OK, I’ve never seen the show, but I have to correct this:
Geisha != sex slave. Call girl != sex slave. From what I’ve seen (which is honestly one print adaptation & some clips on YouTube) Companion != sex slave.
The difference is in the “slave” part. A “sex slave” is a very specific thing: Someone held in bondage for sex, with little compensation, without liberty to leave. I’ve met one or two abused wives who were nearly sex slaves.
A professional escort or prostitute, on the other hand, is a different matter. They’re not slaves as such.
This is not to defend the practice of prostitution; just to clarify that you’re using a prejudicial term for its prejudicial character without regard to its denotation.
If they’re not renting her personality and her skills, then what’s all the companion training for? Do you really think many people are hiring her and not having sex with her?
Bloody Hell; I’m *defending *Whedon’s prostitute characters and people are still having a go at me. I bet I’ll be told off for using the word prostitute, too. Nobody else seems to have even heard the phrase ‘sex slave’ before. Gah. Well done, guys - those people who think Whedonites are obsessives will be reading this and having their prejudices confirmed.
For the period of their hiring they act as sex slaves. With caveats - like many sex workers have these days, like not being beaten up - they will fulfill the client’s needs and, I’m sorry, but I simply don’t believe anyone who’s watched Firefly can deny that this pretty much always (or perhaps absolutely always) involves sex. They are ‘willing sex slaves,’ which was the phrase used by the person who originally cast aspersions on Joss Whedon’s proclivities.
You don’t think that’s a lot? Fine. But when you’re trying to argue against people who claim that Joss is unhealthily obsessed with sexbot type characters, they’re simply not going to listen to you if you pretend that
[ul]
[li]The characters in ‘She’ (I’m not sure that it matters that we never see them having sex)[/ul][/li][/quote]
It absolutely matters. I never argued that Whedon doesn’t address concepts of sexism and oppression of women in his work. It’s clearly a major theme in his work. The point being argued here is whether this apparently pro-feminist presentation is a cover for a more prurient interest. Speak to me, Maddie! (to whom, if you’ll recall, my first post in this thread was addressed) argued that the pro-feminist supertext was a cover for a less savory subtext. The comparison she made was to slasher flicks, which despite always ending in the grisly death of the antagonist, clearly exist for the vicarious thrill of watching someone kill the hell out of a bunch of people. Which is fine, and not a point I’d argue against. But that clearly puts “She” out of reach of this argument, because we never see the behavior intended to titillate the audience. If we never see any of these women actually being enslaved, you cannot argue that the purpose of the episode is to excite the audience with the idea of enslaving women.
[quote]
[ul][li]The sexbot made by Warren, then the Buffybot[/ul][/li][/quote]
Already discussed.
[quote]
[ul][li]The companions, no matter how ‘high status’ they’re supposed to be[/ul][/li][/quote]
And again, the argument is that Whedon secretly likes powerless, personality-free sex drones, and frequently includes them in his shows. The Companions are anything but powerless or personality-free. They wield considerable social power, and are universally presented as strong-willed, independent women.
[quote]
[ul][li]All the women in the Dollhouse (plus the men presumably - we only saw one being used for sex but I’m sure the others are too) - why are you not counting them?[/ul][/li][/quote]
Because my original question was, “What examples of this do you have from other shows.” I acknowledged right off the bat that Dollhouse provided fodder for this theory. I wanted evidence that this was a wide spread phenomenon in Whedon’s work, and not unique to the nature of the story he was telling in Dollhouse.
Mind control and demonic possession were commons tropes in Buffy and Angel, and they happened regularly to both men and women. Singling out just the times it was done to women, and then presenting that as if it demonstrates something about Whedon’s attitude towards women, is disingenuous in the extreme.
The amount of time is absolutely important, if one wants to make the argument that this is a major theme in his work. If it’s a major theme, one would expect it to occur regularly. If, out of hundreds and hundreds of hours of television, the best you can come up with is two episodes (and let’s not kid ourselves - you haven’t come up with more than two here, not unless you want to stretch the original claim entirely out of recognizability) then that pretty well undercuts the idea that this is a major theme in his work.
