things like filming her, but I don't think that's ever established so just as likely that Louise agreed to it because she was not opposed). After the cuckqueen plot though Jeremy is definitely Lena's partner in crime when it comes to corrupting Louise, they both know how attached and emotionally fragile she is and they take advantage of it to get her to "agree" to things that go against her established values.
Now about Lena corrupting Jeremy I would say that's a bit more of a grey area, I would agree that merely hitting on someone or trying to seduce them does not count as any kind of manipulation as long as you stop at the "no", or at any other expression that the engagement in sexual developments is uncomfortable to the person being seduced. On the other hand Ivy tells Lena how easy it is to manipulate Jeremy and orchestrates the events of that evening with the express purpose of getting Lena and Jeremy intimate and Lena chooses to take full advantage of that. I would say that in both cases Jeremy is still mostly responsible for his moral failings because very little was done to rob him of his agency, but Lena was only "corrupting" him in the scenario where he at least tries to say no (high Ian_Jeremy relationship and Ian has feelings for Lena) because Lena pushes through his attempts to hold to his values of not cucking his bro, even if they were rather feeble attempts.
I mean... why not? Not all campaigns are the same, so i feel it's perfectly reasonable for Wildcats to want a new face for one campaign, but someone more established for another. It'd depend on what sort of image respective clients they're working with want for their products.Why would they want a new model for the summer campaign in particular but be okay hiring a more prominent model for other campaigns?
That's certainly a possibility, although in such case there might be some branching down the road depending on how far Lena takes her own online presence, i'd guess?Or Wildcats simply run the background checks on any models that want to work for them, and they just didn't like what they saw on Ivy's Peoplegram.
Assuming Axel is a reliable narrator in this and doesn't come up with bullshit excuses, it would be consistent with all this "sophisticated" comment. If Lena gets hired and she's slutting-it-up online and they don't complain about public image, then it would at least be weird why Ivy was rejected.That's certainly a possibility, although in such case there might be some branching down the road depending on how far Lena takes her own online presence, i'd guess?
I mean my personal opinion is that the way Lena's BBC addiction develops is a bit hamfisted on her character by the writing (I think the moral corruption she can undergo in the routes of Robert, Mike, and Axel all make more sense given her established values, personality, and experiences), but without appealing to that I'd agree with you calling it "self-corruption", or maybe even no corruption at all, not all immoral behavior needs to spawn from external and corruptive influences, I'm not Rousseau.That touches on whether Jeremy is innocent victim or a criminal (the one being corrupted or doing corruption) and whether Lena is corrupting Jeremy or not by disrespecting his initial rejection and half-hearted reluctance. All valid and good reasoning. What about the corruption of Lena in this scenario? You said it yourself that the person can't be blamed for corrupting by simply existing, so Jeremy can't be at fault for Lena developing the BBC fetish. So, how would you classify this fetish development if not corruption? That fetish is directly tied to Lena being irresponsible and doing things she would blame Ivy for (like seducing Jeremy or being mean to Louise) or, like she blamed Ian for kissing Holly and compromising their friendship. On Jeremy's path not only is she willing to sleep around with Jeremy behind Louise's back, she also doesn't care that he's a friend of Ian and it might ruin their friendship as well if they ever were caught or Jeremy slipped when he was too relaxed, etc.
This is the clear sign of Lena's moral corruption with nobody else to blame it on but her own lust that made her either spy on Louise and Jeremy (a morally questionable thing to do) and then hacking Louise's phone (deliberate disregard of her privacy as the previous peek could be argued as accidental). There's no method that would fit your criteria (just curiosity and arousal), and there's no intent (at least the first time when Lena found herself spying on Louise and Jeremy). I guess it could be argued when she hacked Louise's phone or when she agreed to jack him off during Ivy's party that she had the intent to satisfy her curiosity even if she felt partially guilty about it. So, self-corruption then?
Just as an aside, I like to headcanon that that version of Lena has more of a big dick fetish than a BBC fetish, which keeps the racial component out of it and is also more consistent with her character and past, as Lena has previously experienced a relatively outsized penis (i.e., Axel).I mean my personal opinion is that the way Lena's BBC addiction develops is a bit hamfisted on her character by the writing (I think the moral corruption she can undergo in the routes of Robert, Mike, and Axel all make more sense given her established values, personality, and experiences), but without appealing to that I'd agree with you calling it "self-corruption", or maybe even no corruption at all, not all immoral behavior needs to spawn from external and corruptive influences, I'm not Rousseau.
