Forbidden love? Or simple misinterpretation?

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 14:53

By using point form I've actually been able to make my posts a resonable lenght, so I'll stay wiht it, although I'm not sure whether it will work this time.

As to who said: "We're fratello we don't need to talk about love." I was convinced that it was Triela, and that it was exactly as you said, Wasyhoo, she was avoiding the topic.

Wasyhoo wrote:altho I sure hope you're not into their pairing :suspect:

That's complicated.
- I don't think Hillshire has any "romantic" feelings for Triela (definitely not at this point anyway). He is like a father/guardian/partner/friend. He feels responsible for her, she is close to him, and he respects her as a person.
- I wouldn't say that he is distant. All he does is respect her whishes. He offers her comfort on every occasion in which she is feeling down or was in a bad situation; it's Triela who turns it down (and rather blatantly), so if he pressed further he wouldn't be a particularly good person regardless of what tehir relatioship is.
- Can it turn Hillshire x Triela. It definitely can, the conditioning seems flexible enough that which way the cyborg and handler take it depends largely on how they work out their relationship. Whether it will is up in the air.
- What feelings does Triela have? She isn't certain. They are definitely very strong feelings of affection (respect, etc.), and considering that they are under the influance of conditioning and the drug these emotions may be hard to categorize in terms of normal "human" emotions. If she doesn not feel a less innocent love twoards HIllshire then she is treading close; I think she is rather afraid of that, and that is one of the reasons that she feels so uncertain and stays aloft.
- Where does the drug/conditioning come in? I don't think we can really talk about a Triela without the drug. She is not the same now as she was before and for all we know she won't be going back. She is dependant on the drug now. The Triela we know is the Triela whos personality has been changed and affected, so there is no real point in discussing what would happen if it hadn't. The drug/conditioning essentially changes a persons brain chemistry, but then personality is chemistry, memories are chemistry, etc. This hemistry is changed everyday, by all sorts of influances. When people manipulate each other (and it happens all the time) they are essentially using certain reactions that they know the other person will have. The point I'm getting at is that chaging a personality is something that happens all the time and that people do all the time. The only difference is that the influance that a person can have was never so great as it is in the case of drug/conditioning. The drug/conditioning is an integral part of who the girls are; the same way as any other major personality changing events are for other people, except even more deeply rooted. [I don't think I'm explainin gthis well enough, but whatever effect the d/c has it is part of who the girls are now.]
- Where do I stand? Well what I think what I said above as far as manga realities are concerned, and as to my personal attitude I'm relatively indifferent. I would like them to end up in a warm and intimate, close relationship, but it doesn't have to be a sexual one.

Now on to the morality of the whole affair:
- The reasons why it would be considered wrong may be as follows:
* Triela is under age.
* Hillshire is far older then Triela
* Triela is dependent on Hillshire (the wholse drug thing)
- First age.Triela is ~16 now. The series has a tendency to skip large ammounts of time so she may yet turn 18. I'm not saying anything here, just showing the possibiliteis.
- Whould it be ok for Hillshire to be attracted to Triela. How can you say no? You get excited when you see certain physical features, so if a 13 year old has the body of an 18 year old (and happens to fit your prefferences) you will get excited. It's not the attraction that is immoral (you can't help who you are attracted to) it's what you do with it. As to Triela being attracted to Hillshire. Weren't you attracted to older women when you were, say 16? Definitely possible, drug or no drug. Is it moral. Well, again the attraction itself can't really be immoral. Is it moral for a young girl to go after an older man. Hell, I don't know. Is it ok for an older man to go after a young girl? (If the younger girl is 18, then the law has nothing ot say about it, but in this case, currently, she's 16) Now this is where it all begins:
- I put this down on another thread, but I'll summarize:
As far as a simple age rule goes, it's just an approximation. There is no divine message that has been sent down to earth saying that a girl is magically ready at 18. The age rule has been put in place so that girls meet other cryteria, which are a lot harder to measure. I think these cryteria are as follows:
* intellectual/emotional maturity; so they don't make a mistake they will end up regretting long afterwards.
* independence; so that they aren't manipulated by people with more experience, or who they are dependent upon.
- As far as the intellectual/emotional maturity is concerned how the hell are you supposed to tell when a girl is ready? It's pretty damn hard. Just about everything I could say about this would end up being purely cultural. Resulting from what I was brought up to believe and what I have seen around me. It would have little to do with logic or what is best; because I really have never taken the time to think over all my cultural biases and figure out "why is that?". We assume that the goal is preserving people's happiness. If that is so, then if two people will end up being happy in the long run; how are we supposed to object?
- Dependence is a more serious one. Something like this should be a two way deal, a decision made by two equally aware and independent people (ideally). This will never be trully equal, but we can try to look for a resonable degree of it. In any cyborg/handler relationship the handler is more experienced, and the cyborg is very dependent. The problem in this case is that the cyborgs will never be independent, and that, yet again, if we are people looking for goodness (is that even a word) then our final goal is the maximum happiness for the two; so it doesn't matter if the decision is very one sided as long as both sides end up being more happy as a result, then if the decision was not made or stopped. Another factor you might get into is that the very nature of love is a certain type of dependence. The type of burning "Romeo" love is the one that doesn't let him sleep, and makes him go crazy, it's overexagereated (although, not necessarily), but it gets the point across. If you love someone very much then you are in a way dependent on that person, because your love tends to take precedence before reason. So in a two sided situation both people are heavilly influanced by the other side. Hillshire is obviously under a heavy influance of Triela (father like, but non ethe less): she can perswade him to do stupid things, her injuries have an affect on him, and her feelings obviously matter to him. You end up at the concept of a decent balance of this two sided dependance, but:
- 1) as I said the goal is happiness, not obeying some divine set of laws
- 2) there's hardly a way to measure this accurately
- 3) it is absolutely unclear as to what ratio is acceptable and what ratio is not.

I failed to make this post short althoug, this time, I tried. But, that's the jist of what I think of the matter.

by **ElfenMagix** Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 19:53

Excellent points there 3Klicks! I do agree with a lot of it.
Sorry, I had to snip out most of the text to this middle part and hope I or anyone else takes it out of context... (My reply to this is below)

3klicks wrote:- I put this down on another thread, but I'll summarize:
As far as a simple age rule goes, it's just an approximation. There is no divine message that has been sent down to earth saying that a girl is magically ready at 18. The age rule has been put in place so that girls meet other cryteria, which are a lot harder to measure. I think these cryteria are as follows:
* intellectual/emotional maturity; so they don't make a mistake they will end up regretting long afterwards.
* independence; so that they aren't manipulated by people with more experience, or who they are dependent upon.
- As far as the intellectual/emotional maturity is concerned how the hell are you supposed to tell when a girl is ready? It's pretty damn hard. Just about everything I could say about this would end up being purely cultural.

