Whedon-heads on alert!

When Buffy was first beamed into our houses -- er-- college dorm rooms, I'm not sure we really had any idea what it was. Some of us had seen the movie, Buffy the Vampire Slayer-- and recognized the title bore the summative weight of its solitary punchline: a tough superhero cheerleader? Named... "Buffy?" Sure, the committed nerds were already in for the long haul. And word soon leaked out that Joss Whedon's vision for the film Buffy had been so egregiously mishandled that he actually walked off the set, never to return. But I'm not too embarrassed to admit that I was among the folk who didn't take the show seriously. At first. Actually, it wasn't until years later, when I really watched episode after episode in sequential reruns, that I really understood that Buffy wasn't the sort of show that often graces the idiot box. In the intervening years, college courses have been taught about the cultural resonance and narrative arc of the show. Fancy critics and scholars have written paeans to its glory. Many of us will still tack a "y" onto a noun to macgyver up some new adjective-- little secret elbow jabs among the initiates. I think it's safe to say the show has secured its place in the very small pantheon of respectable television accomplishments.

So, when Joss Whedon cooks up some new venture, we all twitter anticipatorily and pray for the old magic. And this is where we are with Dollhouse-- not real sure if it's gonna be good, or if it's gonna be a disappointment. Now, Whedon's given himself something of a handicap with the general premise of the show. His main strengths as a television writer were never his action sequences or even his episodic drama. Buffy was a monster-of-the-week show and Dollhouse is dangerously close to encroaching on the territory of something like Alias. First of all, he really had a great way of inventing linguistically quirky, idiosyncratic dictions for his characters. Clearly, the man enjoys language. Secondly, Whedon famously plots out his shows, down to the letter, years in advance-- which gives them a remarkable sense of continuity. Some nasty monster appears in Season 2 and you can rest assured he becomes an offhand reference in Season 5. Since when have television characters had long-term memories?

But what was really amazing about Buffy was intrinsic to its essential soapiness. His characters actually grew, changed, developed, evolved in a manner nearly unprecedented in a television serial format. His eponymous character began as a narcissistic, peevish Valley girl who was smarter than she gave herself credit for being. But the end of Season 7, Buffy's persona was seamed over like Frankenstein's monster. Still narcissistic and snarky, perhaps, but she was also a wounded, twisty, fairly masochistic woman who'd learned to rise above her circumstances to meet her responsibilities-- to embrace them even (and her masochism too, actually).

The basic idea behind Dollhouse involves a bunch of "actives" who wind up part of this organization that rents them out for assorted purposes-- everything from run-of-the-mill call-girl duties to super-intense espionage and other action-y sorts of missions-- and then wipes their brains free of personality at the end of each "engagement." So, if what Whedon does best is anticipate the actions and psychological development of his characters 7 years on down the road, he's certainly given himself a unique challenge in devising a main character-- a placid, dimpled Echo, played by Eliza Dushku, of course-- who has no personality at all (save whatever inklings leak over from her previous real life and the slug-trails from her assorted engagements).

There's really no way of knowing yet whether he'll pull it off. The first three episodes have all been about establishment, and that's necessary, I suppose. They've been way action-packed, though and I'm surely hoping Whedon will back away from that a little so as to give us more of what he's good at-- the humor stuff and soul stuff. Of course, Fox has the thing programmed on Fridays at 9PM, which is as lousy a time slot as there ever was. But who knows? Maybe it'll get enough legs from Hulu views and die-hard Whedon-heads to chug along into a second season.

In the meantime, I'm crossing my fingers for it. I think it's after something pretty interesting. I mean, there are no other shows in which the main character is essentially a whore on major network television. Showtime's Secret Life of a Call Girl certainly doesn't count-- even if it weren't silly, moralizing, sentimental dreck-- because you have to pay extra money to your cable company to see it. But Whedon seems to have a real soft spot for girls who earn their keep selling pussy. There was the lovely Inara character from Firefly, and subsequently, the film Serenity. In that show, her profession of "Companion" granted her a certain elevated and prestigious status that extended well beyond her improbable gorgeousness. (Brazilian actress Morena Baccarin looks like a gene splice between Salma Hayek and Natalie Portman-- one luscious nugget.)

And who could forget the Buffy-bot? A made-to-order robot, designed to indulge the sexual whims of the besotted sadist-vampire, Spike? (For the record, I maintain Spike was really the only love interest Buffy ever had who was actually complicated enough to be worthy of her.) The Buffy-bot really did provide the ultimate "girlfriend experience," complete with hilarous, slightly off-target Buffy-isms and everything. And really, the greatest thing about her addition to the show was that, before long, she became part of the Sunnydale Gang. Sure, she was Spike's glorified blow-up doll, but she was so Buffy-esque that she quickly not only gained the respect of the group, but also became a necessary component of it. And not just because she was the Buffy who put out.

