Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I was just rewatching Our Mrs Reynolds and I noticed something about the seduction techniques she used on Mal and Wash, respectively. They were very different. Her "good bible" that she used to entice Mal had no mention of pleasure for the woman, while the "good myth" she told Wash was all about a "she" i.e. massive amounts of pleasure for a woman, while not really mentioning male pleasure.
Do you think that says anything about the characters?

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ScorpionRegent:
Interesting concept, I always thought that she used more overt methods on her "husband", while saving the more subtle approach for someone else's. Even if she doesn't mention her pleasure in the "good bible" spiel Yosafbrig does speak to her own wants and interest ie. Mal being the guy she wants as a physical specimen. Granted it was all a lie any ways, but sometimes lies can tell more about a person than the truth. With her doubly so because you just aren't gong to get anything else. That's one of the reasons I though she was one of the best villians in the series. She had so much potential for later discovery. I always wanted to know more about her. It was that irony that Mal put into words about never expecting to see her naked.

Scorpion Regent

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ScorpionRegent:
Interesting concept, I always thought that she used more overt methods on her "husband", while saving the more subtle approach for someone else's. Even if she doesn't mention her pleasure in the "good bible" spiel Yosafbrig does speak to her own wants and interest ie. Mal being the guy she wants as a physical specimen. Granted it was all a lie any ways, but sometimes lies can tell more about a person than the truth. With her doubly so because you just aren't gong to get anything else. That's one of the reasons I though she was one of the best villians in the series. She had so much potential for later discovery. I always wanted to know more about her. It was that irony that Mal put into words about never expecting to see her naked.

Scorpion Regent

---

I always thought that, too, the more subtle approach being for the one she wasn't "married" to; but I've thought more and more about Inara's comment about her schooling. Companions are trained to read people and give them what they want most, right? So her initial seduction (good point about her going on to say she personally wanted Mal) of both of them kinda struck me this last time. One of the things I love about watching this show; it's like an onion and I see some new possibility every time I rewatch it and peel away a layer.
And come to think of it, if she did have Companion training, how did she end up where she was? Hmmmmmm...

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
I was just rewatching Our Mrs Reynolds and I noticed something about the seduction techniques she used on Mal and Wash, respectively. They were very different. Her "good bible" that she used to entice Mal had no mention of pleasure for the woman, while the "good myth" she told Wash was all about a "she" i.e. massive amounts of pleasure for a woman, while not really mentioning male pleasure.
Do you think that says anything about the characters?

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

---

Quote:

---

I did notice that she mentioned bible with Mal, and myth with Wash. Considering Mal's dislike of religion, I thought that was a weird choice.

---

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.

---

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.

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

---

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??

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

It is patronizing and a bit insulting. I can pretty easily say the Bible is not really my friend.

---

Quote:

---

And I was referring to Lilith. Commonly edited out, she was considered to be Adam's first wife. She was thrown out because she would not obey him, and became the mother of the Succubi; sex demons. At least, that's how I understand it.

---