Saffron's techniques

POSTED BY: PhoenixRose
UPDATED: Thursday, June 15, 2006 15:19
VIEWED: 6514
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

ONTHEDRIFT

Friday, June 2, 2006 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Eloisa:
I don't think it's fair to say that Inara was the easiest target. It's more likely, going on what she says later about not playing a player, that she realised something was up before the sirens started going and was hoping to get Saffron into a position where she could neutralise the threat when Yo-Saff-Bridge wasn't expecting an attack.

Exactly, Inara knew what was really going on from the moment Saffron started with her. She is a companion after all. Plus I think anyone could have seen that the seduction technique she tried with Inara did not fit in with the Saffron that was introduced to the crew. Saffron, a poor, uneducated, backwater gal married off for trade, desperate for Mal's (husband's) approval; is this really a person who is likely to be enlightened enough to realize, little alone desire, the sexual experience another woman could provide her. I'm thinking not. Inara, or anyone, would have seen right through that ploy.

ONTHEDRIFT

Friday, June 2, 2006 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
You have a good point, onthedrift. Quoting the "good bible" was a way to respond to the question of what is morally right, it's just the wording used that kinda caught my attention; "The woman shall open to the man as the frow to the plow, and he shall work in her, and again, til she bring him to his fall and rest him then on the sweat of her breast."
No mention of bringing her to her fall. Maybe it could be implied, and she went on to say he pretty much turns her on, but it was never more than implied.
Then with Wash: "She was open, inviting, and the stars would rush into her; through the skin of her, making the oceans boil with sensation. And when she could stand no more ecstasy she puffed up her cheeks and blew out the sky."
In this "good myth" it's the feminine pleasure that's spoken about, and the masculine pleasure that is implied (stars rushing into her...)
I absolutely think you're right that she thought someone different from Zoe might appeal to him, and she did act very different, but it was still in a certain way focused on her more than him ("Show me the stars" rather than, for example, "Let me show you the stars" or even "Let us see the stars") and Wash was very close to being taken in by that, even wishing he was "someone else" at that point. So the idea of her pleasure is what was turning him on, whereas with Mal it was more the idea of his pleasure. Though again hers was mentioned, he was already taken in by that point, and her saying that she wanted him just took it over the top.
In my experience, it's usually the more dominant, "captainy" men who would be more aroused by the idea of their own pleasure, while slightly more submissive men really like the idea of a lady's pleasure, which brings them pleasure in turn. Now, dominant men aren't always selfish lovers, per se, but they are more likely to be. If they don't think about it too much, you know. The type of man who more likes the idea of a woman being pleased really just doesn't know how to be a selfish lover. Of course this is all just in my experience, which is admittedly fairly limited. But I still think it fits the characters pretty well.

**********************************

You are right PhoenixRose, there are most definitely different gender issues used against both men. It does raise interesting questions about their characters to look at it solely from that perspective. Question though, to your knowledge does the bible ever even obliquely reference a woman's "fall" or her pleasure at all for that matter? I'm admitting my own limited experience in this arena of knowledge, and not trying to be insulting, just saying that it definitely seems more male-centric; whereas many myths that I have heard appear to have at least equal opportunity gender roles. Running with your theory of Saffron's takes on Wash and Mal, this could explain an earlier post questioning why she used the bible on Mal and a myth on Wash. Bible more focused on men, Myth more focused on Women. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying??
And "captainy" men, huh...

KPO

Friday, June 2, 2006 10:18 PM

Quote:
to your knowledge does the bible ever even obliquely reference a woman's "fall" or her pleasure at all for that matter? I'm admitting my own limited experience in this arena of knowledge, and not trying to be insulting, just saying that it definitely seems more male-centric; whereas many myths that I have heard appear to have at least equal opportunity gender roles. Running with your theory of Saffron's takes on Wash and Mal, this could explain an earlier post questioning why she used the bible on Mal and a myth on Wash. Bible more focused on men, Myth more focused on Women. Perhaps I'm over-simplifying??

There's no verse in the bible (err, of this planet) about bringing a man or a woman to his/her fall (although it does talk about a man and his wife becoming 'one flesh').

Our bible I would say is generally pretty male-centric - in that most of the main characters are male, and wives are supposed to 'submit to their husbands' and things like that. However the only sensual passages I can think of in the bible are in Song of Songs, which is written from a female point of view. Nothing steamy though - the bible's not really that kind of book... and the whole thing is taken as a metaphor for something else.

Also, some people (not christians) interpret the story of the garden of eden, where eve takes the forbidden fruit, as a metaphor for a female giving into sexual temptation, with a consequent loss of innocence.

The people that hold this view of the bible see a reference to female sexual pleasure, but they would also consider it to be a myth...

PHOENIXROSE

Saturday, June 3, 2006 3:53 AM

A patriarchal religion talking about women being pleased or happy? Puh-leeze!
Ahem. Sorry.
No, but that still doesn't change the original point. The quotation she used was carefully chosen/written. That she chose to say it was a bible is almost beside the point, except that it was a fitting context.

**********************************

SUZFROMOZ

Saturday, June 10, 2006 5:56 AM

Quote:
A few more alarm free minutes, and Jayne would have been heading for his bunk.

Interesting - I have wondered whether people interpret that scene the same way - I have always taken it that Inara was playing her all along, and just ran out of time when the alarm went. Inara's expression changes immediately the alarm starts - no dawning realisation.

On an somewhat unrelated not, i saw YoSaffBridg on Las Vegas this week (we are probably a season behind over here!) and I was amazed at the similarity fo the character - docile and 'nice' to begin with, but turns out to be a con artist. Seems to be a bit typecast - anyone seen her in anything else?

DEEPGIRL187

Saturday, June 10, 2006 7:46 PM

I saw that episode too, and you're not a season behind. It was on about a month and a half ago in the States. I remember not planning on watching that episode, but once I saw YoSaffBridge, I had to stay for the whole thing. I wonder if the writers of Vegas are fans of Firefly, due to the similarity of the characters.

*************************************************

It's just an object. It doesn't mean what you think.

KPO

Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:48 AM

Quote:
A patriarchal religion talking about women being pleased or happy? Puh-leeze!
Ahem. Sorry.

You've lost me. Is there an emoticon for a blank stare somewhere?. Anyway, I am confounded by your snarky cynicsm. Is it possible you've misunderstood where I'm coming from?

Quote:
No, but that still doesn't change the original point. The quotation she used was carefully chosen/written. That she chose to say it was a bible is almost beside the point, except that it was a fitting context.

Err, I wasn't aware we were really disagreeing on anything... I'll tell you my opinion and you can maybe point out where

Let's see - I think you're on to something about the difference in male psyche as the reason for the different seduction techniques. You've been quite shrewd to recognise that female pleasure is a turn on to men, and some more than others - i'm not aware of a female equivalent feeling...? anyway well done.

I'm happy with your conclusion that captainy type men are less aroused by female pleasure than wash type men and therefore are more likely to be selfish lovers. I reckon 'love' can more than compensate for this though - Mal I reckon would have a desire to cherish and take care of a lover - this would be a different type of attention to wash's and although I think it doesn't appeal to you as much, I suspect a lot of women would prefer that. (I've made some judgements about you and your gender here - forgive me if they're wayward)

Ironically it was I think this chivalrous sense towards women that saffron had to overcome in order to seduce him. While mal was probably drawn towards that which was (supposedly) sweet and innocent and pure, he couldn't partake of her without violating his sense of chivalry, which was to look out for what was best for her. Recall - "I'd be a terrible husband."

Hehe. Did I just say "partake of her"? Can I get away with that?

Anyway saffron had to evolve into a creature who was more clued up about the world and knew what she wanted, so that sex wouldn't seem like taking advantage of her. She had to really want that sex, and show it. But she couldn't suddenly turn into a slut when she'd been playing all innocent, so she developed the persona of an earnestly religious girl (which fits with the rest of her story about a backwards world) following her own erotic subservient desires instilled in her by scripture. And why not concoct an explicit passage to recite, to put the right kind of picture in mal's head?

I don't think raising the subject of religion was to push mal's buttons in any way, but i think we're agreed on that, right? Stated above are my theories for why religion entered the conversation.

As for the patriarchal religions, I only really know about christianity, and Judaism where it overlaps.

Quote:
A patriarchal religion talking about women being pleased or happy? Puh-leeze!

Perhaps you're thinking specifically on Islam? Are you a liberal with that annoying tendency to equate all three religions? I can understand why over in the states you lot like do that, as a lot of the faces of christianity that you see are quite ugly. But what I said about the bible was accurate, if you know better then disagree as vocally as you like...(NB. this is a bluff, I don't really want to get into a debate on gender relations in the bible. Up to you though.)

So, that's me summed up on the issue. Where do we disagree in all that? I'm sure we'd disagree plenty about christianity but i'd rather talk about firefly

CAUSAL

Sunday, June 11, 2006 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by singate:
The only "techniques" she needed were located about a foot beneath her chin.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

PHOENIXROSE

Sunday, June 11, 2006 3:24 AM

No, I am not thinking specifically of Islam. I won't say they're all the same religion, but they are all patriarchal and they do all worship the same God. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember something in the bible about women being to blame for "original sin" and deserving to be punished for that. I also seem to remember that the only female biblical figure who ever got any enjoyment out of sex is considered demonic and evil. I haven't read the thing cover to cover, though, so again you can correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not overly interested in a debate about it either, though, so you don't have to.

Anyway, back on topic, I think you put it very well. And yes, a chivalrous (sp?) man would cherish a lover, and that can be good, too. As you said, love has to enter the equation. For me it's always there anyway. Many are selfish lovers if they don't love or at least deeply care about a person, so I agree. I will say that it can be a turn-on to know your lover is turned on, regardless of gender. I very much enjoy knowing I am really pushing someone's hot buttons. But that might be a subject for the Imponderables thread rather than this one. Part of why I think I would prefer attention akin to Wash's is because it would compliment and mirror my own. I might be unusual in this respect; I'm not sure. There are plenty of women who claim they're happy so long as their lover is happy, but I don't always buy it.
I guess you can get away with "partake of her" if you want to.

***********

KPO

Monday, June 12, 2006 2:13 AM

Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember something in the bible about women being to blame for "original sin" and deserving to be punished for that.

That's the story of eve taking the forbidden fruit in the garden of eden (tempted by the serpent), and sharing it with adam.

God's punishment for adam was a life of toil outside of the garden, the punishment for the serpent was that he crawl on his belly in the dust (i suppose he had legs previously) and God's punishment for eve was:

"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

That was God's verdict on 'the fall'. I've never heard it taught in christian preaching or writing that women are especially to blame because eve was first to eat the forbidden fruit. No doubt in america there will be those types of christians though, who i'm sure are quite vocal about it.

The fruit eating incident is held against womankind only once in the bible that i can think of, as an argument for why women shouldn't instruct men on spiritual matters. This i think is to do with her being deceived by the serpent (who is generally associated with the devil) in the first place. It seems to be to some extent suggesting an intellectual deficiency in women.

It's also worth noting that this story of original sin is generally referred to later on in the bible as 'adam's sin' - as I say, the bible is very male-centric in terms of narrative.

Quote:
I also seem to remember that the only female biblical figure who ever got any enjoyment out of sex is considered demonic and evil.

I honestly can't think what you could be referring to. The bible doesn't really say anything about sexual pleasure for either sex, as i said earlier.

It is accepted in the bible that men and women have 'passions' (sex drives), and you are never rebuked for it. Sensuality is celebrated in the book 'Song of songs' (from a female point of view), but the emphasis is on romantic feeling rather than sexual pleasure.

That's all I can think of that is relevant to say about the bible as regards women and original sin/sexual pleasure. I think you could well argue that the bible is sexist because it patronises women (by western society's modern standards), but never does it despise or dehumanise them, or paint them as sinful creatures any more than men.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE