Sorry, I don't like the uke. Everyone has, at least once on their lives, had their hearts ...

I agree with you

I think you're slightly confused. He doesn't work in the sex industry, he just sleeps around on his own terms. I also don't feel like he's blaming Natsuki. He was just simply saying because of his unrequited feelings he kind of became a hoe haha to each their own.

No, not confused. Becoming a hoe because of his unrequited feelings was still his choice since different people will react differently towards the same situation. He could have taken a different path. Nobody is obliged to like someone back and what the rejected person does after the rejection is entirely on their on. Even if the guy had been cruel to him and not just denied his feelings, in the end, however the rejected acted afterward, wold still be his own reaction to the situation. Some people that are bullied or raped or abused will break while some will be strong and move on, or decide to take revenge; each one chooses on their own what to do. It is true that we can't decide the situations life will send our way, but it is us that will decide on how to act upon those situations. We are responsible for our lives, not anyone else.

That's just how he's been written as a character

I meant about you saying "sex-related job". It wasn't a job.... he just banged randos in his free time because he wanted to.
To me this just didn't come off as a "poor me poor me" chapter. He never actually blamed his situation and decisions on being rejected or the person who rejected him. Hell, it doesn't even seem like he regrets sleeping around.... if anything he just really wants the guy he loves in his life and he'd be set. He was basically just telling his perspective of the story and just because you see it as something bad and regretful doesn't mean the character does.

Well ... I think things are a little more nuanced and complex than that irl, but this is a romance novel, so I expect the conflict has come to its climax in a stalemate at the moment. Haruomi, who is clearly very broken internally, will either break apart completely, or Natsuki will learn to give a little. What would be unexpected for a romance genre, is for Haruomi to use some sort of emotional jackhammer to pry open that selfish prick's heart and then, satisfied, walk away, "Adios!"

You are right about the sex-related job. I wrote the comment based on the first chapter and that was the impression it gave. I hadn't read the second chapter because of the bad impression the first gave me and I just remembered to put the comment I wanted to make before when I saw the update today.
But I stand my ground about personal choices and I called it "bad choice" because the uke is not happy with his own life, but it is true that the feeling of the second chapter is completely different; I actually like the character a little more now since his frivolous attitude is not real but a pretense to protect himself from more pain. Though, he is still guilty of sleeping with a married man. That is plain wrong, no possible escuse.

Yes, things in real life are always complex, but that doesn't mean they can't be analyzed under a simple perspective as long as you determine the criteria. What I wanted to portray was that people frequently use the excuse that they 'didn't have a choice' but that is not true, every step we take in any direction is a choice big or small based on the circumstances life put us in. We just don't see it or are afraid of accepting the weight of the responsibility for the result of those choices so we try to put that weight somewhere else. I am not trying to judge which choices are right or wrong, usually there is no absolute response for that since each path will have good and bad sides, but still, we are always the ones that take one path or the other.
But, I do agree with your analysis on the story. I think both are suffering and don't know how to proceed so they will have to make an effort to understand the real thoughts and feelings inside each other.
The second development you mentioned, about he walking away satisfied, doesn't seem probable based on the uke's feelings and the fact that a mangaka wouldn't normally create that kind of sad ending, but it would be an interesting conclusion if one of the characters was actually a real bad person.
As you said it is a romance novel and that is why we can observe the characters and enjoy the different developments. At least this is how I like to read stories. I like to think that they are born from real people and represent a part of that person's feelings and thoughts. However, that is obviously just my personal oppinion and other people are free to enjoy the reads as they see fit.

Yes, the scenario I described of Haruomi walking away fully revived is pure make belief on my part. It doesn't fit the romantic trope, although I feel like it would have a healthier outcome. It depends on how Natsuke changes and grows.

There are mangaka who are quite skillful at creating the impression that stories are born from real people, and others who struggle, hitting a lot of sour notes. In my personal opinion, the short story "Bondage" by Rocky ( http://www.mangago.me/read-manga/bondage_rocky/) sails a little closer to authenticity than this one in terms of how the characters communicate/don't communicate with each, the subjects they address, and the ones they skirt. But it's one-shot, and this one looks like it's going for the full 5-7 chapter treatment. This one adheres more closely to romantic tropes about obsession.