Not true. I brought up Warren’s sex-bot in my first post.
We’re having a go at you because you’re using the term “sex slave” in a fashion that is completely at odds with the common usage. Having sex for money doesn’t make you a sex slave. Doing anything for money doesn’t make you a sex slave. The fact that you’re getting paid for it is, in fact, the central determining factor in whether or not you’re a slave, as the central concept at the heart of slavery is labor without compensation.
I mean, if I hire a guy to weed my front lawn, he isn’t my “willing field slave.” He’s my gardener. We can, I would hope, agree on at least that much, right? So why does hiring someone to sleep with me alter the equation? Why is work for hire suddenly “slavery” when it involves sex?
Whedon is a self-described feminist. He actively seeks to center plots around feminine characters and feminine dilemmas. Feminine identity, both independently and relative to men, has profound themes related to sex and power that are part of our history and culture. How else can you actively explore the feminine themes you have stated an interest in without “going there” and using all this stuff as plot drivers?
Whedon is also no dummy and knows that sex sells - fercrissakes, he chose to work with Dushku…
Why does it always have to be either/or? Why can’t it be both/and? The themes are central to who we are and are interesting…and hot.
Sure, let me get you the names of everyone who’s ever said such a thing to me. Do you want a copy of my driver’s license to prove I have the same name as a Buffy character too? :rolleyes:
I’m not citing my personal conversations, and you have no business asking me to. It’s kind of funny that you’d say “Ditto” to someone saying he’d take my word for my own experiences and then tell me you need evidence, though.
*For someone so keen on cites, you’re awfully quick to start making things up. I didn’t claim that anyone in this thread had ordered me to watch every Buffy episode, and I wasn’t angered by this thread at all until you started questioning my honesty. I don’t know why you’re so worked up all of a sudden, unless my description of the Whedon cult hit a little too close to home.
Despite the fact that Whedon is a card carrying feminist who sneaks some serious concepts into his work, I’d say the first requirement for one of his fans is having a sense of humor.
And not picking a thread called “Why does everyone love Joss Whedon?”–started by somebody who seemed honestly interested–to go all ballistic. Why not start or join a thread about something you actually like?
Honest, if you don’t like his stuff–even if you hardly know it–I won’t suggest you waste your valuable time. But–why are you here? Were you dragged into this thread?
The thread title is Why Does Everyone Love Joss Whedon?, not Let’s Have a Whedon Lovefest. The former, by its nature, asks his detractors to speak up to say “Not everyone does”, while the latter excludes them.
**Lamia **is only stating the obvious that his appeal isn’t universal, and while she’s adamant in her dislike of his work, she’s hardly going ballistic. If anything, your post and the ones she was most recently replying to are the exact kind of behavior talked about earlier in this thread, where the fans start circling the wagons and attacking those that don’t share our taste.
Also, in reference to your last line: you’re referencing dialogue she has no way to be familiar with to make her feel left out.
What a weird thread. 3 pages of polite, civilized discussion about a TV-show, and suddenly both sides seem to think they’ve been rabidly attacked by insane fans/haters.
Hell, at least one of them’s admitted he’s having a go at me - I’m not imagining it. And I’d say being accused of ‘bringing my own sexual baggage to the discussion’ was me being attacked. Though ‘attacked’ in a Whedon thread makes me think of stakes and guns, which is a bit much.
I can’t really continue a discussion with someone who won’t even admit that the characters I’ve described are all examples of what detractors think of as ‘the willing sex slave, the mindless hot body stripped of free-will and personality, a trope that appears in Wheadon’s other shows with noticeable regularity.’ Especially when I’ve already made loads of the points that they’re already making.
Miller, for example, you point out that we don’t see much of the titillation in the episode She? I already pointed that out about thirty posts ago. It’s almost as if you just want to argue with me no matter what.
There are lots of characters that can be described in the way SWM originally did - more such characters than you’d expect for the number of episodes under consideration (it’s not ‘hundreds and hundreds’ of hours of television); they’re all nuanced and justifiable and, even if you find some difficult to justify (like some people do with the dolls), they’re offset by the way that there are so many female characters who are strong in all sorts of ways, but that trope is there.
Well there’s your problem right there in the bold. Just because detractors think of them as such doesn’t necessarily make them so. I mean, you can dislike Whedon for that if you really want to, but it’s been shown that the evidence for this belief is more tenuous than you think.
I don’t have a dog in this discussion, as I don’t know if the prevalence of this trope in Whedon’s shows represent anything more than a coincidence or maybe an attempt to discuss the way western culture still sees the role of women in male fantasies or if it’s all an expression of the show creators fetishes or whatever… But for completeness sake:
[ul]
[li]There’s Dracula and his attempt of mind control of Buffy, which is clearly sexual in nature. (I recognize that’s straight out of the source)[/li][li]Again in Buffy, the same guy that created the Buffybot along with his two nerd colleagues create a spell to create sex-slaves. He uses it on his ex, forces her to dress in a demeaning manner, and is using it to force oral sex on her when it fails. She then accuses him and his colleagues of attempted rape and is murdered. (the whole thing is shown as completely sick.)[/li][li]In Angel, when the gang travels to Lorne’s dimension, we find that there humans are treated as property and there are several instances fo women being called cows. (this treatment is extended to all humans, but we only see women treated thus).[/li][/ul]
Dislike Whedon for that? Man, have you read my posts at all?
I knew there were more. Like you say, there are justifications for all those too, and the people doing the controlling of those women aren’t exactly presented as wonderful examples of humanity (or demonity).
It is interesting that there are so many of this sort of character, though. Perhaps it’s as simple as Wordman says - that he really likes tackling the theme of women’s empowerment so has to show their disempowerment first. Perhaps it’s something else. Either way, they are damn good stories.
Attacked? Really? What dictionary are you using? probably the one you are using for the meaning of “slave,” I’ll bet.
On that we can heartily agree.
**
Gustav** - Actually, most of the people in this thread think they’re being attacked by people on their own side! Note that scifisam, Miller and I are all fans. Call it “a concern for friendly fire.”
Come on. Someone else said ‘attacked’ and I said that ‘attacked’ in a Whedon thread made me think of stakes and guns , with a big smiley face - that is, that attack is too strong a word for what’s been said against me. Now you cite the dictionary definition? What, you want to confirm that you were actually attacking me? Because that’s what the dictionary definition does. Gah. Where’s that brick wall gone? Ah, there it is, the one with my head shape in it, I’d recognise it anywhere.
It really is annoying that I was constantly trying to say that this particular criticism had legs, so we should try to sweep their legs from under them rather than pretending that the legs aren’t there at all and getting trampled on.
Look, I’m a female, gay, long-term Buffy fan who’s known loads of people into feminism and/or Buffy: if you pretend that there aren’t a lot of what they call sexbots, sex slaves and the like don’t exist, then you can’t argue against them. If you take on their way of thinking and look at characters who could fit that trope, and there are lot, and then talk about each character individually or talk about the trope as a whole, then you have an argument. Kinda like an atheist arguing about God using the Bible, except we’re the believers and the Whedon canon is the Bible.
This has come up in real life for me incredibly often - some circles take it as read that Whedon’s work is antifeminist and some take it as read that it’s pro-feminist. The former circles include people who are either worth arguing against because they might change their minds or who are just too annoying not to argue against. IYSWIM.
This is akin to saying that I’m a slave when I’m at work, because that’s when I’m being paid. I’m what, an office slave? Is a truck driver a driving slave? Is Alex Rodriguez a baseball slave? After all, for his period of hiring, he’s playing baseball as per the orders of his employer, right?
You don’t understand the term “slave” and need to stop using it. And I don’t even like Joss Whedon’s work.
I’ve got no real dog in this fight, but I’ll point out that the phrase “wage slave” is in the vernacular, though rarely or never used literally outside of Marx’s writings.