Its only a recent phenomenom that American Culture has taken on this whole 18+/Sex thing, say within the past 20 or so years. Nor has it been a good thing either. No- I am not one of those 'child lover' predator/molestor, I cant stand those types and do what I can against them. But I speak out of experience and historical reference here...

Since before the Viet Nam War, girls were getting married between 16 to 18, and were pressured to have babies before their first aniversary. The further back one goes, the younger the girl gets, and it gets to a point where the average age of a girl getting married and having kids is before the age of 13 (circa WW1). Between WW1 and the Korean War, it was not uncommon for an American male of 20 - 45 to get a teenaged wife. Now, what says that the girl herself was ready to marry? Many things, but it is for the girl herself to decide and her family to agree upon unless she ran away and eloped.

Culturally, around the world, this varies greatly. From my navy friends, an old saying from the Phillipeans (sorry if I'm offending anyone here) about girls, "If you can bleed, then you can breed..." So to them, as soon as a girl gets her first period, she's woman on all levels. The same in Mexico and many Carribean and Central/South American nations that I know off. Sadly, due to many factors, girls as young as 5 having their first period often get thrown into this. In many African Tribes (since too many African nations are loosely based on their borders), A girl is not a woman and is not capable of marriage until she capable of producing a child by means of having sex with her father and bears a child to him first; this happens at about the age of 10 for them. Having a period does not make her a woman in this case, producing a child does.

As humanity goes, we're all royally fucked in the head. Religiously speaking, "The Virgin Mary" was said to be between 12 and 14 years old when she gave birth to Jesus, and the known records seem to point to about the age of 14 for her. She was not some young 20-something girl that she was always painted out to be. So lets not get into the 'Holier than thou' here. This is not the place for it, and I was only pointing out some facts that can be easily googled on the net.

Subject Change:
One thing about Triela we all must understand is her past. As a child prostituted who was forced into that world, is more than likely had all sorts of chemical floating around inside her before she was 'repaired by the SWA.' That means that she has had a long detox period during her transformation process. Adding other drugs to counter act other drugs or to replace them is not the best way to go. But in Triela's case, that is what is happening- the condictioning drug replacing the drugs she was on in her former life. Since Hillshire keeps her on a low doseage, she can think more clearly and do things more independantly then others. Thats how i see it.

by **rusty-spring** Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 20:00

I won't go into a long discussion on my opinions on sex and age and all that (lest I sound creepy or like a self-righteous prick Razz

)

I will say however that there is a strong correlation between education levels and age of teen pregnancy/sex. Why? That's pretty obvious. You try getting through highschool/college when you have to take care of (financially and time-wise) a baby.

It would be a living HELL to try to take care of a baby at my stage in life. I wouldn't be able to afford it, or have time for it. I can only sympathize with those who do.

The importance placed in today's world of getting a solid education would be my reasoning on why the common age of sexual activity has increased (at least fundamentally, if not in practice - lord knows we've all been/are stupid teenagers Laughing

.)

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 20:44

wasyhuu wrote:So please, anyone responding to that topic, use PM.

PM PM PM
please use PM folks, when it's gettting out of topic sweat

by **Nachtsider** Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 20:48

3klicks wrote:Whould it be ok for Hillshire to be attracted to Triela. How can you say no? You get excited when you see certain physical features, so if a 13 year old has the body of an 18 year old (and happens to fit your prefferences) you will get excited.

I think it's the other way round here - Triela's probably an 18-year old with the physical appearance of a 13-year old. Which only complicates things further.

ElfenMagix wrote:Between WW1 and the Korean War, it was not uncommon for an American male of 20 - 45 to get a teenaged wife.

One has to wonder exactly what motivated them to do so.

by LoC978 Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 22:01

Nachsider wrote:
ElfenMagix wrote:Between WW1 and the Korean War, it was not uncommon for an American male of 20 - 45 to get a teenaged wife
One has to wonder exactly what motivated them to do so.

-young and relatively uneducated people are easier to control.
-youth holds a certain beauty to many people.
-the younger a person is, the more likely they're still virginal.
...et cetera.

by **Nachtsider** Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 22:07

I dig the virginal bit (virginity is something consider paramount), but never knew people would opt for wives so damn young they'd not have anything to sink their teeth into...

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 22:09

well then, since we got a new thread, here's my response to 3klicks. Some editing to remove irrelevant part.

3klicks wrote:It's not the attraction that is immoral (you can't help who you are attracted to) it's what you do with it.

Man, this is a VERY mature thought process especially if you figured that out by yourself and not from some teaching. Hats off to you if that's the case (although I'd argue you can help who you're attracted to. It depends on what you believe in. Stoics believe only 4 thing a person can control: his own emotions, thoughts, actions, and desires. Hence, you can control who you're attracted to but not who's attracted to you)

When it comes to wrong and right and taking account your advanced maturity, please allow me present you a (philosophical) observation I've made and concluded over the years. Nature - nurture - choice.
- By nature and urge to procreate, humans are basically advanced animal. The argument for happiness do not hold well because as you said there's hardly way to measure and the ratio is uncertain. Also, in the many cases of intimate relationship between teacher and student here in US, both parties claim it was consentual and they were happy. So what's wrong with it?
- Enter the realm of nurture. Law, religion, ethics, etc. Just because it feels good (make you happy) does not mean it's right. Right for you, right for the society etc. What's the standard? Well, time is one. What is long term happiness, months? years? decades? No one knows. But one thing we can all agree with is if we are let free w/o consequences to fulfill whateever makes us happy, there's only one outcome: total, absolute chaos.
- Finally, choice. Despite the evil nature of man (IMHO), his thought process, nurture, combined with that tiny trace of good in him aka conscience, enable him to make choices that do not necessarily make him happy, but righeous one. There's also a story that illustrate this well

An elder Native American was teaching his grandchildren about life. He said to them, "A fight is going on inside me.. it is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One wolf represents fear, anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.
The other stands for joy, peace, love, hope, sharing, serenity,
humility, kindness, benevolence, friendship, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith."
"This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other
person, too", he added.
The Grandchildren thought about it for a minute and then one child asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"
The old Cherokee simply replied... "The one you feed."

In short, I'll have to admit, the main thing that makes me against their
pairing is the implied father-daughter relationship. I know this does
not hold well, because they are not related by blood (arguable, since
Hillshire & Rachelle were covered w/ Triela's blood when saving
her. In a sentimental way, that's related by blood). But if we use the
arguments of pursuit of happiness as the sole goal, then even in the
case of real father-daughter, brother-sister romantic involvement, why
is it wrong or looked down upon if they're happy? Is it really just
culture or is there that tiny trace within us that shows right from
wrong.

