All Comments on 'True Lies - Redux Ch. 05'

what a s...... 1*

Some people just don't get that this is just a story . So what if Jim gets back with his wife . Again it's just a story . Good job author and keep the chapters coming . Thanks

If you are going to base a story in current events, you need to stick to reality. An example " But every intelligence study we've run seems to indicate that Iran hasn't really slowed down its development much at all". How can you expect a reader to believe what anyone active in DC would know to be a lie? The majority (nearly every single one) of the studies shows exactly the opposite. She would know she was being lied to and react accordingly. She is a lawyer, not a secluded housewife with limited exposure to the world who could be expected to fall for such an obvious lie.

As a reader, I totally skimmed the Jewish history lesson and a good part of the chapter. The crux of the chapter is that she was told that Jim is a spook and she needs to help the government. I have no problem with the politics in fiction, be it left or right. That is not the focus of the story. I would have preferred that she learn about Jim's secret job in a more dramatic way. The original premise was good, but the story has become a bit wordy and is languishing. (I am pleased it is in this category.)

no accurate scorecards, TK U MLJ LV NV

Lets see how you pull this together. I feel like I went from a corner store to the middle of a shopping mall.

I wake up each morning and first check to see if another chapter has been posted.

Like reading a good book that I don't want to put down but have to.

echoing richi 5

I like how the broad outline tracks the movie, True Lies and your tangents are entertaining. Looking forward to the next chapter.

Very good story telling. Placing fictional characters on top of current reality always makes for good reading, as many successful authors have found out. I do have one very minor question however. Why did you place a hyphen when you referenced "God" in Rachael's reflective thought process?

Other than a geopolitical and historical look at world affairs that is misguided at best and warped at worst, a very enjoyable read and I look forward to future chapters

Thank you for your kind words and your interest.

It is my understanding religious Jews are to NEVER say aloud or write "God" directly (Yahwah or Jehovah, etc.) only indirect references like Jesus' own "Our Father who art in Heaven". G-d seems to be something many currently use. I have some online Jewish friends who post a lot in other forums and I see G-d occasionally used there.

Ancient Hebrew never used "vowels" in it's writing anyway - so "Yahwah" was always written "YHWH" not quite a direct "Lord's name" as in "do not take the Lord's name in vain." Most Christians down through history merely interpret that as swearing. Religious Jews are much more careful - taking no chances. One of the challenges in actually translating/understanding ancient discovered Hebrew writings is this lack of vowels but usually the correct word is fairly easy to determine in context - but not always. ;-) Even with this indirection ancient Jewish scribes and authors would ritualistically pray and wash themselves before even writing THAT down or even more indirect references to God, and then pray and wash after writing that reference.

My intent in the story is to show Rachel starting a return to her own faith roots now from a point where she had obviously strayed in many ways in her own mind. The adultery of course but also that "honor your parents" - that break from her Dad.

I will try to consistently develop this as the story continues without making Rachel (and me!) seem too hypocritical. Rachel is probably going to have to continue breaking commandments and lead far less than the simpler religiously "good" life she would like to, right now.

Moral compromise is one of the most difficult things we all must deal with in our own lives. It's always a struggle for us all - even in some surprising ways for many "psychopathic" personality types who otherwise appear not to worry about morality much at all.

Jim didn't disappear, she just stopped seeing him, and started seeing richer and bigger and more interesting fuck toy Grayson. This is the Martian Slut Ray plot device. Happily married and satisfied woman, suddenly fucking another man in ways she never fucked her husband, because the new man is, Rich, and Cool. She's even doing drugs with Grayson, in exchange for $100,000 jewelry. Uh, she might want to have that appraised.

We either have to go with the slut ray, or Jim is getting the shallow empty selfish cruel bitch she's always been. Which of course means he deserves whatever shit she does to him and their marriage. She's not a decent wife. She's not even a decent woman. If Jim reconciles with this brainless egocentric vagina he deserves whatever she's done to him, and whatever else she does to him in the future.

All the historical and political discussion was flyover country; just keep skimming till you get back to the plot and the immediate story. Kind of gratifying you think Obama is a globalist traitor, selling out America for his world vision of peace and harmony, and a controlled society. Where to I get my universal ant ID and tunnel assignment? We get what our neighbors vote for. And our neighbors are really short-sighted and naive.

Keep writing, but I still want Jim to end up with a better woman, or spend some of your endless words convincing me that Rachel is a profoundly rehabilitated woman.

