Harry is a Dad...Again..😳

[LordDresden2]

I agree Dina, true love isn't easily broken, not by a bit of unfaithfulness, because true love often defies logic.  More confusing, the partner who was unfaithful may lose protection, but should the faithful one, who still might truly love the other lose his or hers?

They don't.

If John and Jane Doe are Protected by their mutual love and active sexual life, and Jane for whatever reason has a one night stand that she regrets on a business trip...Jane is now vulnerable, John is still protected.  Again, that's not a reward, just How It Works.  If he stays celibate for the rest of his life, he's Protected for the rest of his life, unless something else wipes it away.

Does it matter if Jane cheated because she was drunk and not thinking straight?  Nope.  Does the fact that John is sometimes a complete jerk to other people undo his protection?  Nope.  It's not about fairness or justice or morality.

[LordDresden2]

I think it would be a mistake to believe that Nemesis isn't capable of that, that's why they are such a threat. 

This hardly seems insurmountable.

Nemesis is a Walker, one of the most-powerful of all Outsiders.

If Justine is Nemfected, it hardly seems outside Nemesis' power to create some burns when a whampire touches her.

It's more than just touching.  Nemesis would have to initiate the burn when, and only when, a WV tries to feed on her.  Which means Nemesis would have to accurately assess the mental state and intentions of every WV that touched Justine, to know whether the contact was a feeding attempt or not.  If Lara accidentally brushes Justine's arm in the course of a day, and kept her Hunger leashed (as she usually does) and gets burned anyway...

As for whether Nemesis can do that...well, yeah, maybe it can.  We don't have any definite data to say it can't.  But we also don't have any definite data in the other direction.  It's pure guesswork.

Here's where Occam's Razor cuts usefully.

[LordDresden2]

I remember reading that even a wedding ring of someone sharing true love will burn a WCV.  Again true love doesn't depend on sex!

But contact is required, as far as we know.  The same tainted energy then spreads into the object, if it's a symbol of that Love.  But it can't be just any object, it has to somehow symbolize the love in question.

[Mira]

Does it matter if Jane cheated because she was drunk and not thinking straight?  Nope.  Does the fact that John is sometimes a complete jerk to other people undo his protection?  Nope.  It's not about fairness or justice or morality.

 I think it does matter, if Jane was drunk, she cannot be held responsible fully for what happened.  Cheating on someone is a choice..

[LordDresden2]

I think it does matter, if Jane was drunk, she cannot be held responsible fully for what happened.  Cheating on someone is a choice..

But it's not about morality or choice or responsibility.  Before she cheated, John's energy lay over her and made her toxic to the White Court Hunger.  After sex with someone else, either that energy is wiped away or diluted out or covered over, and a WV is free to feed on her.  The question is not whether she was responsible or not.  It's whether the unloving sex happened to wipe out the protection.

Again, it's no different than if she got pregnant while engaged in drunken sex that she regrets.  Yeah, she was drunk.  Yeah, she desperately wishes she had been faithful, and fully intends to stay faithful from now on.  But she's still pregnant and John is still not the father.

[Mira]

But it's not about morality or choice or responsibility.  Before she cheated, John's energy lay over her and made her toxic to the White Court Hunger.  After sex with someone else, either that energy is wiped away or diluted out or covered over, and a WV is free to feed on her.  The question is not whether she was responsible or not.  It's whether the unloving sex happened to wipe out the protection.

  If that be the case, then the concept of true love is BS isn't it?  Already there has been some debate on whether  Michael/Charity, Malcolm/Margaret etc are or aren't cases for true love.  How do you define the difference between mere monogamy [not true love,] and monogamy that is true love?  It isn't about morality, that's not what I am talking about, morality has nothing to do with it, but emotion has everything to do with it.  The White Court Demon feeds off of emotion, true love is an emotion, an emotion so strong that it burns the demon and it's host.  In your own definition of what blows the protection, you call it cheating.. Calling it cheating implies a moral judgement of infidelity, it is also an emotional choice to have sexual contact with another.. It's that emotional choice in my opinion that blows the protection, not the physical sex itself.  Rape, or accidental sex when one isn't in a state to make a responsible emotional choice to have it, shouldn't break the protection, because the emotions of that person for his or her beloved partner remains the same.

