BloodyMares
Well-Known Member
- Dec 4, 2017
- 1,469
- 7,070
- 626
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.
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?