GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Tim Minear reveals another unfilmed FF episode

POSTED BY: BLINKER
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 21:31
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 41599
PAGE 3 of 3

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:46 PM

SPACEHOPPER


Before she actually talked to Fess, which thing did you think was guaranteed to happen while she was with him? That she would have sex with him or that she would end up helping him to become a stronger person?

Obviously we expected sex; that's what she's paid to do and, although the psychological help was more valuable to Fess, she gained nothing from it. There are two ways you can view that particular interaction:

1) This scene shows how wise Inara is when it comes to these sorts of issues and that she is the sort of person who will happily help others in need when it comes to her areas of expertise.
2) This is in fact just another technique she learned to help seduce people like Fess, and his mental well-being was never really on her mind; it was just a device to get him to have sex with her so that she could get paid for doing her job.

Either way, if Fess didn’t have the insecurities that he did, or he didn't voice them, she would have had sex with him all the same. Fess was grateful for the mental help she gave him, but she was paid for the sex that ensued; just like a regular prostitute.

As for the 'whore or not' issue, that boils down to your opinions on the principles of selling yourself for sex. A whore is someone who compromises principle for personal gain. Companions and prostitutes both sell their bodies for financial gain; if you consider having sex with someone for money as compromising on principles, then companions and common prostitutes are both whores, if not, then neither are.

And 'diner' is not a derogatory word, it’s a name given to restaurants that are housed in buildings designed to look like dining cars. The only reason you wouldn’t ever call a 5-star eatery a diner is because none of them happen to be of the diner design.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:33 PM

AGENTROUKA


XG--

And still you haven't bothered to give an answer your own self.

Though, truthfully, I can't even read your post without laughing at you. Is there a point to any of it?


Your estimation of my professional life is certainly flattering, too.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 1, 2005 2:54 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by SpaceHopper:

As for the 'whore or not' issue, that boils down to your opinions on the principles of selling yourself for sex. A whore is someone who compromises principle for personal gain. Companions and prostitutes both sell their bodies for financial gain; if you consider having sex with someone for money as compromising on principles, then companions and common prostitutes are both whores, if not, then neither are.



I find, I can completely agree with that. It's sort of what I mean, except much more clearly said.


Basically, Mal calls Inara a whore because she compromises his principles with what is her own business.

Except he doesn't seem to have a problem with all prostitution, just her, judging by "Heart of Gold". Which calls into question the solidity of his principles. But then, it's pretty clear that the "whore" comments are fuelled by personal reasons rather than philosophical, so whatever.

Thanks for the discussion. *g*



Quote:


And 'diner' is not a derogatory word, it’s a name given to restaurants that are housed in buildings designed to look like dining cars. The only reason you wouldn’t ever call a 5-star eatery a diner is because none of them happen to be of the diner design.



I didn't know that. Thank you for the trivia. Substitute it with fast food joint, then.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 2, 2005 11:19 AM

XEROGRAVITY


Ahh.. some people in life... you can answer them direct, you can reanswer when they reword and then re-ask the same question over and over. But, they always can reask the question as if somehow the answer you gave them made no sense.

It's a debating tactic (the "stall") that hopefully will die one day.

How about if you give your moral and ethical argument for "WHY" prostituion is so acceptable.

Would sure beat the hell out of you dancing around the subject.

AGENTROUKA: Why is prostitution a legitimate profession? What are YOUR views on the morality of it?

2 simple questions. Direct.

Help me to understand. I'm openminded. Make me know the answers to these questions. OR, rather than answer, maybe you could ask me "WHY" I would ask you why I would ask you if prostitution is a legitimate profession (no that's not an accidental doubletype). Maybe you could ask me why I would ask YOUR views on the morality of it. Maybe.

Anyone can infinitely doublespeak their way out of a debate rather than answer direct questions. They usually end up as lawyers, doctors, or politicians.

I've answered your questions... it's way past your turn to do the same. Your position is a tenuous one, and you're avoiding it.

XG


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 2, 2005 11:48 AM

AGENTROUKA


It looks we're getting somewhere. :)

Quote:

Originally posted by XeroGravity:

AGENTROUKA: Why is prostitution a legitimate profession? What are YOUR views on the morality of it?

2 simple questions. Direct.



1) Because it doesn't harm anyone.