Thanks for your time and effort. Even if I don't like all of it.

I wasn't going to reply to your comment directly for the most obvious reasons - this IS a fictional story with totally fictional characters merely overlaid on current events, somewhat. But I just ran across this little news item:

High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9739d5c0-4449-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html#ixzz4DpUgRx3g

Iran has attempted to acquire nuclear technology in Germany even after the atomic accord it reached with western powers in Vienna last July, according to the German domestic intelligence agency.

The annual report of the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV) said that illegal Iranian attempts to procure technology “continued on a quantitatively high level by international standards” in Germany in 2015.

Hey annony you fool. It's a fictional story written on a porn site and in the LW category. You must be a retard or an asshole or both if you keep on reading stories you hate!! WTF is wrong with you?

I like the story, and frankly it does have me in it's clutches, but the political and religious exposition seem rather forced.

I'm not going to spout on about your views; some of them are very plainly supported and some of them are not, but it doesn't matter. They fit the story well enough anyway to justify the plot, and they're not so outlandish that they defy belief and pull the reader out of the story (even if they disagree politically). But the exposition seems shoehorned into the story rather than flowing from it naturally.

Your characters are mostly well developed, though I still feel Rachel needs work. I don't find her as unrealistic as "slut-ray' does, but I do think that the reader's perception of her motivations is confused because she so obviously chose Grayson because she's selfishly motivated, and now she's not. I'm chalking that up to her being self-delusional, myself, but many readers won't make that jump.

The other real problem is the protagonist. Jim is, quite frankly, too perfect. I realize he's supposed to be super-spy man, so he has to be, but it does stretch my imagination to believe he could have his moral framework and yet still do what he needs to do, including having his wife go back and debase herself, basically against her expressed will now, for this job.

Try reading the article. It explains that the material "could" be used for a nuclear program. The report goes on to say "Iran's main focus was to procure parts for its missile programme, rather than for nuclear purposes"

Fiction based on current events needs to be based on actual current events.

...I just wish you'd left them the hell out of this story.

First in terms of a readibilility , this installment is the best one, except for introduction ( which was outstanding ). Yet I still have issues with how information in it was disseminated all in one chapter. In terms of pacing and place in story big picture , Rachel's not entirely unfounded rationales for straying has been largely ignored until now. To me , they rated a quick mention or sketch with every installment.

Now we are asked to do consider doing 180 degree reassesment of who this woman is in terms of being a worthwhile character . justbobkc does an admirable rush job of delving into her past and showing that she is not a grasping faithless trollop inherently.

In landmark " When We Were Married " series which was comment catnip for readers , DQS did great job of showing female lead Debbie 's up and downsides in timely manner as sails of non marital main plotlines unfurled and caught wind. With each installment, Debbie whys and wherewithals rated at least a quick sketch or flashback.

The author did some excellent wordsmithing here. My criticism is this akin to to speed eating contest where winner dines on multiple sumptuous hotdogs. The catch is he has to eat them all at one sitting to be rewarded. Putting a master story together is jigsaw puzzle solving . You start from the 4 corners and then assemble edges , working towards the heart / center.

The Rachel paradigm shift could have been made far more smoothly if foundation had been laid in stages instead of a one-off. Yet kudos are in order for both attempting that daunting rehab project and skill required to at day's end making it a feasible point of tension . I thank justbobkc for sharing.

His neglected wife goes for another man or cheats on her marriage without trying to work out her problems, the grass was not Greener on The other side as she finds out. Now James is going to whore her out to complete his mission. Could end her life. So he isn't so super after all. Interesting concept for fiction. I hope you wrap this up soon. Will they divorce or make a life together after this is all over?

Somewhere buried under all of the political and religious crap, both real and imaginary, there may be a pony. In this case the "pony" being a decent erotic story (and don't tell me the religious/political stuff is germane. It isn't, it's just wordy posturing and window dressing.) Let's see, we have the infallible, morally rigid Dudley Do-Right Secret Agent among the weak, evil and misled. How, oh how, will he slay the dragons that imperil the kingdom? We know he will as he is "Moral Man" the superhero. Hell's Bells, I'm still enjoying most of the actual storyline part of this but I like the original Captain America so maybe that says something too.

From the moment you dragged you political and religious views in to the story, it became crap.

This had potential to be great.

I wish there was less the 1 STAR when an actual vote is cast.