And ... on that subject of obsession, I'm not quite sure I can agree with you about choice. MRIs show some things leap directly from the limbic regions to the area of the prefrontal cortex which produces action. We see this activity in children and many adolescents, and we say they lack judgment or wisdom, that they are governed by impulse, instinct or compulsion. But it isn't as though this completely goes away. It's been observed in older women who suffer from eating disorders and obesity. Choice, for some, has been circumvented by a different "wiring" in the brain. Mentally ill people exhibit the extreme end of this spectrum. They have no choice in their behaviour. It completely bypasses their capacity to use reason and objectivity to analyze and measure a more appropriate response. Obsessive behaviour is a symptom of certain illnesses and personality disorders.

Haruomi's behaviour reminds me of cutters who use pain in order to, either, awaken a sensation of being alive, of emerging from deadness, numbness, or as a means of anaesthetizing even more painful emotions. Contrary to what cynics would have you believe, people have killed themselves over rejection and unrequited love. That isn't a romantic trope. That is something that happens irl.

I have the impression that Natsuke is also putting up a front and not showing his feelings. At chap. 1 he seemed guilty about Haruomi's situation and at the last panel of chap. 2 he pats Haruomi's head in an affectionate way. So I have the impression that he is lost more about what to do more than in need to grow. And in Haruomi's case, I don't see an obsession to the mental healthy degree as much as he being unable to move on because his feelings were suddenly interrupted and he is still stuck on them. But this kind of nuances are subtle and hard to be completely understood.

I have read "Bondage", but it is not the kind of story I appreciate because I prefer the ones where people learn to be kinder or stronger or treat others better. I am tired of seeing sad things in real life so in fiction I am drawn to happy pictures and in "Bondage" the feeling is of indifference and coldness. It is real but sad.

Also, I know everything you explained because I have studied the matter in my formation, and in fact there are complex situations that go out of the field of normal like personality disorders or mental diseases and, yes, the brain can suffer alterations on its function and neurotransmitters depending on circumstances, but, if you look at it in another way can't it also, to certain degree, be considered as ''life circumstances'' upon which people can make decisions?

For example, in diseases, there is a component called 'secondary gain' that sometimes contributs to delay the improvement of symptoms and refers to 'chosing to be sick because it gives some kind of benefit'. Of course, the patient is not aware of it and will negate the fact but it still exists.
And I have seen that mental attitude and traits of thoughts have a great influence on the prognostic of all kind of situations.
Most mental diseases, except the most organic ones, start small and grow as the person nurture the behavior.
And even in organic ones like schizophrenia, it is possible to opt for a treatment that will allow a more functional life. As an example, the mathematician Nash, even without a treatment with drugs, learned to live with his disease.

People that kill themselves because of love, as you mentioned, usually pass by a sequence of steps where they could have made a different choice that would have guided them into a different direction but they still persevered in the path to death.

People that have affairs and cheat on their partners destroying their relationships frequently have real feelings of passion for the new partner but that doesn't mean they have to obey such impulse just because they exist. They can choose to stay loyal to the old partner.

Cutters will have a really hard time to abandon that behavior when they have fallen deep into the condition, but in the first, second, third maybe even fourth time they cut themselves they could have chosen to stop or ask for help or go after something else that would bring comfort to their pain.

As you said, life is complex and each person is an universe but instead of seeing them as victims of destiny I prefer to think we can fight against adversities. I do believe that we have more power over our destiny than we usually recognize.

Though, in cases like the one retracted in 'Bondage', it is arguable if it is an adversity or not. The problem would be the difference of interests between both partners, because, as long as both had the same inclination it would be considered by modern medicine as 'normal sexual behaviour' for that couple as long as no real harm to the mental or phisical aspects were to occur.

I am sorry if my oppinion differs from yours, I do recognize that your arguments are valid and make sense, I am just looking at them from a sligtly different perspective. Exchanging idea with you is a real pleasure.

I'm not a big fan of his character. I see it too often. The shy cute type that became a huge slut. I've also seen multiple stories go along the same story line. It's quite annoying to see it over and over since its not my favorite ╮(￣▽￣)╭

I agree , the uke is kind blaming the seme for him being slut , but I think even with out being rejected he would still be the way he was , I don't think seme is to be blame for uke having relationship with married man .

I experience the same pleasure in the exchange of ideas and opinions with you, and thank you for saying so.

