Prurient Fascinations

[DanielH]

It’s the kind of thing that gets automatically shared when you have mindreading. I doubt a non-mindread Alex would bother sharing the details of such an interaction with the relevant Bell (or any other Bell, for that matter).

[Bluelantern]

It’s the kind of thing that gets automatically shared when you have mindreading. I doubt a non-mindread Alex would bother sharing the details of such an interaction with the relevant Bell (or any other Bell, for that matter).

yes.... Aleko didn't have a choice, so sharing the fact (and the details) sooner was better than later.

[Alicorn]

Aleko has established enough general comfort with mindreading that while he would not deliberately entertain sexual fantasies in his sister's range, he doesn't mind her knowing or getting occasional flashes; likewise, she values having him close to her and comfortable with that way too much to allow it to become a big deal, even in her internal monologue. They've already covered this general territory with the fact that, you know, Aleko is a teenage boy with a sex drive. Adding another person just meant that Aleko did some due diligence about making sure they knew Kiri would be getting a bit of a brainful.

[Bluelantern]

So, I was thinking... what would a Bella do if their SO was forked and couldn't be emerged back?

[Alicorn]

That... would depend? On the SO, the circumstances, and what sort of contrivance is forbidding a merge.

[MaggieoftheOwls]

So--not that I think it's even remotely plausible, but I'm curious...
If you took a Bell who had never met an Adarin, Edward, Sherlock, Joker, SherlockJoker, Tony, Miles, Sandy, Libby, or other Bell, (to name every significant other of a Bell I could think of) turned her into a diamond vampire and/or had her touch the anti-mindreading Necklace, and then acquired at least one instance of each of the above and managed to introduce her to all of them exactly simultaneously somehow, which one(s) would she fixate on? Would the SherlockJoker have an advantage due to being two different compatible templates? Could vampire mate bonds and Necklace side effects produce different results? If two instances of the same template whose histories were exactly identical up to the point at which she saw them were introduced simultaneously, is it possible for the magic to register them as the same person?
On a related but less Bellish note, if a (male) werewolf who has not yet imprinted touches the Necklace, how do its effects interact with imprinting, especially if the wolf was nonheterosexual and liable to Necklace to a dude? Best guess there is that if he Necklaces to a girl he also imprints, and if he Necklaces to a dude it enforces a platonic imprint, but that's still just a guess.

[Alicorn]

Diamond vampirism and the necklace actually can yield slightly different results. With simultaneous introduction, diamond vampirism supports polyamory (although only in a closed everyone-in-the-polycule-loves-everyone-else-in-it fashion). The purples, being purple, would all get along (Miles possibly excepted, he seems to have genuine mono tendencies even as written by kappa); it might be that the vampire!Bella would settle on the lot of them solely because this is the way the largest number of potential mate bonds can have their way at once. (She'd kind of freak out. That's too many people, and they would all be complete strangers to start out.)

The necklace doesn't support any form of polyamory. I'm tempted to say it'd pick the Adarin, but realistically the way the necklace works she'd land on her fellow Bell.

In both cases, whether a fork is "two people" or "one person" depends more on the forking mechanic than the mating mechanic. And it might depend on out-of-character factors (whether I thought it was fun to fix a person on one of a pair of forks, or both, and how that interacted with any plans for the forks to merge or not).

The necklace might actually be just barely smart enough to shut up and not do anything if it can't match the imprinting (as in the case of a wolf who's not attracted to girls or an imprint who's not attracted to her wolf). If it can match the imprinting it shall, quite redundantly.

[MaggieoftheOwls]

So does that mean if Diamond Bella was introduced to all those people simultaneously (let's except the Libby here, because ew) and then they were all turned, this is a situation where Edward would be okay with sharing the relevant Bell, because he would also then have mate bond stuff with everyone else in the polycule?
Mating seems to work if you've met the person pre-turning but not since, as in the case of Harry and Sue. If a naturally polyamorous person is in a relationship with two other people, and both of those people are potential mates, and person 1 gets diamonded, does that count as simultaneous introduction for polycule purposes?
If you're a mated vampire, and your mate dies, will the mate bond latch onto an alt of the deceased? Didyme would suggest yes, but frankly I'm not sure if that's a fork or an alt or what.
I wasn't thinking of a fork, I was thinking completely independant alts who just happened to share the same history (like pre-Chamomile Cypress and Prime at the relevant point in his past).
...Would the Necklace enforce emotional monogamy on a Joker? My brain is guessing, "yes but then that Joker is miserable forever."
Come to think of it, if a werewolf is introduced to two pottential imprints simultaneously, what happens?

[Marri]

I'm not clear what would cause that 'ew' because Libbies are wonderful, post-turning absolutely works (case in point: Razi and Pera as the first that comes to mind), and to my understanding Didyme counts as an actual resurrection and not an alt or fork etc.

Also, the Joker's matebond with Nathan suggests that, if the matebond couldn't do emotional monogamy, the necklace wouldn't, but I am noticeably less clear on how the necklace works.

Helpful rundown on terminology for alts/forks/etc lives at this wiki page (and also a forum thread I'm temporarily misplacing).

[MaggieoftheOwls]

The ew in question was "an Edward and a Libby in the same mate bond" because Edward's mother is a Libby.
What does the Joker and Nathan have to do with this? The Joker didn't turn so he has no mate bond, and Nathan was fantastically monogamous until they managed to edit the bond with fork-merging.
Razi and Pera were both vampires when they met, and to the best of my knowledge are monogamous. What do they have to do with this?