As argued earlier, in the end it's a choice. If I put myself in Hillshire shoes: I saved a young lady, watched her grow, protected her, laughed with her in her victories, and cried with her in her defeats, and did all that in keeping of a promise I made to my deceased partner who died saving her, I would feel very vindicated if I find myself starting to have romantic interest in her especially if it's just because she grows up and looks desirable. Then I would attribute that interest to my biological nature, and appropriately choose nurture (the righteous values displayed in Hillshire words, actions, etc.) over nature.

Then again, you may argue protecting her as a spouse is just the same as protecting her as a father, so the promise is kept. Ah well, is there such thing as true objectivity when it comes to human interaction. Bleh....

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 22:12

and the reply. Some editing for irrelevant part.

3klicks wrote:I felt that it was on topic, but you are absolutely
right, that this discussion would proubably go better on another thread.

As far as stoicism is concerned, you might ask what does the deciding that
controls the 4 areas you mentioned? It's the will, right? But, what does the will base it's judgements on? It does not decide divinely, out of thin air. Your will is a secondary product of your emotions, thoughts, and desires. Logic is a tool. A means and not an end. It will never act on its own unless there are emotions attached. If you believe in a philosophy, it is not the philosophy directly that drives you to follow it, but the feelings you associate with it. A philosophy can be unchanging, feelings cannot be trully unchanging. If it was otherwise, people would be a lot more stable in what they believe in. In my oppinion the Stoics got it backwards.

Who you are attracted to is shaped over a very long time, and you have less say in it then other considerations (You have nothing to say about your natura and little to say about how you are nurtured.). If you assume that you can feel attraction to someone and then will it away then you are confusing changing your character with suppressing it. Suppressing elements of your psyche does not bring good results, the longer you do it the more destructive the lashback. I'm not a big fan of Freud, but he got some things right. Jung created a system that seperated out what Freud got right, from the things in which he was very much mistaken, and then
added a wealth of his own, so I am inclined to believe in what he says.

I am not trying to argue for a "do as though will" type of attitude, but I feel that, especially in a situation like this, saying that at one age it is ok. and at another wrong, is just foolish. I doubt laws will ever stop people from having sex when they decide they want to, and I don't think it is really the state's business to enforce such laws. The important thing to do is to protect from harm and exploitation; that being achieved, no further laws can be justified. The main reasons for the scandalousness of teacher/student relationships are:
1) that the teacher has considerable power over the students future life: can exploit the student
2) that the teachers are taking on a social role, this role includes keeping the trust that parents place in them (as social servants). In this way if teachers did as they pleased it would disturb public order. However, when a young girl finds an older man and there is full reason to believe that they love each other (even that they will marry and that the man will behave accordingly as a husband) then the purely subjective/sentimental objections of the parents do not seem like very good arguments. They can only be considered binding if there is a legitimate reason to believe that this wil bring serious harm to either of the lovers. Is there any reason to believe that such a relationship will cause social upheval? Many things change over time, and although there is a lot of heated discussion about it at first countries do not fall apart, despite what their stance on gay-rights, abortion, or stem-cell research is.

Wasyhoo wrote:Finally, choice. Despite the evil nature of man (IMHO), his thought process, nurture, combined with that tiny trace of good in him aka conscience, enable him to make choices that do not necessarily make him happy, but righteous one.

This is very true, and I enoyed the story you attached, but isn't it possible for some things to make you happy and be righteous at the same time? I think that if we are to consider Triela X Hillshire as unreighteous, we have to have a reason to do so. I think it will bring them both happiness if they decide to go that way. I also think that such a relationship would not cause the negative effects you described.

I believe in culture, and in my values, but it takes a lot of very careful thinking to validate imposing those values on others.

As to incest. The attraction should naturally be cancelled out (a biological process) if the child spends enough time with said person at a young age. The opposition to incest is not ingraned in culture by accident it is tied ot the simple fact that the lack of genetic diversity profoundly increases the risk of genetic malformations. (Saa all those royal families that would constantly intermarry for reference)

Wasyhoo wrote:As argued earlier, in the end it's a choice. If I put myself in Hillshire shoes: I saved a young lady, watched her grow, protected her, laughed with her in her victories, and cried with her in her defeats, and did all that in keeping of a promise I made to my deceased partner who died saving her, I would feel very vindicated if I find myself starting to have romantic interest in her especially if it's just because she grows up and looks desirable. Then I would attribute that interest to my biological nature, and appropriately choose nurture (the righteous values displayed in Hillshire words, actions, etc.) over nature.

What you do with your feelings in the end is what matters, but if denying
them is trully right you have to have a reason why. This part strikes a personal chord with me. I would normally not give a perticularly personal response, but in this case I feel almost obliged to do so. If you have a system of values that you have thought about throughly and integrated into yourself (that is it is an arrangement of components that were already part of you and not somehting imposed onto them) then following it is good. On the other hand "changing your personality" to adopt to a system that has been imposed from outside, or that you have accepted, but which is against your nature, will have very bad consequences. It is not changing the personality or the self, it is suppressing parts of yourself. Instead of being a charmonious whole, you expand energy in a battle with yourself. There is only a limited ammount of time that your psyche as a whole will stand this. Eventually when you hit a snag in life you will find that you can't keep going and your system of values will break. It won't go away, or melt away, it will shatter right from under your feet.

One sidedness is almost always bad. People often equate the self with the consciousness, but a person is not just the consciousness. A person is composed of a body, a conscious, a sub-conscious, and an unconscious. When you feel those are not "your feelings" like legos laying in front of you; they are you. You will not always act on your feelings, but that's because you have a consciousness as well (and a super-ego is you want to go with that terminilogy) which is equally you.

Please treat all you read as a sign of good faith. I have no intention of forcing my beliefs, and have no idea of your situation, but felt I should share several ideas with you.

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 22:14

and my reply. Once again, the philosophical bs is omitted due to irrelevance.

To the original HxT discussion, now that we lay cards in the open, we actually don't have disagreement at all:
- If their coupling result in a happiness guaranteed for 1000+ years and
they become asset, not liability to those around them, then I support that if i were to be objective
- I humbly admit that my objection of their pairing is solely based on the subjective & selfish reason of that in a coupling scenario, they won't create as much warm and fuzzy feeling in me as in a father/daughter scenario.

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 22:18

You proubably give me too much credit. sweat

I usually don't respond to compliments, I'm never sure how. But, since it's on the forum...

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 22:48

Oh, right, the discussion.

Nothing is ever certain so we work with balances of probability alone. So, I'd say if there is a greater chance that they will be happy together then if they are not go for it. (Barring some severe negative consequences of the relationship.)

I believe Triela is capable of taking responsibility for her actions and making a choice. The emotion may be influanced by the drug, but the choice she makes is still hers.

She is also, in many ways, above the law. Her life is far from normal, and she will never be able to meet, much less start a relationship with anyone from outside the agency. Her life is also shortened, so it's not really true that she can wait all that long.