I keep circling back to the strange "alchemy." How do automatic response and its physiology, personal experience and conditioning, and self-awareness, factor in when imminence or truth appears? Because, if/when there is a choice presented, it will happen at a moment in time. How do all their cumulative effects work on a person's/Haruomi's abilities to perceive that moment and that truth? Haruomi is an especially interesting example of someone who displays keen sensitivity and perception, yet, at the same time ... well, is it an irrational desire to submerge into oblivion? To cut off his feelings and, with them, his 'soul'/self and, eventually, his own life?

As a student, for example, he accurately picked up Natsuke's lust and passion and reciprocated it with one of the most 'feminine' depictions of emotional vulnerability I've seen in a BL manga (a very beautiful moment from Hita Shippu.) When Natsuke rejected his overtures, I think it was such a shock. Haruomi, clearly a very purehearted and (from Natsuke's own narrative) clear-sighted guy, could no longer trust his senses or the conclusions he came to based on his perceptions. Instead of bliss, he was met with crushing humiliation and pain. So, right there, right then, his capacity to recognize imminence was effectively disabled or, perhaps, neutralized at the very moment when it was most needed. With every meter for awareness and self-preservation thrown into an untrustworthy and adversarial position—as the dark-faced "destroyer of worlds", so to speak, at least at the level of the personal ego—he sees everything that he has held to be good, true and upright crumble around him. He has gambled with his entire self, and lost everything. So he throws himself into dissipation, ruin and self-annihilation with the same ... force of passion?—By embracing taboo behaviour like promiscuity, masochism and affairs with married men and so on.

Was the moment of truth when Haruomi decided to project Natsuke's face onto all his sexual encounters? Or when he was already bent over a toilet by a sadist and deeply into his own self-destruction when it finally appeared?

Now, as you say, everyone comes to heartbreak and grief, as part of our collective human experience, and not everyone cavitates into dissipation, that this involves a conscious choice over our destiny, but not everyone has the same ability to tap into consciousness or to channel it in a healthy or normal way when required.

Even now, Haruomi is still gambling with everything he has left.

You made a superb analysis of the situation and I agree with your point of view in a lot of aspects but I still consider that even in the case of automatic response, psychological patterns and trail of thoughts there is still a possibility of choice each time the reaction is activated, unless we enter the field of triggers and Pavlovian response, since in those cases the synaptic line of reaction mostly doesn't depend on the cerebral cortex. Though, even with triggers, it is possible to resist the impulse to some extent. But, anyway, that is not the character's case, his behaviour can still be classified as a 'normal' self-destructive inclination and not a psychiatric one.

Now, giving a crude example. If there was someone pointing a gun to another person's head and telling them to do something, most people would say the victim 'doesn't have a choice', but in reality, they can decide to say no and be killled. This possibility is just automatically ruled out by most for being 'absurd' but it is still an available option.

So even if someone has a self-destructive pattern of behaviour, each time they are going to do something destructive they could choose to not do that, no matter how natural or automatic their attitude is. You said that 'not everyone has the same ability to channel into a healthy way' and I agree that each individual has different reactions to each situation but in your case you are using the definition that 'since they didn't do it, means they couldn't' and I see it as 'since there are people that did it, the human being has the ability to do so.' It is a difference of conceptual point of view, I guess, and I don't think either is completely right or wrong since the situation can be seen from both perspectives.

It is undeniable that the human brain is extremely complex and even to this days we have still just scratched the surface of its operational system and that is why I think it is fascinating.

Sorry if my ideas are not coming out clearly enough, but English is not my native language so I have some difficulty finding the right terms.

You made a superb analysis of the situation and I agree with your point of view in a lot of aspects but I still consider that even in the case of automatic response, psychological patterns and trail of thoughts there is still a possibility of choice each time the reaction is activated, unless we enter the field of triggers and Pavlovian response, since in those cases the synaptic line of reaction mostly doesn't depend on the cerebral cortex. Though, even with triggers, it is possible to resist the impulse to some extent. But, anyway, that is not the character's case, his behavior can still be classified as a 'normal' self-destructive inclination and not a psychiatric one.

Now, giving a crude example. If there was someone pointing a gun to another person's head and telling them to do something, most people would say the victim 'doesn't have a choice', but in reality, they can decide to say no and be killed. This possibility is just automatically ruled out by most for being 'absurd' but it is still an available option.