Prostitution in and of itself is nothing but an exchange of money for services. The things that make it dangerous for prostitutes have nothing to do with the concept itself but rather the circumstances surrounding it.
Like poverty. Women who are prostitutes against their will or because they are economically forced to be, for one.
Violence. Which is a crime, regardless of whether used against a prostitute or any other woman. Lack of legal protection makes prostitution (especially poverty-induced, involuntary prostitution) vulnerable to this. Similarly, violence by prostitutes against their customers, for theft or the like, is a crime born of poverty or just plain badness, not the concept of prostitution.
Disease. Which is a problem of carelessness on both sides and up to the individual him- and herself just like with unpaid sex.
Social stigma. Which, as I argue, is unjust.

All those are are social problems not inherent in the concept of prostitution itself.


2) Something that doesn't harm anyone, I find no problem with.
Prostitution wouldn't be around if there wasn't a market for it. Supply and demand. People have always been willing to pay for sex, so sex is for sale, by men and women.

As long as the prostitute is in the business out of her own free will (and that includes being of age and having a professional alternative) I see no victim, no harm, no reason to condemn.

Same goes for the customer. Long as it is his free will to visit the prostitute and he pays what he owes, no harm done.

If either of those parties are cheating on a significant other, that makes them immoral, but on a personal level. They could just as well be cheating without pay involved, so again it has nothing to do with prostitution. It has to do with them being cheats.

Someone who values sex as a sacred bond between husband and wife and/or two people in love, well, they won't be getting into that business, now will they? No harm, either.



Now, you could perhaps explain in short, precise sentences what it is you do find objectionable about it, and who it is harming, if at all.



Quote:


Help me to understand. I'm openminded. Make me know the answers to these questions.



I can't make you know anything. I can only politely state my personal views, as you refuse to do.

Quote:


OR, rather than answer, maybe you could ask me "WHY" I would ask you why I would ask you if prostitution is a legitimate profession (no that's not an accidental doubletype). Maybe you could ask me why I would ask YOUR views on the morality of it. Maybe.



Now why would I wanna do that? (Heh.) You asked directly, I answered.

Like I did before. Except you didn't answer and instead went on to insult me.


Quote:


I've answered your questions... it's way past your turn to do the same.



No, you haven't. Your answer was "If you don't get it now, you never will", which in my book is not an answer. It's childish evasion, sweety.


So step up to the plate or stop trying to psycho-analyze me. It's amusing, for certain, but it also makes me wonder just what your hang-up with tertiary education is. Or psychologists. Or medical professionals. I won't ask about Freud, because that man truly was a nutcake.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 2, 2005 4:02 PM

XEROGRAVITY


Heh. Your stock is rising with me. I thought I was the only person on Earth who thought Freud was a nutjob.

I come from a long line of quacks. I was the black sheep in the family who didn't go medical. No hangup, but a distinct queeziness. The antiseptic smell of hospitals repulses me.

We fundamentally agree on many things in principle. Such as the causes and conditions that drive someone into prostitution. If it's forced, then it's slavery. However, that's where the similarities end.

If it's a laissez-faire service between consenting adults, I don't buy into the whole poverty excuse. Better to live on the edge of starvation or beg then go that route. I think someone should be willing to fight to survive and even risk death from starvation before they dehumanize themselves like that. If they are claiming to do it for fun, it's a selfrespect and selfesteem issue. That's how I view it. Not speaking from experience, so it could easily be argued I have no right to have such views. But I do.

I just can't make the leap that it's ever acceptable when it's a choice they make. The whole 3rd world is filled with women living under crushing poverty (many of whom have many children and no husband or family to help provide for them). If they have a will to survive, I believe they can always manage survival without choosing to sell themselves.

BTW... you just called me "sweety". I've been assuming you were a dude up until now. I'm guessing I was wrong.

XG


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 3, 2005 1:55 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by XeroGravity:
Heh. Your stock is rising with me. I thought I was the only person on Earth who thought Freud was a nutjob.



Hardly!

Quote:


I think someone should be willing to fight to survive and even risk death from starvation before they dehumanize themselves like that. If they are claiming to do it for fun, it's a selfrespect and selfesteem issue. That's how I view it. Not speaking from experience, so it could easily be argued I have no right to have such views. But I do.