This story is just dragging out and I have lost interest. It started out great and has fizzled out to boring in section 5. How many more sections do you have planned? Will not be reading any more of your stories.

added to the interest for me. Just thought I'd mention that.

My only comment on Rachel's adultery as opposed to Jim's is that his was not done to personally affect his wife or his marriage, might be cold but was job related. Hers however was done to replace him, to humiliate him, at least in her mind, and while he remained "in" the marriage for her, she shut him out and bailed on her marriage, becoming a submissive whore for her "honey". The person she became would have been too toxic for me to ever reconcile with. And, if he was such an invisible douche for her, why would she want him back anyhow? Looking like he will be shamed and manipulated back into the relationship, if for nothing else but to get an on sight handler for her. If so, he shouldn't be written in to forgive her and love her with all of his heart, which seems to be the mantra on here. Fuck her and her Jewish Princess mentality. Reap what you sew, both of them.

So, like I said, great writing and good story. Just let him keep his balls and end up with someone who is not a pussy for hire, bonding or no.

Is almost finished and should get submitted tomorrow. (13 of 17 pages written already so about 4 more plus the rereads and self-edit process.)

Chapter 6 is almost totally still just "talk" and relational angst between Jim and Rachel. After that I will endeavor mightily to move the spy plotting along while seemlessly (we can hope, LordSlammerdog ;-) integrating the relationship stuff. "Just like DQS." I can only hope.

So - probably 8 chapters in all to wrap this one mostly up.

Interesting. Some people like the politics and history and some people don't.

Some people like the in-depth character development biography and psychology and other people just want more and quicker delivered action.

The truth is I can see almost every critical comment as valid in one or more ways. Kind of a Catch-22 for me the poor author of this story but still very informative.

All I can do is reiterate my thanks to everyone reading and especially voting and commenting. I especially like the ones suggesting something - that I have indeed already written in the next chapter. I'm writing this serial so fast that some really good comment ideas only can be a "well, next time I'll do it that way!"

I've never done this before, BTW - before this year. I've never written a word professionally or fiction just for public consumption - unless one counts C programs and KORN shell scripts in my previous life working for IBM.

From my own reading around DQS - Daniel Quentin Steele on this site and Amazon - was pretty much a career writer - as a reporter and author of various books and stories for a LONG time. I think like a lot of things it gets better with practice and that's just the way it is. Practice and feedback. Then repeat. Kind of like the OODA loop. "Observe, orient, decide, act" then repeat. Fighter pilot doctrine developed and formalized by a great American - one Colonel John Boyd.

A nice line up of scum. No one to like in this story. Jim admits he commits adultery for National Security reasons so I don't give a fuck if he got run over by a bus. Rachel and every other female character have the morals of a pole cat. See my concern for Jim above. Not erotic and if we are depending on people likes these to defend the west then maybe we should fall.

It goes on for ever and ever...

Now she knows what he really does professionally...This story (as in the movie) puts a big question: Should spies (men or women) be married? In the movie he even had a daughter...If yes, should they be married to another spy, that would understand that kind of life? Should they work together (like at some point in "Mr. e Mrs. Smith" with Angelina and Brad or in "Undercover Blues" with Kathleen Turner)? These are questions difficult to answer, and difficult to find two persons thinking the same...About this story, I like it and each chapter increases the interest and the suspense in knowing what the author has in mind to end it...4*

They prefer to be lied to. If not directly lied to then hide the awful truth so they won't have to face reality. Hindsight - Go back to msnbc, you obviously don't like the truth.

of the variabilities of human behaviour. Nicely structured characters and now we have to see where they go to from here. By the way, I am curious, does our lit audience simply hate Richeliu and Milady? For me, they were an important of the learning process about human nature.

It took awhile but I got it, Jim's the cheating wife.

Until Rachel fell for scumbag, she had given Jim something he never gave her, honesty.

Jim has a whole separate life from his marriage. He's oh so butthurt because Rachel cheated. And here he'd been "acting" like a loving husband!

How many great stories have I read about the wife (Jim) being found out to have been an escort their entire marriage? What about those stories where the wife (Jim) has had a lover their entire marriage?

He's been just as deceptive in a way, hasn't he?

Then theres the cloaking this in the flag.

This crackerjack security team, who had an agent given to some Irani guy? Yet they can't make a case against Lex Luther without blackmailing a US citizen? Help us or we will fuck you up? Scruples don't seem to be important, why not just kidnap the guy?

