- February 12, 2008
- Jan 16 2013, 01:55 PM
- Jan 15 2013, 09:46 PM
- Jan 15 2013, 05:03 PM
- Jan 15 2013, 02:05 PM
Let me get this right, a slut is still someone who has sex with a bunch of people without caring for any of them, right?
Cause, I don't see ANY sluts on this show.
Fickle, insecure, confused, torn, indifferent, angry, hostile, people on this show, I see everywhere.
Like LIE SEE's coral. ALL I SEE.
Slut - Someone who provides a very needed service for the community and sleeps with everyone, even the guy that has no shot at getting laid and everyone knows it. (this would be poor Lucas since Tomlin won't let him have anyone else)
Slut - A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous
The accepted denotative meaning is a sexually promiscuous woman or "a woman of a low or loose character; a bold or impudent girl; a hussy, jade." These definitions identify a slut as a person of low character — a person who lacks the ability or chooses not to exercise a power of discernment to order their affairs
, such as a cad, rake, or womanizer
But neither of those definitions apply to Sami. Since when is two or three people "everybody"? And we know she has feelings for everyone she's been with, so she doesn't seem to lack discernment, either.
I'd say the on line version suits Sami - A person, especially a woman, considered sexually promiscuous
She may have feelings but that doesn't excuse her jumping from bed to bed, she's fickle with men and is using them as a comfort sex being the way she comforts herself. She used Lucas when Rafe dumped her ass. She used EJ when she thought she'd lost her son, she's used Rafe when mad at EJ or especially when she shot EJ in the head. If a person jumps from one person to another in a short amount of time while even claiming to have feeling for all three people that's still looks like a slut.
I think Sami would be having a lot more sex, if this was about using the men. Even if we count the times she was ready and got interrupted that only adds up to three or four times from summer til now. I think it's been wrong of her to string people along, but each idiot who stood in line waiting for his turn to think he and Sami might build something real has to take responsibility for that.
- Jan 16 2013, 11:22 PM
When it comes to the issue of morality in soaps, I have a sligKmhtly different take. On the one hand, I don't expect soaps to give me MY moral compass by preaching to me or otherwise coming across as straight-laced or "moralistic." I do think however, that every character on the show should each have THEIR own moral compass, even if it's the "honor among thieves" variety of a villain like Victor or Stefano. And the writers should stick to that compass for each character, no matter what that might be. That's how we know when a character is facing a moral dilemma, which I do think is a fundamental aspect of all soaps.
For example, those baby switches, bed hoppings, and betrayals only have dramatic impact if there is some kind of understood notion (by the audience and by the characters) that this is wrong. The writers rely on the backdrop of our collective moral sense of right and wrong, combined with various character reactions, to create shock value in a particular story. If, when someone walked out of a hospital with someone else's baby, everyone in Salem just yawned and said, "oh well, that's just what happens around here," there would be no drama in that.
Many of the storylines that are currently on have a fundamental moral aspect that creates the drama for the characters:
-- Kristen's lies and manipulations are weighed against her own sense of being wronged by those she's now hurting.
-- Marlena wrestled with whether to tell John the truth about Brady and Kristen and is now being confronted by that choice.
-- Will agonized over whether to step forward and tell the truth or keep a secret and risk hurting others.
Moral dilemmas are powerful tools in driving dramatic storytelling, even and especially when characters go against generally accepted notions of right and wrong.
My problem with this show in the last few years is that they have a shallow and cynical approach to the use of this tool. They either manufacture a weak moral dilemma and blow it all out of proportion or skim too lightly over a major one. A character's moral compass can change or disappear in a flash, only to conveniently reappear when the plot calls for it. We get a shocking moment where characters do "bad" things, but then there's no follow through and no consequences. Just a big shrug and we're moving on to the next thing.
I, for one, would like more consistency and follow-through, and more character-based storytelling. If a character is "bad," fine. Then have that character's motivations and moral sense of right and wrong reflect that. But to make a character skate around on the surface and have no real depth makes it hard for me to relate. And it definitely makes for flat, superficial, and boring stories.
This is a good point, although I don't think a character's moral center needs to be set in stone, because people change. This was the issue I had every time the SPD decided to cover up a crime. For a long time, the show wrote for shock value and not like a long running drama.