[vincentric]

  If that be the case, then the concept of true love is BS isn't it?  Already there has been some debate on whether  Michael/Charity, Malcolm/Margaret etc are or aren't cases for true love.  How do you define the difference between mere monogamy [not true love,] and monogamy that is true love?  It isn't about morality, that's not what I am talking about, morality has nothing to do with it, but emotion has everything to do with it.  The White Court Demon feeds off of emotion, true love is an emotion, an emotion so strong that it burns the demon and it's host.  In your own definition of what blows the protection, you call it cheating.. Calling it cheating implies a moral judgement of infidelity, it is also an emotional choice to have sexual contact with another.. It's that emotional choice in my opinion that blows the protection, not the physical sex itself.  Rape, or accidental sex when one isn't in a state to make a responsible emotional choice to have it, shouldn't break the protection, because the emotions of that person for his or her beloved partner remains the same.

It's a combination of emotion and mechanics though. The protection is a two-part thing that needs both to work.

To establish the protection, you have to be in love and then have sex with that loved one. From then on, as long as you are faithful to each other physically the protection is up. It will not expire as long as the love lasts, but sex with another, willing or unwilling, breaks the protection. It can then be rebuilt by having sex with the loved one again. It can be a bug or a feature but that's entirely dependent on circumstances.

[Mira]

It's a combination of emotion and mechanics though. The protection is a two-part thing that needs both to work.

To establish the protection, you have to be in love and then have sex with that loved one. From then on, as long as you are faithful to each other physically the protection is up. It will not expire as long as the love lasts, but sex with another, willing or unwilling, breaks the protection. It can then be rebuilt by having sex with the loved one again. It can be a bug or a feature but that's entirely dependent on circumstances.

It still doesn't answer the question about what is the difference between ordinary love, not protected, and true love, protected.. I can see the first easily broken, but not the second, human emotions just don't work that way.

[vincentric]

It still doesn't answer the question about what is the difference between ordinary love, not protected, and true love, protected.. I can see the first easily broken, but not the second, human emotions just don't work that way.

What is or isn't True Love is a question for Jim. So far, the protection has only been broken through the mechanical component of sex. We've never seen a situation of falling out of love breaking it

[Mira]

What is or isn't True Love is a question for Jim. So far, the protection has only been broken through the mechanical component of sex. We've never seen a situation of falling out of love breaking it

Which is weird, how do you fall out of true love?  I wonder if anyone has ever asked Jim that? That's why I have said as a reader that while on the page the concept of true love burning the Hunger Demon, it's best not to over think it because a lot of aspects of it doesn't really make sense.

[vincentric]

Which is weird, how do you fall out of true love?  I wonder if anyone has ever asked Jim that? That's why I have said as a reader that while on the page the concept of true love burning the Hunger Demon, it's best not to over think it because a lot of aspects of it doesn't really make sense.

A fundamental betrayal that destroys trust would be my best guess. I don't think Harry and Susan could have renewed their relationship had she survived Changes. Keeping Maggie a secret, hurt Harry deeply and he sais that they couldn't get past that.

[LordDresden2]

\

But it's not about morality or choice or responsibility.  Before she cheated, John's energy lay over her and made her toxic to the White Court Hunger.  After sex with someone else, either that energy is wiped away or diluted out or covered over, and a WV is free to feed on her.  The question is not whether she was responsible or not.  It's whether the unloving sex happened to wipe out the protection.

-- LordDresden2

  If that be the case, then the concept of true love is BS isn't it?

No.  That doesn't even make sense.

 Already there has been some debate on whether  Michael/Charity, Malcolm/Margaret etc are or aren't cases for true love.  How do you define the difference between mere monogamy [not true love,] and monogamy that is true love?  It isn't about morality, that's not what I am talking about, morality has nothing to do with it, but emotion has everything to do with it.  The White Court Demon feeds off of emotion, true love is an emotion, an emotion so strong that it burns the demon and it's host.  In your own definition of what blows the protection, you call it cheating.. Calling it cheating implies a moral judgement of infidelity, it is also an emotional choice to have sexual contact with another.. It's that emotional choice in my opinion that blows the protection, not the physical sex itself.  Rape, or accidental sex when one isn't in a state to make a responsible emotional choice to have it, shouldn't break the protection, because the emotions of that person for his or her beloved partner remains the same.