Well those are random thoughts; the gist of it is in my post above. Does anyone remember which thread I brought this up on first?

Oh, and I don't advocate anarchy, or disobedience to the law, or even changing the law. My argument is about the morality of the situation. Law is practicall, and therefore a gross approximation of what is truly moral in each particular case.

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 23:17

3klicks wrote:Oh, right, the discussion.

Nothing is ever certain so we work with balances of probability alone. So, I'd say if there is a greater chance that they will be happy together then if they are not go for it. (Barring some severe negative consequences of the relationship.)

I believe Triela is capable of taking responsibility for her actions and making a choice. The emotion may be influanced by the drug, but the choice she makes is still hers.

She is also, in many ways, above the law. Her life is far from normal, and she will never be able to meet, much less start a relationship with anyone from outside the agency. Her life is also shortened, so it's not really true that she can wait all that long.

Well those are random thoughts; the gist of it is in my post above. Does anyone remember which thread I brought this up on first?

Oh, and I don't advocate anarchy, or disobedience to the law, or even changing the law. My argument is about the morality of the situation. Law is practicall, and therefore a gross approximation of what is truly moral in each particular case.

wait a sec here...greater chance?
what we do know at this point is they have this complex relationship. What canon facts support your theory that both of them will be happier as a couple? How do you quantify that probability? Any subjectivity involved here?

Ok, she doesn't live a normal life. Hillshire discourages her from getting close to Mimi. As vol. 4 shows,
Triela is not well-versed in 'normal girl' stuff i.e. boyfriend,
hobbies, etc. So how/why would she have normal girl expectation? Why can't she wait? Is she waiting to begin with? Anything in the manga supporting this?

Don't mean to burst your bubbles here, but if we're going to base the discussion on available storylines, there isn't much poiting out to that direction, and even if there's one, I can point out how SWA may frown at that just like in case of Lauro and Elsa, Jose and Etta (i.e. negative consequences)

Now, if we're going to the realm of fanfic... Well, there's no boundary to imagination and I shall withraw quietly from the discussion.

by Guest Mon 3 Dec 2007 - 23:39

I wrote:f there is a greater chance that they will be happy together then if they are not go for it.

I did use the word "if", so I was only trying to lay out the cryteria by which we can decide something like this. I think that cryteria has little to do with her age, or even the conditioning drug, and everything to do with how possible it is for the relationship to work out in practice with a good result for both sides.

I mentioned "severe negative consequences", so if the SWA would cause a lot of trouble, this would count.

However, I don't think the SWA would cause trouble. During the whole manga the large ammount of choice given to the handelr as regarding the cyborg is emphesized. Jose is told that he can chose what he does with Henrietta despite Jean recomending greater conditioning. It is repeated that you can choose whatever name you like and use the training methods you preffer.Jean and Jose frowned upon Slessandro asking whether he could teach Petrushka to smoke, drink, and get her a belly button, but they made no objection. I doubt this would be that much different.

I can't make definite judgements as to whether they would be happy together or not (especially since we don't even know what Triela's feelings are in the first place. I say that they very well can be romantic but I dont say that they are). What I can say is:
- Saying that it is immoral is oversimplifying
- It can work out as far as the SWA is concerned
- They could be happy together; whether they will is up to details that we don't have, but there is no more saying that they will not then saying that they will.

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 0:29

3klicks wrote: So, I'd say if there is a greater chance that they will be happy together then if they are not go for it.

I admit I do not have the best reading comprehension score, but would you somehow make this statement clearer/make sense? Don't mean to be a grammar police here ( I make lots of mistakes too), but I really don't understand the above statement. Anyone else?

3klicks wrote: but there is no more saying that they will not then saying that they will.

(assuming you meant than, not then) Concur! I thought we already established this in the PM exchanges, that unfortunately (or fortunately), our nurtures/subjectivity come to play in deciding the possibility as well as the moral status of the coupling. Hence, it all come back to how we choose and at such, we have to agree to disagree.

by **ElfenMagix** Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 0:36

Love is...
Not to be forbidden.

It is a thing that defines a relationship and where that relationship goes. It has many levels, where it can occupy any of them in any combination to suit the needs of the couple in question. It is shaped by trust, temptered by understanding, and nutured by the events of life itself.

It is created by the couple, given boundries, shape, size, colour and is taken to various depths. It survives on the emotions that are created, and at times can be poisoned by them. It exists on the mental, emotional and physical.

The problem exists when one uses love over another to achieve selfish goals- lets say screw the laws andwhat society expects ofeveryone for a moment. It seems that these things may not exists here. Love is done for the right reasons for the couple and not for one of them over the other

In short, the girls do not know what is expected of them by their handlers other than what they are told by them. They are medicated to deal with both their physical situations and their mental/emotional ones. They programmed to believe what they are told to do by their handlers is to be true and do as their handlers expect them.

Each girls should do their best for their handlers. Each handler must do well by their girls. As Hillshire said in Vol.4, Chptr 19, Pg 69: 'We Don't Need To Talk About Love... We're Fratello.'

That line explains it all.

by Wileama Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 0:44

I've been meaning to drop into this conversation sooner rather then later. Unfortunately I have to go to work soon. So it only leaves time for a brief dip. I'll return later and share more of my mind with you.

wasyhuu wrote:But if we use the arguments of pursuit of happiness as the sole goal, then even in the case of real father-daughter, brother-sister romantic involvement, why is it wrong or looked down upon if they're happy? Is it really just culture or is there that tiny trace within us that shows right from wrong.

Klicks already hit on the biological side of it. However if you look at most of these Father/Daughter 'romantic' involvements you'll see that they are really just the father pushing his sexual desires onto his children. I'm not saying it's impossible for there to be an actually incest relationship that isn't outside of social taboo's what we would consider a good relationship. However there is a real issue of age difference, especially when an parent is coupled with a younger child.

wasyhuu wrote:Ok, she doesn't live a normal life. Hillshire discourages her from getting close to Mimi. As vol. 4 shows, Triela is not well-versed in 'normal girl' stuff i.e. boyfriend, hobbies, etc. So how/why would she have normal girl expectation? Why can't she wait? Is she waiting to begin with? Anything in the manga supporting this?

Unless Triela really is messing around with Claes, I think it's safe to say that she is waitting. At least in terms of sex. Reminds me of this one episode of House, M.D. There is a girl who has terminal cancer, and I mean little. During an examine she mentions to a doctor she's never been kissed, and she doesn't want to die without one. The doctor refuses, assuring her that she'll live to get out of the hospital, and have a kiss. The girl persists, till finally the doctor caves, and gives her a timid kiss on the lips. It's an interesting scene, and raises a similar point.

I think just, because one can have sex doesn't mean one needs sex. Sure it's fun, but there are plenty of cases where sex hurts people. Maturity counts for a lot, and I think it safe to say that I just don't think most of the girls really prepared for it. The term 'bunny love' comes to mind, and I think thats what it would amount to for most of the girls. Triela I think is one of the few exceptions.

