Aside from the weird usage of the word penultimate, I thought that was really interesting. But then I followed some links and was kind of creeped out when they started talking about how the show featured gratuitous sexuality. One of the things I love about Firefly is how Kaylee is probably the most sexually active crew member, yet she's also portrayed as the most innocent. I will never understand why people insist seeing sexuality as something dirty.
they started talking about how the show featured gratuitous sexuality. Really? How bizarre. And I agree with what you say about Kaylee - to me it seems that one of the good points of the 'verse is that there's finally sexual equality between the sexes!
That blog community seemed pretty conservative. I don't know if that's because it mainly had US users or what. LJ has such an incredibly liberal fandom community that I think I just forget that that's not really how it is in the US. You'd think I'd be used to the puritanical attitudes Americans have towards sex after having lived there for so many years, but I don't think I'll ever fully comprehend it.
LJ has such an incredibly liberal fandom community that I think I just forget that that's not really how it is in the US. Hmmm, that's probably true - Willow and Tara were not even allowed to kiss on screen for years!
And how come I didn't know that you'd lived in America?
For the most part I just find the prudishness laughable, because it's just about as far from my own values and beliefs as you can get.
And how come I didn't know that you'd lived in America? I don't know, I guess I don't talk about it that much, except in passing like I did here. I lived in Florida for most of my adolescence, graduated from high school and everything.
Well, I live by my own personal code of ethics, but I don't expect others to abide the same rules. I figure, as long as it's not hurting anyone, what do I care what they get up to in their own bedrooms (or out of them, for that matter)?
Well, I live by my own personal code of ethics, but I don't expect others to abide the same rules. That's the thing. And considering that we like the messed-up-ness that is Spuffy, I guess that automatically puts us in the 'tolerant' box. ;)
Not sure that's exactly what I meant. But I was trying to be brief. *g*
I think generally that the women we see (on Serenity) think of themselves as equal to men. Or rather don't really think about it at all, but see it as obvious. (Of course this is very different on the outer planets.)
About Kaylee then I was thinking of when she had sex with the original mechanic of Serenity. She was obviously not worried about what people would think of her.
Well, yes, I think the women of Serenity are equal to the men. And think of themselves as such. I just don't see how Kaylee's sexuality is really part of that. Plus, see below on me fanwanking Kaylee and Bester's engine room antics.
Ah yes, I see your point. To be honest it's not something I've ever give much thought, so I'm not really able to discuss it properly (even if I was awake...).
Actually, I think it's not sexuality that's seen as dirty, but promiscuity. I don't think the two are necessarily synonomous. Also, I think Zoe and Wash are brilliant examples of a show which finally portrayed a happy but not unrealistic married couple, proving that UST is not necessarily the only drama a tv show can do with sex.
Plus, I was personally frustrated with the fact that the issues Mal brings up in "Shindig" about Companions living a lie were dealt with. I think he makes valid points, which no one ever really deals with.
As to gratuitous, I think that's actually a viable argument. Inara seems rather "written in" and most of her plotlines could be deleted from the episodes with no loss of structural cohesion. Unless voyeurism was part of the essential meaning of the show.
As to Kaylee herself, the sexually active part of the character is the one I have hardest time dealing with. If all she wants from Simon is sex, why do we root for them to get together? And will they have a real relationship now that they're together, or was it just a fling? Actually, I think that was one of the weaker points about the movie - Joss Whedon has shown that it's more than just sex with the Buffy/Spike relationship.
Note: I actually think that most of the sex in Buffy was not gratuitous (except maybe for Buffy and Riley). It all flowed naturally out of character and contributed to the plot in constructive ways. While Inara's character is naturally sexual, I don't think that it worked with the plot terribly well, and came off as more a hook to get people to watch.
I'm not sure if you followed the same links and read the same comments as I did, but the first ping I had came when I read this comment:
I thought it was great, but was disappointed at how much sexuality there was... It was kind of gross!:(
I just have a really hard time thinking anyone except a middle school pre-pubescent youth writing something like that. And yet I suspect that's not the case. The same person commented on another post with:
I still think that Firefly would have been better without sexuality!
I'm quite frankly baffled. To me, that's like saying "life would be better without sexuality", as if we as humans could and should quash something that comes naturally to us.
I don't see anything inherently good or bad in sex. And I think that's why I've never once in my life thought of anyone else as promiscuous. If someone enjoys having a lot of sex (like Kaylee), then great! More power to them! I would only be worried about excessive sex if it was someone I knew wasn't personally comfortable with it.
You wrote: If all she wants from Simon is sex, why do we root for them to get together? I take issue with your assumption that all she wanted from Simon (or any of the men she slept with) was sex. Saying she was only interested in Simon for sex because they had sex is, to me, like saying that she was only interested in making Simon a cake in OoG because she wanted cake, not because she cared about him.
Well, I think sex is actually inherently good, which is why I see the treating it as merely another preference (like eating) to be bad.
I don't actually agree with the original poster - I did follow the links, and my stance is different. Was just using the comments to springboard my own opinions. Sorry if that confused you.
As for Firefly without sexuality, I don't think that's what I meant when I said that Inara's scenes and plotlines were often gratuitous. I just think they didn't deal with much more than titillation, rather than a serious look at what the concept of a Companion would actually mean. More "Oooh, look, hot girl having lots of consequence-free sex that we get to watch" more than "Hmm, if this profession were legal, what would a person do who lived it?"
I didn't say "All Kaylee wants from Simon is sex," I said "IF etc etc." And I don't think that's all she wants. I merely think that Serenity (the film) did a poor job of showing what she and Simon really mean to each other aside from pure physical attraction. Yes, she has lots of poignant moments which show that there is much attachment, but there's no discussion of why - no "Touched" speech, or "Amends" debate about what it means. Just "I ain't had nothing twixt my nethers" - if that was all we had to go on (and thank goodness it isn't) Kaylee would seem kinda shallow.
Actually, in my own fan-wank view of Kaylee, she begins as someone who doesn't really care much about developing a relationship - as evidenced by her boinking Bester. However, after about a year with Mal, she has matured to the point that she wants more than just a good time, and so when Simon offers that kind of commitment (even though he can't say it, dear boy), she can wait for it. I doubt many people think of her character as changing this way, but it makes me happier.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
Really? How bizarre. And I agree with what you say about Kaylee - to me it seems that one of the good points of the 'verse is that there's finally sexual equality between the sexes!
no subject
no subject
Hmmm, that's probably true - Willow and Tara were not even allowed to kiss on screen for years!
And how come I didn't know that you'd lived in America?
no subject
And how come I didn't know that you'd lived in America?
I don't know, I guess I don't talk about it that much, except in passing like I did here. I lived in Florida for most of my adolescence, graduated from high school and everything.
no subject
And that just goes to show how little we sometimes know about each other - although I know your fandom opinions pretty well. *g*
no subject
no subject
That's the thing. And considering that we like the messed-up-ness that is Spuffy, I guess that automatically puts us in the 'tolerant' box. ;)
no subject
no subject
I think generally that the women we see (on Serenity) think of themselves as equal to men. Or rather don't really think about it at all, but see it as obvious. (Of course this is very different on the outer planets.)
About Kaylee then I was thinking of when she had sex with the original mechanic of Serenity. She was obviously not worried about what people would think of her.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Plus, I was personally frustrated with the fact that the issues Mal brings up in "Shindig" about Companions living a lie were dealt with. I think he makes valid points, which no one ever really deals with.
As to gratuitous, I think that's actually a viable argument. Inara seems rather "written in" and most of her plotlines could be deleted from the episodes with no loss of structural cohesion. Unless voyeurism was part of the essential meaning of the show.
As to Kaylee herself, the sexually active part of the character is the one I have hardest time dealing with. If all she wants from Simon is sex, why do we root for them to get together? And will they have a real relationship now that they're together, or was it just a fling? Actually, I think that was one of the weaker points about the movie - Joss Whedon has shown that it's more than just sex with the Buffy/Spike relationship.
Note: I actually think that most of the sex in Buffy was not gratuitous (except maybe for Buffy and Riley). It all flowed naturally out of character and contributed to the plot in constructive ways. While Inara's character is naturally sexual, I don't think that it worked with the plot terribly well, and came off as more a hook to get people to watch.
Oh, I hope you don't hate me now.
no subject
I thought it was great, but was disappointed at how much sexuality there was... It was kind of gross!:(
I just have a really hard time thinking anyone except a middle school pre-pubescent youth writing something like that. And yet I suspect that's not the case. The same person commented on another post with:
I still think that Firefly would have been better without sexuality!
I'm quite frankly baffled. To me, that's like saying "life would be better without sexuality", as if we as humans could and should quash something that comes naturally to us.
I don't see anything inherently good or bad in sex. And I think that's why I've never once in my life thought of anyone else as promiscuous. If someone enjoys having a lot of sex (like Kaylee), then great! More power to them! I would only be worried about excessive sex if it was someone I knew wasn't personally comfortable with it.
You wrote: If all she wants from Simon is sex, why do we root for them to get together?
I take issue with your assumption that all she wanted from Simon (or any of the men she slept with) was sex. Saying she was only interested in Simon for sex because they had sex is, to me, like saying that she was only interested in making Simon a cake in OoG because she wanted cake, not because she cared about him.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2006-06-27 06:29 pm (UTC)(link)I don't actually agree with the original poster - I did follow the links, and my stance is different. Was just using the comments to springboard my own opinions. Sorry if that confused you.
As for Firefly without sexuality, I don't think that's what I meant when I said that Inara's scenes and plotlines were often gratuitous. I just think they didn't deal with much more than titillation, rather than a serious look at what the concept of a Companion would actually mean. More "Oooh, look, hot girl having lots of consequence-free sex that we get to watch" more than "Hmm, if this profession were legal, what would a person do who lived it?"
I didn't say "All Kaylee wants from Simon is sex," I said "IF etc etc." And I don't think that's all she wants. I merely think that Serenity (the film) did a poor job of showing what she and Simon really mean to each other aside from pure physical attraction. Yes, she has lots of poignant moments which show that there is much attachment, but there's no discussion of why - no "Touched" speech, or "Amends" debate about what it means. Just "I ain't had nothing twixt my nethers" - if that was all we had to go on (and thank goodness it isn't) Kaylee would seem kinda shallow.
Actually, in my own fan-wank view of Kaylee, she begins as someone who doesn't really care much about developing a relationship - as evidenced by her boinking Bester. However, after about a year with Mal, she has matured to the point that she wants more than just a good time, and so when Simon offers that kind of commitment (even though he can't say it, dear boy), she can wait for it. I doubt many people think of her character as changing this way, but it makes me happier.
no subject