So even if someone has a self-destructive pattern of behavior, each time they are going to do something destructive they could choose to not do that, no matter how natural or automatic their attitude is. You said that 'not everyone has the same ability to channel into a healthy way' and I agree that each individual has different reactions to each situation but in your case you are using the definition that 'since they didn't do it, means they couldn't' and I see it as 'since there are people that did it, the human being has the ability to do so.' It is a difference of conceptual point of view, I guess, and I don't think either is completely right or wrong since the situation can be seen from both perspectives.

It is undeniable that the human brain is extremely complex and even to this days we have still just scratched the surface of its operational system and that is why I think it is fascinating.

Sorry if my ideas are not coming out clearly enough, but English is not my native language so I have some difficulty finding the right terms.

Your English is very clear and to the point, and it’s far superior to my abilities of communication in any other language, so thank you for taking the trouble to use it, especially to explain and discuss subtle things which must be mentally taxing.

I actually didn’t enter this conversation in order to invalidate your conceptual point of view by offering another equally/or not quite equally valid conceptual point of view, even if it may seem as though I have a lot invested in “being right” by going on about it. I was drawn by the place in your original comment where you wrote, “I don’t like the uke” and proceded to explain your rationale. Now, upon mentioning that, I want to acknowledge that you have the perfect right to reject any character for any trait you like, and for whatever objective or subjective reasons you have. So, there is no criticism in my scrutiny. It’s just, as you’ve probably observed, I am fond of analysis.

So, at this point, I want to return to an earlier comment I made about the similar-themed story “Bondage” by Rocky, because it has further bearing on my presence here (also, because I read it for the first time shortly before reading Ravelled Tightrope.) I noticed that the story was low-rated, which surprised me, and I also noticed that readers had difficulty with what they perceived as the seme’s “indifference”, as you did. I disagreed with the general analysis, and my reasons are that he was reinforcing his position of control as the Dominant in a classic D/s relationship by refusing to concede to the uke’s pleas for reassurance with a verbal declaration of love. Instead he reassured him of that love and demanded complete trust, again, from his subordinate another way, with the suggestion that they should go for another round of sex, which is a dumb way to show it, but, also, a very stereotypically “male” way to do so, as it is communicated through actions, not words. Even so, by moving toward another round, another moment of physical and emotional connection, the seme was expressing the opposite of indifference, which is love. And this is important because I happen to agree with Elie Weisel’s keen observation that the opposite of love is not hatred, but indifference. So, when I hear a declaration of dislike, contempt or hatred for a character, I don’t hear indifference. I hear something else … not necessarily love, but a moment of imminence and truth.

Why would some random person on the net express such a visceral emotion against a fictional character? Since you directed your ire toward his “poor decisions”, I realized that it was Haruomi’s refusal to concentrate on those moments of truth, his dismantling of his own willpower and self-control, his surrendering to self-destruction which triggered the negative response from you, which means you also have a heightened focus on those aspects of personality within yourself. It’s keener than most. Which raises questions in me around why, like why does it matter so much? What is the strict adherence to personal choice and consequence holding at bay? Do they cover for weaknesses and fears, and, if so, what are they? What caused them? What will happen that’s so terrible if you allowed yourself to “fall apart” a little? Of course, those questions and their answers are nobody else’s business but yours. They are certainly not mine. And I have no intention of stirring anything up, other than to say, visceral statements of dislike bring up questions. AND ….

Different conceptual points of view offer forgiveness for weakness and fear from this random stranger on the internet.

Peace.

Well, then let me clarify some points. First, my original comment referred to the Haruomi from the first chapter. He had a frivolous attitude and there was the implication that he was working in the sex industry and it seemed like he was blaming the other man for 'how he had become', which implied that there was something to 'blame' and that is why I called it 'wrong choices'. I didn't intend to keep on reading this manga because of the bad impression and just posted the comment when I saw the update because I had forgotten to do it previously. In the end, because of the discussion with you and another person, I did read the second chapter and saw that the Haruomi presented gives off a completely different feeling. More than frivolous he seems lost and that made me like him more.
I still despise his attitude of sleeping with a married man but that is because of the pain it would cause to the wife.

Now about why his attitude in the first chapter displeased me, it is because, after tearing down most of my preconceptions, rules, and dogmas about culture, religion, race, and moral I decided that my lifeline to function in society would be 'make my best to not cause pain to anyone else'. Of course, the very concept of pain and suffering is not absolute, which makes my precept foggy, but still, it gives me a clear and simple 'rule' to follow and seeing someone disregarding other's suffering with such indifference as he did contradicts my opinion about how a human being should behave.

Regarding the 'blame' part, it is because I am far from being strong or perfect; I do a lot of things I shouldn't and I fall down to my weakness frequently, but I never blame it on anything else besides my own weakness and I consider that valid to everyone else too. And in this case, there is no foggy area, contrary to the previous point.

About "Bondage", again it touches the same concept. The kind of love the character is offering hurts the one that loves him, so it goes against my personal precept.

You can point out that my precept is not valid to everyone and I don't have the right to force it upon others, but I consider that it is actually a simple rule that would help to guide the whole society to a more harmonious and happy environment, which would be beneficial to everyone and that is why I dislike to see it blatantly disregarded.

To what point do we have the right to display our selfishness in detriment of others? Is basically a question to which I constantly try to find an answer.

So I do recognize that the character in 'bondage' is manifesting a kind of love, but I don't consider that as a positive or constructive kind of love. Again, in this case, where is the cutline between this 'acceptable unusual' love and the 'love' criminal shows towards a victim he stalks, rapes or kills? All of them are different degrees of 'suffering'. And, extreme criminal frequently describes their actions as motivated by love, affection, obsession. I lot of people would say that the difference is obvious, but it is not. It is a matter of the sensibility of your criteria for classification.

If both characters had the same inclination towards S/M I couldn't criticize it as something negative, even if they behavior didn't align with my personal preferences I would recognize them as a functional duo. So I do consider that the plot depicts a realistic image, it simply isn't a pleasant one for me.

Concluding, my dislike to the character doesn't derivate from fear of breaking down, there is nothing big being held at bay and nothing happened to create a fear of falling apart I just choose one essential rule to guide my actions since I couldn't shatter every concept and avoid turning random.
Also, I think it is exactly because it is a fictional character that we can simplify the analysis and show our approval or disapproval. With a real person, there are always a lot of factors that complicate the situation.

I hope my explanation helped satiate your curiosity about my physique and if you still have questions feel free to ask and I will do my best to think about it and answer truthfully since it actually helps me to understand myself.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to provide such a detailed clarification, even though I certainly had done nothing to warrant such courtesy. I was well aware that my questions, although sincere and earnest in intent, could come across as cheeky and too personal, which is why I tried to cushion that potential abrasiveness by putting the blame for them all on my curiosity, which isn’t necessarily excusable. The internet is a difficult forum on which to express vulnerability, so I appreciate the strong sense of character you project.

It is interesting that our lifelines for functioning in society are so similar. I also pare down my conditioning to a precept along the lines of “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you” or, more simply, “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, which is all well and good as long as one loves oneself. In moments of bitter self-recrimination after something goes pear-shaped, I’ve learned to modify it somewhat to something a little closer to Aleister Crowley’s “Do no willful harm”. Of late, I have to say that I’ve modified that even further, since I adapted them before the invention of the internet and the subsequent problem of trolls. Now, it’s more like “Love your neighbor as you would love yourself on a good day, but if they are trolling you on the internet, feel free to kick their butts!” ahem. (Yes, that’s facetious. Partly.)

I’ve always been aware of a certain core threshold of principle. It is as though something which came across as fluid, supple, and mutable … situational, was unmasked as solid, concrete and cardinal. In truth, it was always there. Strangely enough, love factors in, but there is something else as well in the recognition that there is a cost to love, that it is tied together with sacrifice.

Your point about the sensibility of criteria for classification on the difference between a D/s bondage and humiliation kink relationship and the stalker who obsesses over his/her victim and claims love in spite of mayhem and murder is well-taken, but I think the difference of sensibility is still there. Fragile seeming, but unbreakable, there is a threshold which cannot be crossed. They are not the same, and to conflate them is to ignore the opportunism of the crime, and present the criminal with an escape route for their conscience. Dostoyevsky addressed this beautifully in Crime and Punishment. For many years, I had a career in crisis intervention which often required appearing at violent crime scenes. Domestic abuse and neglect were the main problems. So, I’ve seen that tendency to attempt to excuse the violations by framing them as a warped expression of love. There was no black and white about the crime itself. And even if there was, the law is paramount. Nor is there a country in the world which exists without that law, apart from those which have disintegrated into chaos where laws aren’t enforced. Not that I advocate a blind adherence to law for the sake of itself—there are a whole lot of stupid laws in the world—but this one applies across all boundaries.