If you want to seek a deeper justification, I think the only way to rationalize it is that Lena already had a moral-shatering obsession with BBC buried deep into her psyche, either originated in a meta sense by the player imbuing it into her character when tailoring her with their choices (when first spying on Louise and Jeremy, the player chooses if Lena focuses on either Louise or Jeremy's cock), or originated from a diffuse cultural phenomenon. Neither scenario excuses Lena's character from being entirely responsible for her own corruption.
In the first case it is just a videogame thing, choices by the players are not always about creating different events that influence the pre-established character in different ways, sometimes they change the subject of the very character itself. The choice of having Lena focus her attention or not on Jeremy's cock feels like the later to me, it is not "Lena started developing a BBC fetish because she happened to stare at Jeremy's cock while peeping on him and Louise" but rather "Lena stared at Jeremy's cock while peeping on him and Louise because that's what she already wanted to see from the start, even if subconsciously".
The second case is a bit more tricky, allow me to build up to it.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
A message Steven Pinker just sent me: "After a good stroke or two to ORS (I prefer baby oil), I too began to ponder the societal devices that led to Lena's near Pavlovian salivations at the mere thought of a large black cock. After reading manscout's insightful comments here, I would agree that [Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum] .I mean my personal opinion is that the way Lena's BBC addiction develops is a bit hamfisted on her character by the writing (I think the moral corruption she can undergo in the routes of Robert, Mike, and Axel all make more sense given her established values, personality, and experiences), but without appealing to that I'd agree with you calling it "self-corruption", or maybe even no corruption at all, not all immoral behavior needs to spawn from external and corruptive influences, I'm not Rousseau.
If you want to seek a deeper justification, I think the only way to rationalize it is that Lena already had a moral-shatering obsession with BBC buried deep into her psyche, either originated in a meta sense by the player imbuing it into her character when tailoring her with their choices (when first spying on Louise and Jeremy, the player chooses if Lena focuses on either Louise or Jeremy's cock), or originated from a diffuse cultural phenomenon. Neither scenario excuses Lena's character from being entirely responsible for her own corruption.
In the first case it is just a videogame thing, choices by the players are not always about creating different events that influence the pre-established character in different ways, sometimes they change the subject of the very character itself. The choice of having Lena focus her attention or not on Jeremy's cock feels like the later to me, it is not "Lena started developing a BBC fetish because she happened to stare at Jeremy's cock while peeping on him and Louise" but rather "Lena stared at Jeremy's cock while peeping on him and Louise because that's what she already wanted to see from the start, even if subconsciously".
The second case is a bit more tricky, allow me to build up to it.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content. Log in or register now.
I forgot: Is Lena's potential fetish specifically big black cock or just big cock? In the latter case, her fetish for it can be explained by her past relationship with Axel.
Lena has a general fetish for bigger cocks with few explicit mentions to race (at least so far), but the writing in Jeremy's scenes is entirely centered on just his cock. The stuff with Axel on the other hand does mention how impressed she is with his size, but it is not the singular focus of her desire.Just as an aside, I like to headcanon that that version of Lena has more of a big dick fetish than a BBC fetish, which keeps the racial component out of it and is also more consistent with her character and past, as Lena has previously experienced a relatively outsized penis before (i.e., Axel).
Lena has a general fetish for bigger cocks with few explicit mentions to race (at least so far), but the writing in Jeremy's scenes is entirely centered on just his cock. The stuff with Axel on the other hand does mention how impressed she is with his size, but it is not the singular focus of her desire.
This can be partially explained by the fact Jeremy has a bigger dick than Axel, or also the fact that Axel has other traits about him that Lena admires while with Jeremy it is pretty much just his cock. But, at least in my personal opinion, the difference between Lena's level of "penis worship" with Jeremy and her level of "penis worship" in general is just too high for it to feel like a completely natural extension of her character, rather than a more focused attempt by the writing at implementing the BBC fetish into the story.
Before the revamp, there was quite a girthier stretch of content with Lena referring specifically to Big Black Cock and plenty of graphics and tags in the current code that still reference it, though the naming is more vestigial now.I forgot: Is Lena's potential fetish specifically big black cock or just big cock? In the latter case, her fetish for it can be explained by her past relationship with Axel.
I hope this pun was intended.girthier stretch of content
There's two separate fetish variables for Lena: one is specifically for BBC and one for big cocks in general. Reminiscing and/or having sex with Axel can increase the latter.I forgot: Is Lena's potential fetish specifically big black cock or just big cock? In the latter case, her fetish for it can be explained by her past relationship with Axel.