Shades of grey, I guess.

Even his doppelganger

...a little strange in the broader English-speaking landscape. "Their separate faith traditions.", "..my own fragile psyche state.", "...going deep in my conscious<sic>?"

I think you meant to say "conscience" in that last one...."psychological state", in the second...and "religious traditions" or "belief systems" in the first. Not so much in error, as just an culture-lingual aberration rising from a specific background.

I have a friend from Long Island that is Jewish. We met as teenagers in a studies abroad program. We shared an interest in music. He was magic on the guitar and piano. He taught me some amazing things. I don't know what he liked about me, but he has been my friend these 46 years. His speech patterns are somewhat like things that show up in your writing....with adverbial and adjectives showing up at the end of a sentence, etc. It's interesting to me where these features come from. My South American friends think I'm a "fried banana" for always asking about cultural quirks of language when speaking/writing in English. But it fascinates me.

That said, it would be best for you to either do some significant research about "interagency" operations and the state of American covert operations community. Much of what you presented in this chapter, simply wouldn't work the way you purport...if at all.

Yeah, yeah. It's fiction. OK, but that's no excuse to be sloppy. And it's on you to make it believable, not on us to "just suck it up" like so much soup, without some nutritional robustness, realistic flavor and real-world rationality to the thing.

Generally, this was pretty well presented, slightly skewed and flawed, but little effort seems to have been offered to make any of it plausible or palpable. Shame, shame. That's one of the writer's primary duties.

Thank you for the story and the effort it took to bring it to us. Please think about the general likelihood of the things you want to advance, and make them at least rational, if not realistic....that is, if you want your offerings embraced, rather than merely tolerated or ignored.

You seem to have a rather childish, naive and, dare I say? Narrow worldview regarding liberals and liberalism? Hmmm?

It's almost as if you were channeling Jonah Goldberg when you wrote this...story.

You seem to place the blame on "modern" liberalism for all the worlds ills.

Read some real history kid. Not the National Review and various other neo-con and MRA sites.

It would do you some good.

And, it might make your writing a bit more believable, less misogynistic and less douchey.

Other than that, it wasn't a bad read. 3 stars.

Were shown the moment she married Jim. She is a selfish person who only cares about her wants and desires.

See the way you painted her background, she came from a fairly religious Jewish family. And she gave up her family, her religion, and her people, to marry Jim. This is a "going to get me in hot water" comment, but it is a very big deal in the Jewish community to marry outside the faith. Not because anyone has anything against other religions or people, but because one's being Jewish or not follows the mother. So Rachel and Jim's children are not Jewish according to Jewish law. For someone like Rachel's father, who likely had relatives die during WWII, murderd simply because they were Jewish, to have his daughter consciously choose to abandon her nation, knowing her children would no longer be Jewish and thereby obliterate the continuation of the family in the Jewish faith and tradition...well...devastating is a light way to describe those feelings.

Yet Rachel, who knew all this, did so anyway. Why? Because it's all about her without concern for others. It's a selfishness inherent in her character. So why would Jim be surprise when she betrayed him too? She has a history of betrayal. First her family, her religion, and her people, and now Jim.

This is simply who she is.

Just kidding. This chapter brought to the fore a few things that I had not really expected and that is both good and bad.

Reconciliatiion is nice. If only for the fact you don't have to guilt trip yourself for not returning wedding gifts.

Using a "come to Jesus" moment to advance the healing process is a little to convenient for me as a reader who has already invested a sizeable mouthful of suspension of disbelieve. You can concoct a super-secret multinational covert recon and exfiltration team on the fly from a recruiting trip in California to the hinterlands of Asia Minor; you can do better than basing redemption on a fixation with the alpa and romeo. I wish I new more about attonement in the Jewish faith beyond Yom Kippur.

Never care to see science bashed and blamed but Eugenics was real as were the Crusades, Inquisition and the 100 years War. Blaming science because people in the United States are thinking in global terms that only the very learned could do just decades before is over simplistic. It is interesting to note that the point of view espousing this is Jim. Regardless of his motives his confessional seat will be charred when he does decide to take communion next.

I was intrigued by the commenter who questioned your syntax and hope you get around to answering that.

This is a good story. I just wish Jim would fart or wipe a booger on something. He is just too perfectly perfect.

From bad to worse, WHY did you bring politics in to it? Sorry but between ALL of the political campaigns going on all over the world, why do we need it in FICTION?