All this from a work of fiction ....

I didn't consider your questions as offensive because on this matter I don't feel the necessity to hide how I think, though, it could be different regarding other aspects of my life. Everyone has parts of oneself that we prefer to keep away from public eyes since we are not strong enough to be completely truthful. And as I said before I do like to submit myself to self-analysis, so there was no harm on that.

As you precisely retracted having one simple lifeline is actually not that simple since that precept is also fluid and is subjected to interpretation, but I still think it is better to have one slightly confusing rule than a lot of contradictory ones that will take you to different directions.
Meanwhile, I liked your adaptations of the motto, especially the last one. The anonymity of the internet indeed gives people the feeling that they can say or do anything with no consequences and, as a result, they start to fail in maintaining the most basic level of civility.

As you said, real love is entangled with sacrifice because it is not a fairytale. It has a lot of different manifestations and interfering factors, but people frequently fail to see it and seek what doesn't exist causing pain to others and themselves.

On the matter of the sensibility of criteria, I meant not to justify the crime by diminishing the sensibility, but that some romantic relationships that we consider as normal should be seen as abusive. If both parts are truly satisfied, no matter how twisted is the manifestation of that love, there should be no room for external criticism, but there are a good number of cases where both affirm to be well and yet it is evident that one or both of them are being harmed. In my opinion, this kind of love should be considered as detrimental. So I am not proposing to lessen the sensibility but to raise it.

It is precisely for negating the opportunity for the kind of things you have seen; like attempting to excuse violations by passing them as something else (expression of love, impossibility of taking an alternate line of action, uncontrollable impulse); that I affirm that everyone should be held responsible for their own choices at a more profound level. With this, I am not referring to the penal code or the punishment, but to the way we are taught, and the moral code we learn when young. I think that these teachings focus in a lot of unimportant things instead of addressing crucial aspects of being a human being. I believe that we should be made to understand and hold responsibility for more things and at an earlier age. Some of the things we learn actually guide us in the opposite direction of being better and have to be forgotten or relearnt differently.

I have completely strayed out of the topic and I am sorry for that. It is just that when you described your previous job I thought that you could understand what I tried to portray because you have been exposed to the kind of situations I hope could disappear and that we have to make an effort towards changing. Sorry if I turned annoying.

Well, I think that all this discussion is what makes fiction something so amazing, it allows us to think, learn, teach and grow using only our minds. I will admit to having an especial affection for this specific modality of artistic creation. And, more, analyzing it with you was particularly pleasurable.

Hello again,

Didn't mean to suddenly ditch the conversation. I did have to take a bit of a breather, though, since the recollection of my past job does bring up intense emotional experiences.

I agree that moral, ethical, psychological, philosophical and spiritual teachings, as they are commonly imparted, tend to focus on superficial aspects of personal development rather than on strengthening the inner essential nature, so the person acquires an even bigger ego, rather than stronger intimations of qualities like the Greek Agapé, compassion, wisdom, justice, creativity, truth, the capacity to see "under the skin" to the underlying heart, and so on. And religious communities are often the biggest culprits. I remember helping an obviously frail elderly woman with a heavy suitcase onto a train and, then, to a seat. She explained that she was going away to some sort of religious workshop over the weekend, and although I deliberately kept my contributions to the conversation airy, neutral and positive, I found she let out a lot of what is conventionally called "dog whistles" and "talking points", which had obviously been "workshopped" into her, as well as feelers for conversion. This continued for awhile until she singled out for criticism another passenger. This new stranger belonged to a particular cultural group that has been stereotyped in my country as immigrating for jobs that nobody else wants to do. Anyway, older woman said some unpleasant and nonsensical things about her. The other passenger was minding her own business, and had done nothing to warrant such stigmatization. It was a classic example of using teachings to bolster barriers between people, rather than striving to find harmony. So, here we have an elder whose religious training hasn't progressed to a particularly strong level of understanding, and whose community warps her views of others and reinforces hatred and division. I realize this sort of urban drama surrounds us, especially as entrenched local customs and communities are swamped by new cultural idioms as an ongoing push-and-tug with globalism, but I wonder what this woman could teach a child of mine. I wouldn't want her to teach anyone's child. She possesses a strong and inflexible moral code, but is anything but moral. So, for me, the codification of what should be living and connected to the moment has some considerable drawbacks ....