That's the thing thought the girls aren't going to have normal lives. Sure it would be nice if they had a chance to fall in love with boys. To go to school, to do all those things little girls due. They aren't though, and the inclusion of those things could lead to having a more complicated life then they already have. Some one said it would raise an unacceptable risk of them questioning their loyalties, and the morality of their position. Some times you can give them fringe elements of normality, but you really can only take it so far.

FUCK. I really want to go more in depth on this, but sadly I really must leave for work. This is an unfinished post, it's a raw, and incomplete thought. I do intend to come back to this, it just might take me a while.

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 0:47

ElfenMagix wrote:As Hillshire said in Vol.4, Chptr 19, Pg 69: 'We Don't Need To Talk About Love... We're Fratello.'

huzzah! another person who read that line coming from Hillshire, not Triela. ok, it's easier if everybody says the line is by Triela then I can just see myself as wrong/lame, but now that you joined in, I'm totaly confused and back to square one. We got to invite folks who read the original manga in Japanese to know for sure.

Not sure what you mean, ElfenMagix. In the beginning you claim love should not be forbidden, then you quote "we don't need to talk about love."

But to respond to that brief snippet you have about couple. This is IMHO the definition of a good relationship, that is when the relationship makes each of its members a better person. Not feel better, or feel good, but a better person. Of course, in my somber/cynical/jaded view of the world, it does not necessarily involve happiness. Joy and contentment, on the other hand...

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 0:49

Yeah, my grammar tends to be rather contorted. What I mean is:

When you arrive at the decision whether it would be best for them to be together or not you attempt to specify, to the best of your ability, what the result of their being together will be, and what the result of staying apart will be. Then you simply choose based on which option is better (which will make the two Happiest). You consider this from the long term perspective, so, for example, if we had solid proof that they would be expelled from the agency or punished in some way we would factor that in (that will definitely decrease how happy they are). You also consider if there are any serious repercussions on other people.

I think I may be making less sense than before, but I tried my best.

Wasyhoo wrote:I thought we already established this in the PM exchanges, that
unfortunately (or fortunately), our nurtures/subjectivity come to play
in deciding the possibility as well as the moral status of the
coupling. Hence, it all come back to how we choose and at such, we have
to agree to disagree.

I thought there were some things that could be clarified as to my particular stance (such as what I think of law, and that I'm not trying to argue that there are romantic feelings involved or that they should be together; just that it could be there and if it is its not necessarily bad), but in the heart of the matter it is (as you say) a case of personal preference, so I guess there is not much sense debating it. Smile

[edit] Woah, when did all these posts appear? Anyway:
Wileama, I agree that most of the girls aren't ready. Triela very well may be. I am not pushing for sex on their part, just saying that it is an open possibility, and that it may very well end up improving things for them. A "romantic" relationship doesn't have to center around sex. (I agree with Wileama on this too) They can start by exploring their feelings for one another, and, potentially if they find that type, admitting their love. That will bring them to a new level of communication and will allow a lot of other things to be worked out. It can also lead them to having an easier time showing affection for one another. They can hug, kiss, it certainly doesn't have to start with the sex, or even end with it, but it would be a greater level of intimacy that may be warm and comforting to both of them.

by **Nachtsider** Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 0:49

Wileama wrote:Sure it would be nice if they had a chance to fall in love with boys.

Hence, Childville.

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 1:03

Wileama wrote:Unless Triela really is messing around with Claes, I think it's safe to say that she is waitting. At least in terms of sex. Reminds me of this one episode of House, M.D. There is a girl who has terminal cancer, and I mean little. During an examine she mentions to a doctor she's never been kissed, and she doesn't want to die without one. The doctor refuses, assuring her that she'll live to get out of the hospital, and have a kiss. The girl persists, till finally the doctor caves, and gives her a timid kiss on the lips. It's an interesting scene, and raises a similar point.

I think just, because one can have sex doesn't mean one needs sex.

bohahahaha :dance: , I'm high with sugar so here goes the ramblinnngggg
hey, come on now, you can't draw parallel from a kiss and sex. Ask most (if not all) girls and they'll agree with that. So yeah, in my selfish fictious world, I'd want that young lady to leave this earth without experiencing "it." So I disagree with that assumption that she's waiting. She got other things to worry about, such as naming her teddy bears Very Happy

, taking care of the other girls, and making Hillshire proud of her. Besides, she already 'had' her first time, albeit with more blood than normal and no recollection if it (as long as Hillshire and the doctors can help it). Heh, getting little morbid there. Also on thing to point out, this is in anime not manga, so it may or may not count as canon: in that conversation between Henrietta and Marco before he went to see Angelica, Etta said that he'd be wrong if he felt sorry of them (she's speaking for other girls as well). They have accepted who and what they are and are completely fine with it. Some words from Claes in ep. 2 also come along the same way. Hence, yeeeha :charge: go gunslinger nuns go!

EDIT: Also, now that I think about it. Hillshire has seen 'all' of Triela when he first found her, and it was just the complete opposite of how Sandro 'examined' Petra. I'm not a sex therapist, but is it not plausible for poor Hartman to be brought to that painful/traumatizing episode again should he be... sexually involved.... with.... T...gah, can't even bring myself to write it

and she might have nighmarish flashback to that time, too?

ah, and here's food for thought. Sex is a want, not a need. How is that so?
1. You won't die if you don't have sex.
2. Before his/her first time, the boy/girl has curiousity and want. After that first time, he/she has an experience and a need. Hence, sex is a created need.
3. Losing virginity is an overrated bull/peer pressure. The ability to perform basic biological function does not prove one is a man or macho....OTOH, the wooing ability to get with that hard-to-get-one, now that's a whole different story, but even then...ok, I'll stop :cyclops:

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 1:16

Wasyhuu wrote:in that conversation between Henrietta and Marco before he went to see Angelica, Etta said that he'd be wrong if you feel sorry of them (she's speaking for other girls as well). They have accepted who and what they are and are completely fine with it. Some words from Claes in ep. 2 also come along the same way.

I'm kind of confusef. I'm not sure how the conversation relates to the TrielaxHillshire thing. Can you elaborate?

I'm not insisting that they should have sex, or that sex is a need, or
anything. Just sayin' that if they end up in a romantic relationship,
with or without sex, I would't see any reason to object. But, that's
just my oppinion.

This is what I wrote as response to Wileama, but I think it got lost since there were many posts at once.