Several very interesting comments I've been pondering.

I also DID submit Chapter 6 Saturday before noon but the moderators haven't approved it yet. Hope it's just the summer time load and nothing personal against me. :-)

The question of politics in my fiction? I think Heinlein had a character say in one of his stories "Politics? I never pay attention to politics" Hero: "You should. It's only as important as breathing..." (Sic - something like that. In 1913 it was UNTHINKABLE to all thinking people a World War was but one year away...really, read "Guns of August" or any other good history of the period.)

I believe Chapter 6 will show that Jim isn't quite so perfect after all. That's my intent at any rate. I am also well into Chapter 7 and pretty much wrapping this novella only (here) length tale up. The end might feel a tad incomplete or rushed to many, and it also will certainly have it's share of disappointed readers, one way or the other. Most of my stories don't have total BTB nor RAAC's either. There are ALWAYS costs incurred and shared pain when lying, cheating, and betraying happens - between spouses, teammates (of all kinds), and nation states.

Why do I write the way I do? Syntax and words, a certain differentness, if not weirdness?

I'm not sure, except that all these "first person" stories I'm attempting I'm vocalizing in my head and then writing it out and I AM trying to give the different people different voices.

I am American born and bred. Born in Missouri and lived around St. Louis all my life until about age 30, then moved to Atlanta for a couple of years, spent 2 years in Mobile, AL., and then back to Atlanta where I still am. I have one of the most common Irish surnames in the USA, there are more than 150,000 other Americans with my surname and I always assumed I was an "Irish-American" somehow, like about the other 149,000 with my same last name. I finally did one of those DNA Genetic heritage tests and guess what? I am ACTUALLY mostly German, DNA wise, along with a handful of other folks with my surname and we are ALL trying to figure out this "non-parental-event" - how us Germans somehow got masked as "Irish." Adoption? An actual "loving wives" cuckold event? Maybe just a censor taker writing the wrong name down and it stuck somehow - or maybe some German immigrant arrived here and thought the Irish had it better somehow...despite quite a bit of anti-Irish sentiment in Boston and NYC at one time. "Gangs of New York" was really close to right on the mark - real history wise. Google "Archbishop John "Dagger" Hughes and how he saved the Irish of NY).

Darn it. I STILL like Irish music a lot better than German folk music, and I think my clogging ability is a lot closer to the old jigs dancing than German/Dutch clog dancing - think wooden shoes!

Oh, and finally - I am fairly aware of how the major alphabet agencies in the USA are actually allowed to "work together" - as in NOT! CIA and FBI can't really communicate and work together efficiently as foreign threats bleed over into domestic terror possibilities. Bill Clinton put up a great big wall between the two and it has stuck around DESPITE layering another layer of bureaucrats on top called "DHS." NSA is also handicapped and FISA Judges are supposed to approve all domestic spy tapping. And then Congressional Intelligence Oversight is supposed to be clued in on everything going down OPS and Intel wise and we all know just how well THOSE Bozos can keep Intel secrets. Hillary Clinton ring a bell to anyone?

So, yes, this story IS fantasy fiction with my little band of (perhaps misguided?) patriots bypassing bureaucracy and "proper political oversight" and control to actually get some things done - like actually preventing the next 9/11 - even if a little torture might be involved of certain individuals along the way.

And even some pretty smart "liberals" understand what's what - read Alan Dershowitz's "Why Terrorism Works."

I don't buy your trying to soft soap the right wing politics, and quoting Heinlein proves it. He made the trip from lefty activist to so libertarian that it was hard to distinguish from fascism. As to the intelligence/law enforcement agencies not communicating I have no relevant experience. I do think Hillary Clinton will win big, as she deserves to given her opponent, and will make an outstanding First Magistrate.

It is interesting that on this porn site when politics is expressed it is almost always on the right. Family values y'all?

JBK for the added insight in the comments. The idea of an independent group that operates clandestinely with little or no oversight is what makes spy stories so cool. There are loop holes in the constant surveillanve society we have seen evolve in the last few decades and agents that have to report to Congress would not make for the action packed thrill ride we want whlen we pick up The Bourne Ejaculatione. Treadstone is despicable and Ingrams and Associates was unsavory but they are driving force in the stories. You have done a great job of creating an agency that serves a purpose and has a mission statement that probably reads, "The End Justifies the Means."

Chapter 6 just got approved and is scheduled for posting tomorrow 7/14.

