Mal's issue with Companions &/or whores

POSTED BY: Ankhagogo
UPDATED: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 12:55
VIEWED: 6033
PAGE 2 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE

INSIGHT SPINNER

Sunday, April 25, 2004 8:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by howdyrockerbaby1:

So in all essences Mal is helping himself, whether he sees it that way or not, its a subconsious thing.

BWAHAHAHA!! I'm sorry, that is just too funny, Mal helping himself.

Yep. Sure did.

insight spinner
__________

Just an object. It doesn't mean what you think....

ANKHAGOGO

Monday, April 26, 2004 12:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:
I reckon Mal might dislike prostitution because nobody should sell their body, and certainly not their intimacy. I think Mal was deeply attracted to Inara from first sight, and that it hurts him that she sells herself. It's not that she sells to others what he can't have; but that she is hurting herself. That's what tortures him. Even though she plays it off with a straight face, and he at least half believes her, he can sense that sex-for-money diminishes her.

While I definitely agree with you on a personal level that no-one should sell their body, I suspect that attitude is a build-up of hundreds of years of the influence of Western religion/culture on a sociological view, and is perhaps peculiarly American. You know,the whole "sex is special thing and it should alwaysmean something so you shouldn't sleep with just anyone" line -- which is a view most often influenced by some religion. But it definitely hasn't always been that way -- someone mentioned courteseans, which was a very good point to bring up. Courteseans were having sex with men and getting paid for it, but there was alot more to it. It is a very European thing, and it's fairly hard for me to actually understand,due to the growing up in a fairly puritan country, but I do kinda think that may be the vibe they're going for with Inara.

I don't think Inara truly believes it diminishes her to companion (heh). It appears to be a (mostly) well-respected profession, and I'm sure there are one million psych tests you have to take before even being admitted to the Academy, and probably follow-up tests at those yearly exams, to make absolutely sure you don't have any hangups about the whole thing.

Quote:

Inara's crying scene in HoG could certainly be seen as evidence that Inara is not as nonchalant as her facade would indicate...

Oh, I think she's nonchalant about her work as a whole -- but I believe that Inara was so upset because, after all his snarky little comments about Companions, Mal slept with Inara's dear friend, a former Companion and current whore, and yet he never makes advances to Inara at all. From a big giant girl point of view, what that comes across as is that Mal's ok with Companions and whores in general, he's just contemptuous of Inara herself. You know, "We're in the same business,which he says he hates and he jumped into bed with her easy enough,so there must be something wrong with me personally that he dislikes."

"We're just happy to be doin' good works."

ANKHAGOGO

Monday, April 26, 2004 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Delia:
Mal seems to value honesty (can't say that I can point to a particular scene to prove that, just a general impression). Companioning (if Wash and GunHand can use it as a verb, so can I, darn it) is about artiface and acting. He says as much to Inara in Shindig.

This is a very good point that I'd totally forgotten about. Frankly, I personally have always wondered why Inara runs around the ship in her perfectly lovely gowns, all made-up and perfect when there's no-one but the crew there to see her. I'd be runnin' around in jeans and some trashy t-shirt as soon as we broke atmo.
It is a very artifical profession, and the fact that she keeps up the facade when she's among people I assume she considers friends is a little odd to me.
Interestingly, now that I'm thinking about it, the moment I started liking Inara was when she was dressed the most casually I can remember seeing her. It's in Our Mrs Reynolds, the whole "I only fell is all" scene -- she's got on a very simple dress-skirt combo that's really nothing like most everything else we see here in.
I'm kind of a costume dork, in the sense that I will often notice how clothing changes are meant to express some mood/attitude/important point we should be getting, and I think that was the whole point of that outfit -- to make her seem less stand-offish.

Quote:
Finally, I think calling her a whore, or diminishing what she does, is Mal's way of keeping some sort of barrier between them, picking fights to push her away when there's a danger of her getting too close.

I could not agree with you more, and maybe Inara's staying pretty all the time is part of her version of keeping Mal at a distance. When she's all dressed up, the difference in both station and education between her, and everyone else on the ship, is very obvious, and I find it a little off-putting. However, it doesn't really seem to bother any of the crewexceptMal. They're mostly not intimidated by her at all.
Someone said that maybe Mal thinks he can't "afford" her, which I took to mean he thinks she can do better than him, so he has no chance with her. I do kinda get that impression from Mal sometimes -- that he feels Inara couldn't possibly return his feelings because he's not rich, powerful, or educated.

"We're just happy to be doin' good works."

ZOID

Monday, April 26, 2004 1:49 AM

Delia wrote:

Quote:
Finally, I think calling her a whore, or diminishing what she does, is Mal's way of keeping some sort of barrier between them, picking fights to push her away when there's a danger of her getting too close.

Didn't your daddy ever tell you? When a boy's mean to you -- calls you names or sticks your pigtails in the inkwell -- it just means he likes you. I don't know about barriers; I think he just plain likes her, but doesn't know how to approach her because he likes her so much. He's got no problems with casual encounters like Nandi. The one that means something to him, though, is a different ball of wax.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River and me was best friends, back then. I named my first-born daughter after her. 'Course, you can't swing a dead cat 'round here on I-Day without hittin' a River..."

- Kaywinnit Tam, wife and mother of 6, A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

DELIA

Monday, April 26, 2004 1:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by zoid:

Didn't your daddy ever tell you? When a boy's mean to you -- calls you names or sticks your pigtails in the inkwell -- it just means he likes you. I don't know about barriers; I think he just plain likes her, but doesn't know how to approach her.

Actually, Zoid, it was my Mama who explained all that. (Though she left out the inkwell part). She also assures me that they grow out of it. . . but she never told me when. Maybe long around their 90th birthdays?

DELIA

Monday, April 26, 2004 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ankhagogo:
Frankly, I personally have always wondered why Inara runs around the ship in her perfectly lovely gowns, all made-up and perfect when there's no-one but the crew there to see her. I'd be runnin' around in jeans and some trashy t-shirt as soon as we broke atmo.

Okay, that had never occurred to me. It's an interesting point. I wonder, though, if her look would have causualed up as the show progressed, both as she got more comfortable with the crew and as the audience was expected to not need the visual reminder that she is who she is (so more for our benefit than hers).

ZOID

Monday, April 26, 2004 2:05 AM

Delia wrote:

Quote:
Actually, Zoid, it was my Mama who explained all that. (Though she left out the inkwell part). She also assures me that they grow out of it. . . but she never told me when. Maybe long around their 90th birthdays?

Wow, you're fast on the reply-side. I edited and was rereading when I saw you'd already responded (gulp)...

I don't know that men ever get over boyhood behavior, except artificially. We may put on airs, rationalize and alter our behavior; but at least part of our initial reaction to any situation is to behave childishly. I'm 45 and haven't cleansed myself of basic instinctive behavior; I just filter it (somewhat) better.

I suspect y'all 'distaff' types have got some childish instincts struggling to get free, too.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River and me was best friends, back then. I named my first-born daughter after her. 'Course, you can't swing a dead cat 'round here on I-Day without hittin' a River..."

- Kaywinnit Tam, wife and mother of 6, A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

ZOID

Monday, April 26, 2004 3:46 AM

Ankhagogo wrote:

Quote:
While I definitely agree with you on a personal level that no-one should sell their body, I suspect that attitude is a build-up of hundreds of years of the influence of Western religion/culture on a sociological view, and is perhaps peculiarly American. You know,the whole "sex is special thing and it should alwaysmean something so you shouldn't sleep with just anyone" line -- which is a view most often influenced by some religion. But it definitely hasn't always been that way -- someone mentioned courteseans, which was a very good point to bring up. Courteseans were having sex with men and getting paid for it, but there was alot more to it. It is a very European thing, and it's fairly hard for me to actually understand,due to the growing up in a fairly puritan country, but I do kinda think that may be the vibe they're going for with Inara.

Sorry for the longish quote, but it seemed to be of a piece...

Okay, first: Undoubtedly, our society is based on the so-called Judeo-Christian ethic. According to this ethic, sex is an expression of intimacy between heterosexually married couples (please keep the laughing down, I'm trying to get through this). While the 'married' aspect or the 'heterosexual' aspect of the equation may be more or less variable by historical era, the 'intimacy' aspect seems to be deeply important. Many people find that even casual sex -- let alone sharing the act with a complete stranger for monetary or other material reward -- is deeply disturbing to them. This feeling seems to be shared by those who live in non-traditional relationships, too, either out-of-wedlock or same-sex orientation. Being monogamous and committed is culturally important. Having sex with (many) strangers for money violates this cultural imperative.

This is undoubtedly because of our cultural emphasis on the importance of the individual human being. Other cultures demphasize the individual; as such, 'kamikaze' (self-sacrifice) and prostitutive behaviors are acceptable and even valued. I am not judging those other ethoses; they appear to be viable (e.g. their civilizations thrive and grow) even if they are sometimes in diammetrical opposition to ours. The tendency to view one's own culture as superior to differing cultural value systems is called 'ethnocentrism' and is perfectly normal, so long as it's not taken to extremes.

Aside from that, I have known many women who claimed to be liberated from Judeo-Christian guilt, who nevertheless got 'moody' after sex, or who entertained ideas about marriage (see "sex is an expression of intimacy between heterosexually married couples", above) after one or two repeat encounters. My point is that we are products of our culture, whether we like it or not. What we learn as children is reinforced by every aspect of our culture as we live and mature. We learn what normal behavior is, and we judge our own worth by that cultural standard.

I'll leave that fascinating (I think) topic, and go on to Point Two: European courtesans were the product of a Judeo-Christian ethos, as well. The trick of being a courtesan was in doing what was culturally banned -- having sex out of wedlock with typically powerful, married men -- without getting caught out-and-out doing it. (For an interesting exploration of the complications of courtly life, read Pierre Choderlos de Laclos' novel of 1782, Les Liaisons Dangereuses available in English translation, or see any of the three movies based on it. I personally prefer 1988's Dangerous Liaisons with Glenn Close and John Malkovich) It was a dangerous balancing act for those who chose the lifestyle. Great power could be gained from successfully gambling one's chastity and reputation; great ruination could come to those who got caught with a losing hand. And don't forget the diseases of Venus (hence, 'venereal') were as wasting and fatal then, as our generation's are now. Before the advent of penicillin in the 1930's, one could scarcely think of a more gruesome death than one caused

DELIA

Monday, April 26, 2004 2:18 PM

Zoid,

Didn't mean to reply too quickly -- I'm in the middle (well, I'm pretty near the beginning) of a massive paper, so I'm on my computer all the time, and checking the boards is keeping me sane.

Delia

ZOID

Monday, April 26, 2004 2:53 PM

Delia:

I was just teasin'. No offense taken and none intended toward you. Study hard.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

(Of River) "Little Sis? I could see big things for her all along. Her and her brother both. I always knew they'd be worth something, y'know?"

- Jayne Cobb, Game Warden and co-proprietor, "Cretaceous Park", Hera; from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 NEXT PAGE