3klicks wrote:
[edit] Woah, when did all these posts appear? Anyway: Wileama, I agree that most of the girls aren't ready. Triela very well may be. I am not pushing for sex on their part, just saying that it is an open possibility, and that it may very well end up improving things for them. A "romantic" relationship doesn't have to center around sex. (I agree with Wileama on this too) They can start by exploring their feelings for one another, and, potentially if they find that type, admitting their love. That will bring them to a new level of communication and will allow a lot of other things to be worked out. It can also lead them to having an easier time showing affection for one another. They can hug, kiss, it certainly doesn't have to start with the sex, or even end with it, but it would be a greater level of
intimacy that may be warm and comforting to both of them.

by **Nachtsider** Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 1:18

wasyhuu wrote:Losing virginity is an overrated bull/peer pressure.

As I mentioned prior, virginity is something I consider sacrosanct when it comes to picking a mate. Where I'm concerned, you only lose it if you plan to walk down the aisle with the other person and be with them forever. It surprises me that a lot of people are caught up in this mad rush about losing their virginities, and also that many do not mind if their partners have slept with others prior.

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 1:28

I'm pretty traditional as far as this is concerned too. I'm not sure whether I would take it as far as first sex = marriage. But, I value the whole serious, mutual love concept, and don't treat a relationship lightly.

I might be arguing that HxT wouldn't be immoral, but it's becaue that would only ocur if it turned out that they did love each other and in that case (althoug they proubably wont marry) they will stay together.

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 1:40

3klicks wrote:Can you elaborate?

what I meant to say is the girls have accepted their lot in life. They know they won't grow up, they know they won't live life like any normal girls, they know they won't marry, have kids, have intimacy, and the list goes on and they are alright with that. Elsa, for example, believes because of the short life, it should be spent 100% for her handler. In case of Triela (in ch. 36), she told Hillshire she knew she couldn't grow up. The mood got really somber and of corse she quickly changed the subject. She also told Claes how she's chosen to live her (short) life: by taking care of the other girls in addition to herself (dayum...Hillshire must be proud).

So, with these (inconclusive) evidence, I'd like to present my take on the subject that these girls are sincerely content with how their life are and not waiting, wanting, or desiring these things we talked about.

The whole finding joy in life's simple pleasure i.e. enjoying tea together, watching falling stars, is what makes this anime/manga so profound and intriguing to me.

by **Nachtsider** Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 1:42

wasyhuu wrote:In case of Triela (in ch. 36), she told Hillshire she knew she couldn't grow up.

Hold the phone - does this mean that the debate on whether or not the girls grow up is finally settled...?

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 1:47

Nachtsider wrote:Hold the phone - does this mean that the debate on whether or not the girls grow up is finally settled...?

To me, there's never been a question, Let's see Totoum translation and what 2nd seasons bring.

If you based their growing up on the physical changes, well, i think it's Emperor or even you who said in the old forum "even I have to admit" that AY drawing is not consistent when it comes to height and physical characteristics i.e. waist size, bust size etc.

by **Nachtsider** Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 5:26

I never thought there was such a question to begin with, Wasyhuu - it's others who first started questioning whether or not the girls physically mature, and caused a debate that has yet to die down.

The one who said that must have been Emperor. I put these inconsistencies down to the high probability that Gunslinger Girl is being illustrated by more than one artist, although Yu Aida himself certainly exercises control over the script proper.

by **ElfenMagix** Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 18:13

wasyhuu wrote:
ElfenMagix wrote:As Hillshire said in Vol.4, Chptr 19, Pg 69: 'We Don't Need To Talk About Love... We're Fratello.'

huzzah! another person who read that line coming from Hillshire, not Triela. ok, it's easier if everybody says the line is by Triela then I can just see myself as wrong/lame, but now that you joined in, I'm totaly confused and back to square one. We got to invite folks who read the original manga in Japanese to know for sure.

Not sure what you mean, ElfenMagix. In the beginning you claim love should not be forbidden, then you quote "we don't need to talk about love."

But to respond to that brief snippet you have about couple. This is IMHO the definition of a good relationship, that is when the relationship makes each of its members a better person. Not feel better, or feel good, but a better person. Of course, in my somber/cynical/jaded view of the world, it does not necessarily involve happiness. Joy and contentment, on the other hand...

The Manga is read like that because Triela asked the question , and it is Hillshire that is answering her question. 'We Don't Need To Talk About Love... We're Fratello.' means that as a bonded 'Fratello' pair, the love is there, along with respect and other componants of the relationship that makes them a Fratello.

As for my comment, Love comes in all shapes and sizes. It does not have to include sex, and as such sexual love is only for those couple who are willing and ready to give that much to each other. I dont think that this is possible in GsG, even though the girls are so willing to drop their underwear and screw their handlers in a bad way. This would ruin the relationship that they have as a team. The issue here is what if anything would be ruined. They as a team are a life partnership in assassination, for life, for the life of the cyborg is short- just a few years (which is still under speculation as to how long it is). Love itself inthe relationship that they have has a lot of interdymanic interplay going on in a finely tuned balance for the given relationship. Adding sex to the realationship will throw off that balance for the given relationship. In my words- "we don't need to talk about love." means we dont have to go into the sexual aspect of the relationship.

by Guest Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 18:38

Forbidden love? Or simple misinterpretation? 069eq1

I think that all the bubbles after Hillshire's question are Triela responding. The pauses would seem more familiar to her, and Hillshire would be unlikely to ask what Mimi meant if he had already thought it over and decided that they don't need to talk about love.

Unfortunately with Yu's style of drawing text bubbles it is really ver difficult to tell who is speaking even when they are visable in the same panel as said bubble.

by **ElfenMagix** Tue 4 Dec 2007 - 21:37

Part of the difficulty lies in that the layout of the comic is in Asian Format- reading from right to left covers and up to down text, which the Latin-based, Greek and Cyrillic system is read from left to right cover to cover and on text. The English versions of the printed manga material on nearly all anime-manga titles is still in Asian format layout but with English text replacing the orginal text. It makes it really difficult to figure out out to read it until you have read it a couple of times and have gotten the flow right.

by Wileama Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 0:04

So many points I want to touch on. So many I'm struggling to understand what's being said. I find it all a little overwhelming.

wasyhuu wrote:what I meant to say is the girls have accepted their lot in life. They know they won't grow up, they know they won't live life like any normal girls, they know they won't marry, have kids, have intimacy, and the list goes on and they are alright with that.

wasyhuu wrote:So, with these (inconclusive) evidence, I'd like to present my take on the subject that these girls are sincerely content with how their life are and not waiting, wanting, or desiring these things we talked about.

My feelings are yes, and no. I think the girls have accepted that this is their life. That they wont grow up, they wont have a normal life. They certainly seem to be content at about that fact. However I think there is a difference between acceptance, and being content. You can accept your death, but that doesn't have to please you. There really isn't much evidence that the girls are dissatisfied with their life. What ever pangs they have their lives certainly aren't voiced much. There's a part of me that refuses to accept that they are 100% happy with the lot they've been give. I think I'm might be projecting my own wants onto them.

That being said I think there must be at least the occasional moment where a girl wonders what's outside the walls. Whether it's Rico talking about Emilio, or Triela on a balcony with Hilshire. They have to know there is a world they are missing out on. The conditioning may help them accept what's happened to them. I simple can't, I don't want to believe that the girls never have the odd moment where they wish, and wonder what a normal life would be like.

wasyhuu wrote:bohahahaha :dance: , I'm high with sugar so here goes the ramblinnngggg
hey, come on now, you can't draw parallel from a kiss and sex.

Maybe not between a kiss, and sex. That's not what was trying to compare thought. I was trying to compare two young girls who are going to die young, and their want for a certain intimate act before their death. Those are the parallels i was trying to draw. Maybe it didn't add much to the conversation, but I really didn't have a lot o time to consider edit, and polish up that post.

wasyhuu wrote:So yeah, in my selfish fictious world, I'd want that young lady to leave this earth without experiencing "it."

I honestly thing there are more important things that one should experience first. Like an intimate relationship, being in love. Sex is a pleasure, like chocolate. [only much better of course!] Some one can go their entire life without chocolate, and it wouldn't be a wasted life. Besides sex is complicated, and it can be hurtful. I'm fine with all the girls never enjoying it.

wasyhuu wrote:So I disagree with that assumption that she's waiting. She got other things to worry about, such as naming her teddy bears , taking care of the other girls, and making Hillshire proud of her.

You really where on a sugar rush. These sentences look like direct contradictions to each other. I'm not saying she's waiting, because she wants to. For all we know she's masturbating like hell. [God I'm going to hell just for that sentence.] However she really does lack the opportunity. Unless she settles on Hilshire, and I'm about to get to their relationship I swear.

wasyhuu wrote:Besides, she already 'had' her first time, albeit with more blood than normal and no recollection if it (as long as Hillshire and the doctors can help it). Heh, getting little morbid there.

:suspect: yes, you are getting a little morbid. It's a 'good' point, despite being so unsettling.

Anyway lets just go ahead, and say that time didn't count? Besides if it did, it certainly wasn't any fun for her, and that kind of the core of what where getting at right?

wasyhuu wrote:EDIT: Also, now that I think about it. Hillshire has seen 'all' of Triela when he first found her, and it was just the complete opposite of how Sandro 'examined' Petra. I'm not a sex therapist, but is it not plausible for poor Hartman to be brought to that painful/traumatizing episode again should he be... sexually involved.... with.... T...gah, can't even bring myself to write it and she might have nighmarish flashback to that time, too?

Yeah that right there seems like all the reason why Hilshire would never get sexually intimate with Triela. He would have issues with it. He would feel like he was taking advantage of her conditioning, and would associate himself with the people who hurt Triela. Hilshire would probably hate himself for it.

Now about a Hilshire, and Triela 'couple.' I think you really have to look at what their relationship is. In many ways it's confused, because there are so many different roles going on at once. They are father, and daughter, Mentor, and student, partners [like cop partners, asshole], their even shining knight, and princess. Some of those roles have a lot in common, others conflict with each other. As father, and daughter they love each other. It really is that simple. I think Triela in her youth is sometimes confused by that love. She isn't really sure of what her relationship to Hilshire is. So she's left with this kind of teenage confusion over what that love means. I think that love is best described as the love between a father, and his daughter.

At the same time though they work together, and Hilshire has to train Triela. Hilshire really does treat her with a lot of respect to allow her to work with him as an equal. I think Triela wants to do her best to show him that respect is deserved, and to not let him down. Which I suspect is one of the reasons that she feels so bad about being defeated. As much as it's a fear for her, she must feels like she is a failure in his eyes.

At the same time Hilshire would do anything to protect Triela. He wont let anything harm this girl, he would shoulder the weight of the world if he could. Which now that I think about it must be kind of strange. For as much as he wants to protect her, she protects him. She is the stronger one. Hmm...

Anyway they don't have the best communication about their feelings. Hilshire is the most open person, he seems more the strong silent type. Triela mean while is a confused teenager, more confused then most I think which is saying a lot. Add the complexity of their relationship, and I think it's easy to understand how some could think that maybe Triela does want to be intimate with Hilshire. That's really not what their relationship is though. Well okay, maybe she does want to be more intimate with Hilshire, but not in a sexual way. I think she just wants to be able to talk to him more openly some times. To have a closer relationship, because there is this gap between the two. Their relationship to one another is open always evolving around them, and there is a constant uncertainty of it. I think they have a general understand of it, but they wouldn't be able to explain it as well as someone on the outside looking in.

wasyhuu wrote:ah, and here's food for thought. Sex is a want, not a need. How is that so?
1. You won't die if you don't have sex.
2. Before his/her first time, the boy/girl has curiousity and want. After that first time, he/she has an experience and a need. Hence, sex is a created need.

A need is something you simply can't go without. The human race can't go without sex. So in a way it is a need. However what your talking about is wanting sex very badly. It's part semantics, part philosophy. Off I go to work!

by Danjo3 Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 11:32

Wileama wrote:For all we know she's masturbating like hell. [God I'm going to hell just for that sentence.] However she really does lack the opportunity. Unless she settles on Hilshire, and I'm about to get to their relationship I swear.

I guess I'm going to hell with you because, for some reason, I found that extremely funny. Forbidden love? Or simple misinterpretation? Icon_razz

By the way, I read your whole post and you make some excellent points. Please don’t think that masturbating Triela is all I got from it.

Edit: I also believe that the “We don’t need to talk about love, we‘re fratello”, line was said by Triela.

by Guest Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 11:51

Danjo3 wrote:I guess I'm going to hell with you because, for some reason, I found that extremely funny.

Makes you wonder who she's thinking of at those times. Razz

*Runs like crazy.*

(p.s. Hope that it's clear from my posts that I didn't really make any judgements as to what would be best and didn't push in either direction. I just opose saying that it is impossible, immoral, or can't possibly end well. Things are very much in the air; options are open. Let's just hope they choose whichever is best.)

by **ElfenMagix** Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 15:51

I assume that its Hillshire talking, because of the septagon shape of the speech bubble. If Triela is 'so confused', for her to say that would also mean that she is in denial of the whole situation. In Hillshire saying it, it would mean that they dont have to talk about it because they know what to expect from each other.

And as for who Triela was 'dreaming about' during those times- it has to be the only male in her life- Hillshire!

*ducks at thrown objects, and then runs!*

by Guest Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 16:03

ElfenMagix wrote:If Triela is 'so confused', for her to say that would also mean that she is in denial of the whole situation.

I don't think she's in denial. She simply doesn't want to talk about it / can't muster the courage to do it. It looks like a classical "Triela Subject Dodge" (TM, R, C) Like the ones she used when he offered to go and buy her clothes, and when he said that he'd never betray her.

[edit] p.s. That's a keen observation about the bubble shape (I didn't
really notice.), but, unfortunately, it dowsn't help us in this case.
The septagonal bubbles are used when the speaker is "off panel".

Here's how the panel : speaker that gets the septagonal bubble works out.

1: -
2: -
3: Hillshire ("Like father like daughter...")
4: Triela ("Yeah, she'll do anything to get what she wants...")
5: Hillshire ("What do you think she meant by 'talk about love'?")
6: (This is where we dissagree. The order would suggest Triela, although It's hardly conclusive.)

by Danjo3 Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 19:16

ElfenMagix wrote:And as for who Triela was 'dreaming about' during those times- it has to be the only male in her life- Hillshire!

Isn’t it usually around this time that Sintendo shows up with one of his Hillshire Farms joke’s.

by Guest Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 19:34

Danjo3 wrote:Isn’t it usually around this time that Sintendo shows up with one of his Hillshire Farms joke’s.

Huh?

by LoC978 Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 20:33

think sexual euphemisms:
Forbidden love? Or simple misinterpretation? 0004450033177_LG

by **ElfenMagix** Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 21:21

:lol!:

by Wileama Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 21:22

ElfenMagix wrote:And as for who Triela was 'dreaming about' during those times- it has to be the only male in her life- Hillshire!

Well there is always Claes, or maybe she even dreams of despoiling innocent little Henrietta. Awesome!

3klicks wrote:(p.s. Hope that it's clear from my posts that I didn't really make any judgements as to what would be best and didn't push in either direction. I just opose saying that it is impossible, immoral, or can't possibly end well. Things are very much in the air; options are open. Let's just hope they choose whichever is best.)

I understand you didn't, but I did. I think it would be a horrible decision for their relationship. It would only confuse Triela further, and Hilshire would feel guilty as hell. Depending on how Hilshire would then break it off, Triela might feel even more hurt.

Anyway about who says those last bubbles. My opinion is unchanged. 3Klicks hit a lot of good points. I just wanted to hit one more. In the first speech bubble there is a "..." lead in. As if the bubble is a continuation of a previous speech bubble. The only previous speech bubble is Triela. Besides if that's Hilshire he's very coldly turning aside Triela's question. He might not be the best at talking about their relationship, but I don't think he would stop it cold like that. Despite her confusion Triela has some understand about what their relationship is, and her own idea's.

by **Nachtsider** Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 21:23

I'd sure love to know just who it was who first decided that Claes and Triela were an item.

by LoC978 Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 21:25

dunno about the first person who decided that, but I think the first person who posted a story on the subject was Sheo.

by **ElfenMagix** Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 21:29

It was not me. I joined this fanfict long after that had started...
(Besides- it would have to be Ricco; she's willing to try anything new with anyone! What was that comment about the class slut being the one you'd least expect? The answer is right there!!!)

by **Nachtsider** Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 21:35

Claes/Triela smut surfaced all over the Internet long before Sheo joined the fandom (which reminds me - I must invite Sheo over). As much as I don't like to admit it, the miscreant who thought it up is a genius. People snap that shit up more than they do any works of serious, intelligent fanfiction.

Come now, Elfen - you know it wasn't Rico I was referring to. Think about it again. "She's usually the one you least expect it to be..."

by LoC978 Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 21:47

Nachsider wrote:"She's usually the one you least expect it to be..."

Ange. I once posted a similar idea in the old forum... the thread was about what jobs the girls would have if they ever got the chance to grow up. Everyone but me listed Ange as essentially 'homemaker', while I said she'd be a pop music star.

by **Nachtsider** Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 21:51

Shh... don't want to let the secret out now, do we, LoC?

Angie as a diva - what a wonderful image. I can see her touring the world with the stage name 'Daughter of Elysium', dressed in a chaste white outfit with angel wings ala Amy Lee in Seether's 'Broken', touching the hearts of millions with her seraphic voice. Maybe we could even have her play the harp - people would die of the painful joy and delicious hurt that comes from experiencing something that's just so damn beautiful and touching.

Damn - gotta get me the Kleenex.

by **ElfenMagix** Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 22:00

Nachtsider wrote:Come now, Elfen - you know it wasn't Rico I was referring to. Think about it again. "She's usually the one you least expect it to be..."

Lets do the math...

Henrietta - Too Obvious. I mean- look at her and Triela go it at in the forum's Logo!
Triela & Claes - Roomies! Not Henrietta & Rico, They're 'sisters'...
Angie - Since she was the first, everyone has had her at least once. I mean- Even Persicilla wanted her as often as possible! (No wonder Angie broke her arm in the manga!)

So that leaves: Rico, Elsa, Pia, Beatrice, Petra.

Pia is always with Ernesto, until Henrietta killed her.

Bichu is always with Bernardo...
there was no hope for Elsa...

That leaves Rico and Petra.

Petra... Alessandro does not share.

That leaves Rico...

In Episode 2: Ragazzo, Claes asked Rico, 'You like everything, dont you...'
Rico agreed.

by Wileama Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 22:06

ElfenMagix wrote:(Besides- it would have to be Ricco; she's willing to try anything new with anyone! What was that comment about the class slut being the one you'd least expect? The answer is right there!!!)

:lol!: :lol!: :lol!: :lol!:

I do declare this thread offically hilarious.

by Guest Wed 5 Dec 2007 - 22:42

Wileama wrote:I understand you didn't, but I did. I think it would be a horrible
decision for their relationship. It would only confuse Triela further,
and Hilshire would feel guilty as hell. Depending on how Hilshire would
then break it off, Triela might feel even more hurt.

You talk about it almost as if they would be forced to do it, or as if they just got drunk one day and jumped into bed. If they decided to have sex it would be a two sided decision (obviously) and that would only follow after a persiod of growing understanding and intimacy. Hillshire is not stupid enough to jump the steps (and currently I doubt he even considered it or had that idea), and Triela, who rarely lets him touch her, would obviously not consent to sex before they got close and intimate (not to mention that if they do go that way I see Triela as the one who would lead it in that direction).

In very short they are smart, resonble and decent people. If they have sex it will happen after they've gotten far closer to each other and figured out that they love each other. They could still be mistaken, but at that point their understanding would be enough that it wouldn't have as severe repercussions as you described.

Now, if they are put in some really extreme situation and end up having sex (maybe because they are proubably going to die and half delusional with injuries) then I agree with you completely. Things would become VERY strained and complicated between them if they made it out of said situation.

[It's a good thing I went and bang head

and then came back here. Anyway, you know how guilt works? If you feel guilty then you feel guilty, and if you don't feel guilty you feel guilty about not feeling guilty. Yeah, it's screwed up.

Think about Elsa.] She has a lot of compensating for unrequited love to do. I bet shes [slept with] just about everyone in the agency hoping it would make the pain about Lauro go away.

by Sponsored content