But it does break the protection, because the protection is not about morality.

The protection is caused by love, but it is not love in itself.  The protection can remain if the love has ceased, and the love can still exist but the protection be wiped away, because after the protection is created, they are two different things.

The protection is created by the combination of love and sexual interaction at a specific moment.  The mutual love must exist at that time, and it creates the protection by tainting the energy that is exchanged between the lovers.  (I use the word 'taint' from the White Court pov.)

Once created, the protection exists until wiped away, even if the love ceases.  Love created the protection, but the protection is not the love in itself.  Destroying the protection is not destroying the love that created it.

That's why Harry was still protected, even after Susan died.  Their love had ceased (at least in any earthly mortal sense), but the protection still existed, because the protection, once created, was a separate thing.  Likewise, the protection created by genuine love in that moment can endure, even if something happens to cause that love to cease afterward, because they are two different things after that moment.

[LordDresden2]

It still doesn't answer the question about what is the difference between ordinary love, not protected, and true love, protected.. I can see the first easily broken, but not the second, human emotions just don't work that way.

You're confusing the emotions with the protection effect created by the emotions.  They aren't the same thing after the effect is created.

[LordDresden2]

A fundamental betrayal that destroys trust would be my best guess. I don't think Harry and Susan could have renewed their relationship had she survived Changes. Keeping Maggie a secret, hurt Harry deeply and he sais that they couldn't get past that.

Or a long separation, and different life experiences turning you into different people could potentially do it.  Being forced by conflicting moral/religious beliefs to take opposite sides on some heartfelt matter might do it.

[Mira]

You're confusing the emotions with the protection effect created by the emotions.  They aren't the same thing after the effect is created.

Aren't they? How so? The protection is created by the emotion> The protection remains as long as the emotion remains..  The protection isn't something that exists in a vacuum, it is fed by the emotion of true love. It's the very emotion that is toxic to the Hunger Demon... The Hunger Demon is allergic to true love, if it comes in contact with it during the vulnerable time before it's first heavy feeding until death, it goes into severe anaphylactic shock and burns to death.. The emotion feedings sustain it, however it remains allergic to the true love emotion, so sensitive  to it that contact even with an object associated with the person in true love can cause it to break out in a rash, or in this case make the host vampire get burned from contact. 

No.  That doesn't even make sense.

Oh it does, if it includes rape, which is an act of violence done through sex..  The rape victim still feels the emotion of true love for whomever..  The emotion that the Hunger Demon is allergic to, as long as it remains, the protection should remain.. 

But it does break the protection, because the protection is not about morality.

I never said it had anything to do with morality, it doesn't..  You can call it morality, but it is about human emotions. You, yourself speak about breaking the protection in moralistic terms when you use the term, "cheating." 

The protection is caused by love, but it is not love in itself.  The protection can remain if the love has ceased, and the love can still exist but the protection be wiped away, because after the protection is created, they are two different things.

  Protection is caused by love, but not love in of itself?  Really? No, something else is going on here, people make love all of the time, for many reasons, but very few of them experience true love.  Or the kind of true love that the Hunger Demon is allergic to.  Harry never ceased to love Susan even when she was absent all of those years, thus he was protected.  When he met Luccio he was ready to move on, he did, he was no longer held back by the emotion he had felt for Susan.  Thus he lost his protection.  It is also possible that his protection continued even if Susan no loved him after she left for South America.

The protection is created by the combination of love and sexual interaction at a specific moment.  The mutual love must exist at that time, and it creates the protection by tainting the energy that is exchanged between the lovers.  (I use the word 'taint' from the White Court pov.)

There is a problem there though, Harry still loved Susan, but at the time that Lara was burned from contact with him,  there was a good chance that Susan had already moved on emotionally from him..

Once created, the protection exists until wiped away, even if the love ceases.  Love created the protection, but the protection is not the love in itself.  Destroying the protection is not destroying the love that created it.

Really?  Seems to me as long as the true love exists it's like getting a booster shot.  As long as the true love emotion is felt by the would be victim, the Hunger Demon is going to have an allergic reaction and the host vampire is going to feel the burn.