Well, if a person hates the idea of selling sex and does it anyway, well, that's their personal problem. Again, it has nothing to do with the concept itself.

Poverty can make a person turn into a thief. That it will make a person turn into a prostitute isn't that much of a stretch. It's just a fact, and a sad one. People will make moral compromises when pressed.

Personally, I find thieving to be the morally questionable one, whereas prostitution is only a case of compromising personal values.

I find it a bit narrow-minded to assume that any person who willingly goes into the business (as it should be) has self-esteem issues. Their personal boundaries are different, but that doesn't make them damaged in any way.

Sex is just sex. It's not inherently degrading. Whatever informs the experience is tied to the circumstances.

If it's love, then it's personal and intimate and fun.
If it's lust, it's less personal and intimate, but no less fun.
If it's rape, it's traumatizing and wrong.
If it's a choice against your inclination, well, it's probably going to be bad.
If it's for money, then it'll be a show, fake and probably not much fun, either, but that doesn't mean it would be wrong. Or degrading. It would just not be personal or intimate or fun.

(Matter of fact, selling my brain to do mind-numbing office work is also no fun at all.)

If you are so inclined, you can combine lust and pay, which is probably a very rare case, though.

I have no illusions about paid sex being fun for a prostitute. But it's her body and her choice and assuming it's automatically degrading is saying some very judgmental things about her right to do with her body as she pleases.



Quote:


BTW... you just called me "sweety". I've been assuming you were a dude up until now. I'm guessing I was wrong.



As girly as they come. But would a guy calling you sweety be shocking?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 5, 2005 12:57 AM

XEROGRAVITY


Would a "guy" calling me "sweety" be "shocking"?

Yes. Are you a guy? You've called me sweety. Should I be shocked? The answer to that question is hinged on you answering questions. I asked you if you were a guy, you answered "as girly as they come". Clever. Not a yes, or a no. Just a riddle. Like I said. Answer a question with a question. Never take a stand.

Duck and dodge direct questions, answer questions with questions. Or perhaps subtle statements that presume questions. Never answer direct. It's always such a mystery. You've diffused every attempt at direct questioning thru the whole length of this thread. You've redirected the arguments endlessly. I smell lawyerific cross-examination abilities in you. A hopelessly unwinnable logicloop that never ends.

You entered a very interesting thread of discussion a while back and managed to kill it. Kudos, you do your dirty work very very well.

I'm sorry... where were we? Oh yeah... rape and prostitution. Umm... yes rape is bad... prostitution is bad! or (?) in place of (!). Can you tell me if I'm right or wrong? I forget where we were. Definately could use some direction. Or redirection. Confusing. Unconfuse me? Or confuse me. It's all good. Just as long as it's at an end.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 5, 2005 1:09 AM

AGENTROUKA


XG -

I killed the discussion?

That's an amusing theory. And all because I wouldn't answer direct whether I'm of the XX or XY chromosome persuasion?

I didn't realize you would be that easy to distract from the very clear discussion point I made in the rest of my last post. Nor did I realize it mattered so terribly.

Fear not, I'm no more interested in keeping this going than you.


Though, I admit, I'll miss the numerous allegaions as to my professional life. Doctor. Psychiatrist. Now lawyer! Where else could I be flattered like this on a regular basis?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 5, 2005 4:07 AM

ZEKE023


You ever read "SNOW CRASH" - perhaps it wasn't a disease at all. Perhaps it was an instrument to inject the poison into anyone who raped her. Something that she..well... inserted.

Last I heard, they sell these in Africa... although they don't inject poison - they just shy of casterate the guy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 4:20 AM

XEROGRAVITY


AGENTROUKA:

I broke you. I win by default.

I would have loved to see where this debate went but you weren't strong enough. I win because you are weak.

XG

**I am the triumphant planter of the seed, gloriously basking in the magnificent splendor of woman-whores feeding me grapes**


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 4:27 AM

XEROGRAVITY


..and don't even try the 23rd-chromosome argument.

Your duty in life is to reproduce progeny. Fetching beer can and potentially could be a highlight to a reproductive career. It could be the ticket to promotion... floor mopper? Maybe dish washer? No promises, just possibilities.

It's your choice.