Kudos to you, FF, knowing that Heinlein really did switch from activist modern socialist liberal (once supporting EPIC and Sinclair's run for Governor as a socialist) to a form of conservatism to libertarian but then ultimately closer to "Eastern pantheistic mystic" - with his "authors are god" ideas loosely layered on quasi-scientific multiverse theories. I think I can safely say I've read every book and almost every short story he wrote and published, plus both volumes of his most recent biography.

But it is ludicrous EVER equating "libertarianism" with "fascism". In fact, modern socialist liberalism is closer to fascism.

What did Karl Marx and Ayn Rand have in common? Besides both being religiously disillusioned ethnic Jews, they both really believed strongly in "personal individualism" - especially for THEMSELVES and regarding the whole social liberal "free love" idea. They both were married and both cheated on their own spouses - and both ultimately ended up living pretty shitty lives, but their families both suffered more than they did because of their own shitty personas. And yet both spun words so well preaching their own warped versions of what humans were REALLY like. Warped (special in their own minds) individuals hardly ever come up with valid objective definitions of what "the vast majority of human beings are REALLY like" - they just think they do.

Modern liberals preach worship of the individual and especially ever broader "individual rights," and so do libertarians. Liberals insist these individual freedoms and rights can ONLY happen if government gets ever larger and more controlling. How stupid is that?

Libertarians insist that individual freedoms and rights growth can ONLY happen if government gets smaller and less controlling and even approaching anarchy. How stupid is that?

Opposed to both modern socialist liberalism and libertarianism are people like me - basically classical liberals/Christian conservatives. People who believe there SHOULD be traditional moral limits placed on "individualism" in some key regards, merely because history demonstrates the pragmatic "goodness" and positive effects of such moral limits enacted in laws, no less, for society as a whole. Hey - I would LOVE if liberalism - including "free love" (actually "free sex") actually worked for human beings. But unfortunately it really doesn't. It can lead to only two things: extinction of the species when reproduction is merely artificially constrained by all the "smart" women in free sex societies; or an end to peaceful society of civilized human beings. Because humans raised sans fathers grow up to be ever more violent just like in "Lord of the Flies" and innumerable gang-banger neighborhoods in the USA right now.

I would guess most of the USA readers at Literotica are about equally divided: modern liberals, modern libertarians, modern conservatives (based on classical liberalism ideals - including agnostics of the Thomas Jefferson type). Maybe in the LW genre more authors and readers are trending conservative - except in the willing cuckold type stories, of course - the swinging, open marriage, "free lovers".

But really, why do YOU get so offended at any story containing the hint of anti-liberalism? Isn't "free speech" one of the MOST important ethical ideals to you, as a liberal? I guess that ONLY applies to LIBERAL free speech, eh? ;-)

Including politics with the fascinating individual characters makes the story even more compelling. Jennifer and Jim are obviously very close. Why did they allow themselves to part? Rachel and Jim are another fascinating pair

The series started out with solid background, building interesting characters and complex interactions. As the tension built, the storyline gained momentum. To this point it’s moving quite rapidly, and is really interesting. The viewpoint changes are critical to establishing states-of-mind, and well executed. I’m looking forward to the remaining chapters.

This quickly became astonishingly stupid.

Politica-jerk-offida Poop.

Pathetic Waste of my time.

Buh Bye now.

Seems a big bogged down now in psycho-religious dogma now. Had been really good until this point.

And you are obviously trying to set up a RAAC. I hate those because they always seem so improbable. In this case all the more so. Glad she finally opened her eyes and saw that he wasn't what she wanted in life. Jim should thank his lucky stars he's out of that situation.

The writer is racist and incites hatred of Muslims, and he tries in this story to show Muslims as monsters or as bad people, and this is an unreal and racist description.

I like this story and to those who comment here about racism, Theron comment show how little they know what that word means.

4/5

The religion, science, philosophy thres in this chapter is utter BS! Religion generally, and Christianity in particular, has been the cause, the rationale, and at the heart of more evil than any other human construct throughout history. The references to "scientific" eugenics fundamentally misconstrues the nature of science. Science is NOT an adjective, it's a rigorous and formalized process for understanding the nature of reality. The nazi and other 20th century eugenicists had no "scientific" foundation for their evil beliefs.

One other thing, the contradiction of these high flying moralistic pronouncement appearing on a site dedicated to sex and erotica is breathtaking!