at all -> entirely

As loving as this may attempt to be, it is still done without consent and not ok to do. This would likely not be treated as kindly if it was a man kissing a woman in this scenario.

There are things that can be free for you, because they are freely given. Like a (good) parent's love for their child, or a person who lays down their life for their friend. Gifts can be freely given with no expectation of return, whether donations to those who cannot pay you back, or a gift for a friend. These cost the receiver nothing, and nothing is expected of the receiver because of it. That could be the case here, where even if he never does anything for her for the rest of her life, she will not resent giving him the gift - that could also not be the case and she does have some expectation or hope of a return.As clarification, I do not consider a gift given with expectation of a return a gift (like a birthday gift given with the expectation that they will give you a gift on their birthday - which is totally a reasonable expectation most of the time!).The definition I use of a gift is something given (doesn't have to be a physical item) without any expectation of a return. If you do not believe it is possible for humans to do this, then I guess by my definition, no one could ever give a true gift, and indeed nothing is truly free. I believe, though, that people are capable of giving true gifts. I just cannot say if that is the case here.

Almost -> All

North Dakota?

As of the moment -> At the momentbut including -> but also thelands except that they took -> lands, but only tookyoung, male and female -> young males and femalesreadied their weapons in hand -> readied their weapons

Well done, Thrax.

Greek and the Roman view -> Greeks and Romans viewedundeveloped and uncivilized they lived-> underdeveloped and uncivilized they were

affinity in violence -> affinity to violence

rumbles -> ruin

So is the remainder of the book permanently locked behind a coin wall? Because it doesn't have the button that would let me use a fast pass with it.

Indeed, at that time he was still just a shepherd bringing food to his brothers.

Nice.

No idea.

I was not saying he was in a relationship with Klea; they never were. I was saying Emery was denying Klea's interest in him as "It can't be that," etc. And until he properly responds to her intentions with a clear yes or no, he is being immature and hurtful towards both women. Because whether or not he means it, he is leading Klea on even by his own inaction. You don't need to be in a relationship to mistreat another person. And even if we don't mean it, we are responsible for the results of our actions and inactions. I hope this makes sense. I still think my first comment is clearer on my thoughts here, but I guess it may not be as clear to others as I thought it was. Thanks for responding.

Thank you for replying. I know sometimes I can be improper in my response due to disappointment or frustration (I don't think this one had such an attitude, but I think other comments I have written have), so I appreciate the times you are still willing to read and respond. You are a good writer, or else I would not persist as I have.

As mentioned in my paragraph comment, I will say that I do disagree with Emery's answer to Gwen, especially as he has not DTR'd (define the relationship abbreviation) with Klea, and to allow her to chase him while accepting another woman is cruel and immature. Before he says yes to her, he first has to go and say no to Klea. Of course, I am writing this as someone who does not want a harem (and someone who still prefers Klea over the other women). Besides, no matter who or how many he marries, this is a terrible way to begin. His only excuse is he is young, and he is equally as thoroughly dense with Klea as all other women in that he still passively and actively denies the seriousness of Klea's interest in him, nor has he even taken a single step to clarify it with her. He is, of course, lacking a father and mother figure to teach him how to respect and love women and how to act responsibly with them, which in real life can and often leads to men (and women!) growing up in similar ignorance and immaturity as Emery, living out what can easily become a very destrictive pattern of romantic relationship with others. I hope he finds some, and soon. Or if this story is to follow real life human psychology at all, he is destined to fail every single one of these women, and miserably so. And we can't even guarantee he would learn from it unless there is someone to point out what he is doing wrong! Hopefully he does learn from this though? Sometimes, failure is the best thing that can happen to us. It was through failure as well as the wisdom of my mentors that I learned what I have learned, and am who I am today.

Well, I will say that I do disagree with it, especially as he has not DTR'd (define the relationship abbreviation) with Klea, and to allow her to chase him while accepting another woman is cruel and immature. Before he says yes to her, he first has to go and say no to Klea. Of course, I am writing this as someone who does not want a harem (and someone who still prefers Klea over the other women). Besides, no matter who or how many he marries, this is a terrible way to begin. His only excuse is he is young, and he is equally as thoroughly dense with Klea as all other women in that he still passively and actively denies the seriousness of her interest in him, nor has he even took a single step to clarify it with her. He is, of course, lacking a father and mother figure to teach him how to respect and love women and how to act responsibly with them, which in real life can and often leads to men (and women!) growing up in similar ignorance and immaturity as Emery, living out what can easily become a very destrictive pattern of romantic relationship with others. I hope he finds some, and soon. Or if this story is to follow real life human psychology at all, he is destined to fail every single one of these women, and miserably so. And we can't even guarantee he would learn from it unless there is someone to point out what he is doing wrong!

Defining the relationship is important. Whatever the result, even if I disagree with it, well done.

Physical beauty is but one aspect of a woman. If that's all you care about, then maybe you can make an argument that the marauder's choice should bear weight on your own, though such an argument would be pitiful at best. Such objectivism also provides no barrier against a person’s justifying their desire to sleep with a women, even if it means raping her as the marauders were intending to do. I refuse to hold or affirm such a limiting if not devastating and cruel perspective of women, especially when considering who I would want to marry. If your only intention in your question is to express it from the standpoint that both are women of character and that this aspect is already included in our perspective of the women, then I agree that physical attractiveness does matter. I want to love looking at my wife. But then we should return to the old idiom: "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." What I find beautiful does not define what everyone finds beautiful, and it would not be strange if Emery's perspective of beauty differs from mine. In fact, it would be normal for it to differ in some ways, even as it may agree in others.