XG




No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just suck. And I like to debate. Not win by default. Don't surrender (unless you're French).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 7, 2005 3:36 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by XeroGravity:
..and don't even try the 23rd-chromosome argument.

Your duty in life is to reproduce progeny. Fetching beer can and potentially could be a highlight to a reproductive career. It could be the ticket to promotion... floor mopper? Maybe dish washer? No promises, just possibilities.

It's your choice.

XG





You're so adorable. *g*


By all means, I'll continue the debate if you are eager to. My points above are still valid. Reply if you feel strong enough.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 8, 2005 6:11 AM

XEROGRAVITY


So you accept the challenge. Well done.

I'll steal a play out of your playbook and ask some questions (when I should be answering them).

We'll start with a single simple question.

I've called prostitution dehumanizing. You're defending it.

What's your definition of a human? What does it mean to be human. I mean, c'mon already, to be human is to have "freedom of choice" ~ perfectly plausible ideal, and an "easy out" when it comes to answering that question.

We're in the aftermath of the free-love revolution of the 60s. It used to mean freedom to pick whom you slept with, how many people you slept with and how often, whether or not you had to honor the whole marriage agreement (to divorce or not to divorce), etc. Now it's coming down to a person's right to sell their sexuality for money. It's their birthright to decide what they do with their sexuality.

When will my using the word "whore" to refer to someone taking money for sex become a lifedestroying stain against me in a politically correct world? That day is rapidly approaching, and along with it, a day when sex-for-sale will be a civil right.

What happens in Vegas, doesn't stay in Vegas. It ends up on HBO and spreads everywhere.

So, before we debate whether prostitution is morally wrong and/or dehumanizing, I'm asking you a question. What is your definition of a "human"?

XG


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 8, 2005 10:34 AM

SHAMBLEAU


On the issue of the syringe, I agree with someone's suggestion above that it's an assassin's weapon. Why does Inara have a fake incense stick which is really a flash bomb? Why is she good with a sword? A bow and arrow? Why does she have fighting skills? She put up a good fight against both the Operative and Saffron. She had a knife at Rance Burgess's throat in an instant. While these are useful skills in a savage environment, Companions service the rich in safe places, like Companion Houses or luxury liners. Why would they have these skills? In the old days, geishas and courtesans might be well-versed in the "feminine" arts, but there's no history of them being knowledgeable about hand-to-hand combat, is there? So there's not even a historical precedent.

Saffron can kick ass. Where did she learn that? Nandi had a collection of guns and was a tough woman. Why is the Companion's Guild taking women like this when they presumably spend most of their time dealing with pampered rich men and women?

If the Guild has a secret, political side, a la the Bene Gesseret in Dune, then Inara's syringe makes sense. You would use it on a target, so you'd have time to inject yourself before the victim shows up. They die later, you're gone, and, if it's the right kind of poison, it leaves no traces and you're free and clear.

Knowing beforehand that you're going to be raped and then injecting yourself in order to kill the perpetrator is too far-fetched to be the normal intended use, although, in the case of the possible Reaver boarding in the pilot, it would have worked that way. Maybe Inara works for the Guild, taking out the occasional client. Or she left because she was horrified when she was asked to do so (more in keeping with her personality, I think), but kept the syringe (a tad unlikely, I admit).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 8, 2005 10:59 AM

AGENTROUKA


Don't be so condescending, dearest. I don't need to be praised for indulging you.


Humanity? That's a trap argument and you know it.

The definition of "human" has absolutely nothing to do with an individual's choice (Yes, choice!) to do with themselves as they please.

Adult age. Ability to give (and deny) informed consent. That's what counts here.


I'll take the only question that has any relevance.

Quote:

Originally posted by XeroGravity:

When will my using the word "whore" to refer to someone taking money for sex become a lifedestroying stain against me in a politically correct world? That day is rapidly approaching, and along with it, a day when sex-for-sale will be a civil right.



It's the difference between homosexual and "fag".

Some people's religions denounce homosexuality as sin, yet it has (rightfully) become socially unacceptable to refer to gay people in derogatory ways.

That's because private misgivings shouldn't be public standard.

So, in my perfect world, it would indeed be socially damaging to call prostitutes "whores" unless they have reclaimed the word for themselves and/or it has stopped meaning more than just a neutral description. It's way more than that right now.

Quote:


So, before we debate whether prostitution is morally wrong and/or dehumanizing, I'm asking you a question. What is your definition of a "human"?



I am not arguing about dehumanizing. You are. If you want to bring the topic into conversation, explain your reasoning.

The only thing that could - in my mind - touch the integrity of a person's emotional state and sense of dignity (and mind, I'm referring to how the person perceives him/herself, which is what should count) would be coercion of some kind. Take away free will and you hurt the person.

With free will? Still fail to see what the harm is supposed to be.

Now, by all means, surprise me and actually state a clear argument.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, December 8, 2005 8:17 PM

XEROGRAVITY


Ahh I know your type. I dropped out of college and threw away some kind of promising career at something or other to follow a woman just like you.

How I came to know her is irrelevant. She was different and the sex was spectacular. Off the charts.

We travelled down the coast smoking weed in a bong and partied on my credit cards. It was the best time of my life, and if I could travel back through time to "fix" things (change the outcome), I wouldn't change a damned thing. It was the best time of my life (and the most damning part of it).

I fell in love with a whore, and she did too vice-a-versa. And know she wasn't faking cuz all these many years later I still hear from her. Nothing has changed. I came to know every last horrific detail of her life. And I can't seem to escape her continuous contact (not that I actually want to).

I know you better than you would or could imagine I could. Lemme guess... you had sexually abusive parent(s), you escaped home, got forced into a life of prostitution. A life full of nightmare stories enormous enough to fill volumes of books. Or, whatever.

Not knocking it. Not doubting it. Just I've already been 1sthand sympathetic to it (with consequences). You asked me to "explain my reasoning". So there it is.

I don't hate whores. I love'm. Won't pay for them, but I know where they are coming from. Once you fiddle with one, it ruins you for all other women. Or teaches you how to train them to please men. I know I know. That is such an ugly statement. But somehow true. Someone please explain divorce rates and infidelity rates to me. Ahh the lies we lead (I'm sorry, I meant the lives we lead).

Agentrouka: I know you better than you think I do. I suspected something about you from the get-go but had to prod and pry to get you to finally post a little bit of honesty. For once you're not acting like some phoney lawyer type. I reserve "whore" for women who marry men for money, and not the ones who get paid for the forgettable deniable act (choice or otherwise).

Ahh what a magical wonder the truth can perform.

XG


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, December 9, 2005 5:04 AM

AGENTROUKA



Now I'm a type? And oh, what a particular type, as well. Adventuresome life I do lead.

I'd hate to scratch away at the (fourth, fifth?) version of me you have conjured up, so I'll leave it to your imagination how far off the mark you may or may not be.

Though, I find it fascinating that someone who professes to distrust psychology is so very enarmored with "analyzing" and casting into types. My argument can't stand on its own, you have to construct a whole life story behind it to explain why and how.

Tell me, do my thoughts reflect on my shoe size, as well? My preferred length of fingernails? My dishwashing habits?


Quote:

Originally posted by XeroGravity:
Agentrouka: I know you better than you think I do. I suspected something about you from the get-go but had to prod and pry to get you to finally post a little bit of honesty.



You suspected from that start that I must be a prostitute from a broken home. Wow. How dare I have tried to hide this obvious fact.

Of course, I had foolishly believed that I was being honest about my opinion all this time.

For what it's worth, that one application of whore I can agree with, although everything else you said in your last posts completely contradicts the opinions you have uttered before, what with the horrible, immoral, society-destroying effects of prostitution and such...


Have a nice weekend, though. *g*

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2005 2:58 AM

XEROGRAVITY


Oh phtphtpht!

I've been trying to figure out what motivates you to take such an absurd pro-hooker position.

You're one of 2 types of people:

(1) Perhaps you're some supremely all-knowing ivory tower hipocrite who spouts off at the mouth about the nobility of whoring, yet has no 1sthand experience. It's all political theory to you. Maybe you're a manhating femlib college professor, maybe you're a desperate house wife who reads too much and thinks your husband is some kind of Ghengis Khan oppressor (you Scorpionwoman you!). Maybe you're not even a woman. Maybe you're a man. Maybe you're a gay man trapped inside a woman's body. (which technically is genderbendingly debateable, and kinda funny).