So, I'm plenty interested to see what Whedon does with his new Faith-bot. Er. I mean... what he does with Echo. As he seems so captivated by the idea of the sacred whore, I'm really hoping the Whedon Dolls will grow into their skins and become something more than programmable playthings. Crossing fingers.

all quiet in the online community

I've been watching for some --any-- of the sex worker-bloggers to post commentary on the suicide death of DC's own Deborah Jean Palfrey. But there's really nothing. I found this, via Fleshbot, but it's fairly perfunctory.

What gives? Is this not a case in point wherein a woman in the sex work industry suffers the ultimate while her very clients continue to make laws whereby they get themselves off scott free? Is this not worthy of some small mention from those more knowledge-equipped than I?

It's a strange sort of silence.

Why I wish old, fat Sicilian Republicans would stay the fuck out of my bedroom: An Open Letter to Justice Antonin Scalia

(I'm hoping this will be the final installation of this long series of muddled-thinkingish posts that I've been making about prostitution, and by extension, all victimless crime. As I think this gets at the heart of the matter, I'm hoping I can lay the issue to rest for a bit.)

Dear Your Honor,

It comes to my attention that you and I do not define morality in the same way. This troubles me because you, sir, are in a position to steer public policy in the direction of your definition far more expeditiously than I am. I am a lowly diletante-ish social commentator to an audience of a handful of friends. You are a Supreme Court Justice. I don't much like my definition's odds in that match-up. Do you?

Allow me to define moral behavior as I see it. It's really very simple. I think it's wrong to hurt people. That's it. That's the sum total of my dogma. If I were to extrapolate a little, I would concede that sometimes it's necessary to hurt other people, but in such cases as it's necessary, one should apply all due diligence to minimize the hurt inflicted. And one should also take responsibility, in whatever form it takes, for said inflicted hurts. Now, this guiding principle isn't so far off of the Biblical Golden Rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." But my dad has always had what I think is a very wise and elegant spin on the Golden Rule. He's often said, "Do unto others as they would be done unto." And I think the distinction is, indeed, golden. Put another way, not everyone wants to run his or her life in the way that I run mine. Not everyone wants the same things I do. Therefore, it would be inconsiderate, indeed, to inflict my preferences upon a person who would not choose the same things for him or herself. Surely, you see my point.

To provide an example of how I see my idea of morality in action, I would like to describe how I feel about driving a car. As I see it, every time I put gas in my car, I'm inflicting pain on other people. Therefore, it is immoral of me to drive a car. Allow me to explain: in the short term, both American and Iraqi people are being killed so as to provide for my continued ability to purchase gasoline to fuel my car. It is oil money that's funding this war in which we're entrenched and, insomuch as I give my money to the oil industry (and worse, own stock in an oil company), I'm contributing to the deaths of those people. In the longer run, I'm contributing to the depletion of natural resources and the pollution of the Earth's atmosphere. Sooner or later, that's going to inflict pain on pretty much the entire population of this planet, as, collectively, we're working very hard to render it uninhabitable by human beings. And so, for driving a car, I feel considerable moral anguish. I am selfish, though, I would rather not get up at 4:30am in order to have time to take the shuttle from my condo complex to the metro station, take the metro into DC, and then take a bus into Georgetown for work every morning. And so, I keep my car until I can figure out a way to afford living and working nearer a metro station. This is what I consider "living in sin."

Your idea, Justice Scalia, of sin includes butt-fucking. And incest, adultery, polygamy, prostitution, masturbation, obscenity (whatever that means), using sex toys, and of course, everyone's favorite, same-sex marriage. Now I might entertain an argument for considering incest to be harmful to other people-- genetic mixing within a very small pool often leads to entirely avoidable birth defects in the spawn of such pairings, and, well, let's face it: most incestuous relationships include an adult and a child who is probably too young and too under the authoritarian thumb of said adult to have the capacity to consent to such activitities. In some circumstances, yes, adultery can hurt one or more people-- if multiple consents are not acquired prior to engagement in adulterous behavior. But can someone please pause for a cotton-pickin' minute to explain to me who gets hurt by jacking off? Or even by butt-fucking (aside, I mean, from whatever minor abrasions might befall the anal opening, of course)?

As per this article from The New Republic, it seems that your definition of morality continues to hold sway. "Morality" pertains to "public decency," whatever the hell that means. This article cites political theorist, H.L.A. Hart, saying that Hart "famously insisted that law could only ban immoral acts that caused tangible harm to others." Now, while Hart appears to be on the right track here, I would argue that there are no immoral acts that do NOT cause tangible harm to others. The tangible harm is, in fact, what makes an act immoral. Now, this article is basically arguing that the idea that "the promotion of morality [is] one of the government's most important duties" is not so passe as I might be inclined to hope. Its gist is that your response to the Lawrence v. Texas ruling that legalized butt-fucking ("This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation.") was both preemptive and alarmist. And that might be true, except that butt-fucking isn't harm-causing and therefore isn't immoral and therefore has not a damn thing to do with "morals legislation."

Now, I would like to argue that your concept of morality does, in fact, hurt people and is therefore not moral at all. It is, in fact, completely immoral. Essentially, the laws that you position directly under that dubious umbrella of "moral legislation" all seek to restrict the private freedoms of American peoples. They seek to curtail our most basic civil liberties. The Declaration of Independence provides for our "inalienable rights:" "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." You remember, I'm sure. You, yourself, Your Honor, claim to prefer a most literal interpretation of legislation. So, what then if a person's idea of pursuing happiness includes butt-fucking? Or whoring? Or marrying someone of the same gender? How is the declaring of this so-called "moral" legislation valid something other than an intentionalist (as opposed to a textualist) interpretation of our government's inceptionary documents? Beyond that, how is denying a person their pursuit of happiness anything other than injuriously immoral?

I've written several motley and muddled blog posts about prostitution and how conflicted I feel about it not being legal. In truth, I recognize more than one facet of the issue-- to the point that I cannot definitively aver that prostitution is completely, totally, utterly 100% victimless. But, in an effort to remain true to my previously described coda, I think the greatest harm is inflicted via punishments to the women who claim this occupation. Please consult debauchette for more elucidation on that point.

Fundamentally, however, my feelings about prostitution are merely incidental to the heart of my argument. I've pussyfooted around this idea through the course of numerous posts. It's not really that I'm so terribly concerned about the fact that anti-prostitution legislation inflicts more terror and misery upon so many women-- many of whom are already disadvantaged. It's that I'm perfectly petrified that your idea of morality is already so codified into our legislature that it imposes itself upon my most basic liberties.

In the deepest, darkest recesses of my soul, maybe I'm not such a good little liberal after all. It seems that, the older and/or more informed I get, bigger and bigger chunks of my consciousness fall in line with the civil libertarians. A few years ago, I remember reading this very well-reasoned article in The Nashville Scene. It makes many, many good points. The article in its entirety is well worth reading, especially for folks of your ilk, Justice Scalia, but at the end of the piece, Roger Abramason, it's author, has this bit of advice for us bleeding hearts:

"If you are of a more liberal persuasion, the chances are that you think I'm only talking to social conservatives and their fellow travelers. Well, you're on the hook too. Because if we're going to truly start leaving people alone, that means we're going to have to actually leave people alone. We're going to have to let them make their own decisions, let them screw up on their own. And we're going to have to resist the compelling urge to use the government (there's that phrase again!) to pick the pockets of people who don't engage in self-defeating behaviors to compensate for those who do.

Because you can't have it both ways. You can't say that people should be left alone to behave the way they want but then make everyone else pay for the effects of that behavior. If, for instance, someone pisses away his check at the horse track, that's his own problem and not anyone else's. That means no assistance, no benefits, no nothing. Are you prepared to go that far? Because that's what leaving people alone means. If you're not prepared to go that far, then, to put it bluntly, you're not any better than the puritanical right. As the philosopher Erich Fromm once wrote, "if you want a Big Brother, you get all that comes with it." As for me, I'll pass.

I believe in personal responsibility. I really do. That's why I agree with Abramson when he says we need to refuse to allow our government to monitor private acts-- particularly as it pertains to sex. I may not agree with him when he advocates rescinding the benefits given to the underprivileged, but I do agree that much of that "morality legislation" discourages us from experiencing the natural consequences of our poor behavior. And I also believe that some of the things that you'd toss into that "poor (or stupid or disgusting or wrong or whatever) behavior" category seem perfectly acceptable to me. So, when you make laws that infringe upon my ability to take responsibility for my own actions, you're also infringing upon my basic freedoms. I resent the fuck out of you for that.

I'm not a child. You can trust me do to everything in my power to refrain from willfully inflicting harm upon my fellow humans. And if I can't refrain, I'll try really hard to mitigate the harm I can't help but inflict. I promise. That's not a burden I take lightly. All I ask is that you consider, even if it's just for a moment, that your respective concepts of right and wrong are, from an ethical standpoint, wholly arbitrary and based in an old-world religiosity to which many, if not most, Americans do not subscribe. And who are you to inflict your purely subjective and debatable ideas of morality on the rest of us? Who are you to contribute to law-making that restricts ALL of our behavior based on your very limited ideas of propriety? You are just one person, same as me.

Please. Just think about it.

Brownly and tanly yours,
M

(In my fantasy about Scalia reading this letter, he gets visibly uncomfortable, shifting his considerable heft in his over-sized leather desk chair, every time he reads the word "butt-fucking.")