Why is Mal anti-companion?

POSTED BY: akredhead
UPDATED: Thursday, December 28, 2006 01:27
VIEWED: 17411
PAGE 5 of 9

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE

RUGBUG

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But you started the sentence with "the difference between Companion and whore..." indicating a relation to the general subject and an equation between Nandi and common whore, which is simply not correct and what I argued against.

Got me there. my statement was a bit confusing. I was only trying to cut my post shorter and to indicate a change in concept I was addressing. I should've stated something more like this:

Earlier parts of this discussion have been focused on the difference between companions and whores. From my perspective, the only difference between Inara and Nandi is guild registration. However, there is admittedly a larger difference in skill/training between Nandi's girls and Inara.

I would go further to say that Inara is the total embodiment of what a "whore" can be. Sex is the main function of a whore, with other functions being secondary to that. For a companion, sex is merely one of many duties and not necessarily primary.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Similarly, you choose to ignore what I already said on the subject. To me, the difference between Inara and Nandi is in the work they chose.
Nandi isn't a prostitute in even a remotely similar environment as Inara. If she lived in a society like Sihnon and did the type of councelling work Inara did, but did not receive the respect that real Companions receive, then the only difference and the only reason for their different status would be the Guild registration.

Instead, Nandi moved to the ass end of the universe, among people who have a default disdain for prostitutes and she lives a poor live that doesn't allow her to use her training. It's not comparable.

Not ignoring anything on purpose.

For me, the work they do is the same, just in degrees. The counselling aspect has little to do with the distinction between whore and companion. People are paying both types of women for some form of companionship, be it emotional or physical. Just because some are more skilled than others doesn't change the job, IMO.

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:23 PM

Thank you for clarifying your earilier statement. I find that easy to accept, although I don't completely agree. :)

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:
I would go further to say that Inara is the total embodiment of what a "whore" can be. Sex is the main function of a whore, with other functions being secondary to that. For a companion, sex is merely one of many duties and not necessarily primary.

Assuming that you mean "whore" in a positive, affirming way, without the negative connotations people often pack into it, I can heartily agree. :)

Quote:

Not ignoring anything on purpose. For me, the work they do is the same, just in degrees. The counselling aspect has little to do with the distinction between whore and companion. People are paying both types of women for some form of companionship, be it emotional or physical. Just because some are more skilled than others doesn't change the job, IMO.

I don't disagree on principle. :) My scale of degrees is a little more distinguishing, though. Plateaus of personal investment, if you will.

Inara speaks of a "spirit of compatibility" and there's a strong spiritual aspect to her Companion work. Choice of partners is very important. The work is more interactive and the connection between customer and Companion probably stronger, in many cases.

It's nice to know, though, that we're not so far apart in our opinions. :)

RUGBUG

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Assuming that you mean "whore" in a positive, affirming way, without the negative connotations people often pack into it, I can heartily agree. :)

Well, in a post on another thread, I went into how I don't think Mal is being all that insulting to Inara when he calls her a whore. If companions are seen as acceptable I really don't think the term "whore" would carry the same meanings that it does today. So yes, postive and affirming for the 'verse's time (which is not to be mistaken for an affirmation of sex for money.... Complicated, eh?).

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

AGENTROUKA

Thursday, August 24, 2006 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RugBug:

Well, in a post on another thread, I went into how I don't think Mal is being all that insulting to Inara when he calls her a whore. If companions are seen as acceptable I really don't think the term "whore" would carry the same meanings that it does today. So yes, postive and affirming for the 'verse's time (which is not to be mistaken for an affirmation of sex for money.... Complicated, eh?).

I'd like to agree with that, except it's very obvious that Mal is intending to insult Inara from the very first moment he says the word to her.
Besides, on the Rim worlds where Mal grew up, prostitutes are not so respected. Not to mention the religious believes he held for a long time.

I do think Mal has no problem with whores, but he's well aware of the word as an insult and uses it as such against Inara.
In a way, I suspect, he pretends to look down on them, as a way of creating impact. Inara's job matters a lot to her and it stands between them. What better way to undermine his perceived social (and emotional) inferiority than by creating an image of disgust? That way they're rejecting each other, in his eyes, as opposed to just being rejected by her.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Friday, August 25, 2006 1:31 PM

Sorry, but back to the Inara/whore/companion thing for a moment.

With the exception of the counslor (and I suspect more than a backrub ensued), every client Inara sees in the show has engaged her for sex.

The purpose of her visit in "Shindig" is made pretty clear by Atherton (something about everybody wanting her in their beds). In "Jaynestown", she's there to make the kid "a man" and in "Serenity" her only scene with a client is after they have, presumably, had sex.

Negative connotations aside, a whore is defined as:

a woman who engages in sexual acts for money

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/whore

There's little question that Inara is a smart, well educated, articulate woman. But if it walks and talks like a duck...

Perhaps, in the Core a companion is more than whore (although in essence, I doubt there is), but it appears that out on the Rim there is no difference. She's contracted for sex.

What evidence is there that the Guild is anything more than a labor union for prostitutes? It would seem to me (might be wrong) the ladies organized and now have the power to make demands about clients, compensation, working conditions, health care, and the required training of its members.

Am I forgetting about a client or something? Are we shown a client that didn't engage her for sex?

MAL4PREZ

Friday, August 25, 2006 2:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:

My point about debate producing concensus is based upon an Aristotlean notion of objective truth. If two reasonable people discuss reasonably, they should discover the same truth together, as truth is unchanging and can be discovered through the proper application of reason. As I do not buy into a black/white objectivist dichotomy, I don't hold to this concept, but it's a nice framework of suspension of disbelief, allowing for vigourous debate without animosity.

Whoa Aristotle! I know not so much...

At the risk of hijacking, I don't believe there is just one truth, and I think it's dangerous to pretend that there is. Especially regarding works of fiction and fine art, the same object (or story, or dance) can mean many things to many people, and that's part of the beauty of it. Saying that there is only one correct truth leads to the kind of stuff we see in RWED, name calling and judgement and frustration when one person won't come around to another's view.

For example, you present that definition of whore. Maybe you believe that definition, but not everyone will. And that's really okay! I think the definition of whore, in Joss's verse, is notably different than the definition of Companion, in ways that have been gone over lots already. There is sex in both, but Companions include much much more.

Again - fun thread! It's amazing, the different ways everyone sees it. It's a credit to Joss, and the complexity of the verse and characters he created.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

FELLOWTRAVELER

Friday, August 25, 2006 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Quote:
Originally posted by TwilightJack:

My point about debate producing concensus is based upon an Aristotlean notion of objective truth. If two reasonable people discuss reasonably, they should discover the same truth together, as truth is unchanging and can be discovered through the proper application of reason. As I do not buy into a black/white objectivist dichotomy, I don't hold to this concept, but it's a nice framework of suspension of disbelief, allowing for vigourous debate without animosity.

Whoa Aristotle! I know not so much...

At the risk of hijacking, I don't believe there is just one truth, and I think it's dangerous to pretend that there is. Especially regarding works of fiction and fine art, the same object (or story, or dance) can mean many things to many people, and that's part of the beauty of it. Saying that there is only one correct truth leads to the kind of stuff we see in RWED, name calling and judgement and frustration when one person won't come around to another's view.

For example, you present that definition of whore. Maybe you believe that definition, but not everyone will. And that's really okay! I think the definition of whore, in Joss's verse, is notably different than the definition of Companion, in ways that have been gone over lots already. There is sex in both, but Companions include much much more.

Again - fun thread! It's amazing, the different ways everyone sees it. It's a credit to Joss, and the complexity of the verse and characters he created.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

Sorry, not trying to cause trouble.

Edit- I'm trying to learn the etiquette. Will try to behave myself.

MAL4PREZ

Friday, August 25, 2006 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Sorry, not trying to cause trouble.

Edit- I'm trying to learn the etiquette. Will try to behave myself.

Sorry that I made you say sorry!

Didn't mean to jump on you - you weren't misbehaving! I just have a tendacy to go tangential and be wordy. Not good with linear thought. Don't mind me!

a-hem. Please, carry on with the Mal/Inara fun...

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

RUGBUG

Friday, August 25, 2006 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I'd like to agree with that, except it's very obvious that Mal is intending to insult Inara from the very first moment he says the word to her.

I do think Mal has no problem with whores, but he's well aware of the word as an insult and uses it as such against Inara.

Oh yea, it's a mild insult, the same as when Inara calls him a petty thief, but I think it's more to remind himself that she is off limits than to put Inara in her place.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Inara's job matters a lot to her and it stands between them. What better way to undermine his perceived social (and emotional) inferiority than by creating an image of disgust? That way they're rejecting each other, in his eyes, as opposed to just being rejected by her.

I can agree with that.

***************
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

ROCKETJOCK

Friday, August 25, 2006 3:48 PM

A few points:

1. It should be noted that at no point is it stated that simple non-guild prostitution is illegal. Nobody tries to shut down the Heart of Gold because of illegality, but instead because they're defying the local ganglord. Disrespected yes, illegal, maybe not.

2. Yes, Inara is a prostitute, by definition. But if you can call her a whore, then being a Cordon Rouge chef is the same as slapping burgers on the grill at McNasty's.

3. That stated, I feel that the difference is one of degree rather than of kind. Continuing the analogy, no gourmet chef, however well trained, should have a higher standing before the law than a fry cook. So long as both are providing what their customers want, and giving fair value, they should be equal before the law. Given the Alliance's "Some are more equal than others" attitudes, I'm willing to bet this isn't the case in the 'Verse.

--This, I think, is why Mal rubs it in--he thinks of simple whores as being fundamentally more honest than fancy-schmancy "Companions"--as other have stated, it's more a statement about his feelings towards the holier-than-thou sanctimony of the Alliance than any true animosity towards Companions in general.

Slight change of subject: In regards to Inara's dedication to the calling of Companion: There are women (and men for that matter) in America today who fit every definition of a Companion, except one. There are high-class courtesans of both/every gender available, who possess great social skill, commmand high price, and pick and choose their own clientelle.

The one difference is that, of course, in America today their chosen profession is illegal.

My question is, if Inara's chosen profession were against the law, and minus the legal protections and high public status she enjoys, would she still practice it?

That would be the true measure of her dedication.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT PAGE