(2) Or someone who has been there, done that, and now wants to justify it. Most in that situation didn't arrive there by choice. They are all wracked with guilt, ashamed, and know it's disgusting. But condeming it makes them feel like they are worthless lesser human beings because it's self-recrimination. And those who do it because they just feel like it, well... they got issues.



To get to that point, in debating this with you I have to wade through layer after layer of intellectual interference. Never speak plainly, never clearly state what you believe and why. Just innundate me with aristocratic blubbering from an elightened point of view.

It's the type of psychobabbling crap reserved for lawyers, politicians, "educators", and educated people who have to dance in the nebulous world of "know-it-all'ery" (like psychiatrists, and their psychology-major minions).

(like all of the above actually).


When did a little piece of paper from college suddenly make other people godlike arbiters of the truth? The Internet is the last bastion of free debate. That's why I love it so much.

XG


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:53 AM

AGENTROUKA


XG --

You know, I stopped taking you seriously a long while ago, but now you're not even fun to toy with anymore!

Getting all huffy like that and exposing yourself for a closed-minded, judgmental pop-psychologist?

Still not making ONE SINGLE POINT in favor of your own argument instead of just sitting there, whining about my debating style and then trying to give yourself credibility by imagining up a completely unfounded backstory for my opinions?


I'm sorely disappointed. There goes my shallow entertainment.

I'll have some popcorn in your memory.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, December 10, 2005 9:58 PM

XEROGRAVITY


You win.

Your intellectually superior position which instantly annihilates my debating points, combined with your out-of-hand dismissal of the subject matter has left me defeated. You won because you ceased to take me serious. I'm a joke.

I surrender, and accept prostitution is the future of humanity. Perpetuation of the species without profit is so trite. I will return to the peasant life of poor dirt farmer from whence I came. Maybe one day, I might find a woman of sufficient breeding stock, we can spawn, intermingle our DNA, and produce a master-breed of hookers and pimps (lemme rephrase that... companions and love brokers).

Maybe.

I don't want to dream big dreams and be disappointed. I've long wished to find a woman who could bear me many profitable pieces of saleable offspring.

Fruit of my loins. Dollars in my bank account.

You're intellect is overwhelming. How could I stand up to such overpowering uberhuman intelligence? Your articulate non-explanations were convincing (in an avoidably unconvincing sort of way).

Forgive my boldness. Back to my plough.

XG


No such thing as gravity. The "Earth-that-was" just sucks.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, January 10, 2006 9:31 PM

ANANTI


Just a thought on the original subject, and the debate over whether it made sense to be able to inject one-self with this subject prior to an attack.

Has it occurred to people that Companions inject themselves with this regularly, and that the only way for someone to have sex with them and NOT die is to first be offered the antidote prior to the sex, or the companion herself has to take the antidote prior to the act.

Could it be that's why Inara insists on a tea ceremony before the act, because the tea contains the antidote.

And perhaps that's why Companion romances are "complicated", because they literally cannot have sex with anyone based on passion and and spur of the moment feeling, they are forced to go through a tea ceremony and preparation for the act.

Anyway it's just a thought

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Batgirl Got Axed
Tue, August 16, 2022 19:08 - 7 posts
V for Vendetta review
Fri, August 12, 2022 12:42 - 55 posts
Brenda? Are You Watching FBI: Most Wanted?
Wed, August 10, 2022 05:06 - 137 posts
Testing.
Thu, August 4, 2022 11:07 - 51 posts
Would you still fly?
Tue, August 2, 2022 20:53 - 83 posts
Running of the Jaynes 2022. 3rd one! CSTS event. Between 7/10 and 7/24.
Thu, July 7, 2022 18:53 - 2 posts
Where are the Extraterrestrial Civilizations
Tue, July 5, 2022 20:54 - 43 posts
Anyone gotten to the end of season 3 of The Expanse?
Mon, June 13, 2022 11:53 - 32 posts
American Humor
Mon, June 13, 2022 11:22 - 9 posts
TV's Most Shocking Deaths
Sun, June 12, 2022 21:07 - 42 posts
We British need to clean ourselves. Reality TV is our fault.
Wed, June 8, 2022 11:41 - 15 posts
CSTS 2021 Redemption Art Contest winner! All 124 cities listed.
Sun, June 5, 2022 05:48 - 3 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL