Comparing it to DID alone removes a pretty critical actor from the equation.

Point. But in fact here the main personality (TV science here!) has consented to the use of such a trigger.

Of course, I think your point was that it's a bad analogy, not that I should just complicate an already bad analogy. Good point.

(Wow! When did this become my main thread? I feel like we're back in the days of Faith morality arguments! Anyway, I have to go test-drive a car now. So long, imaginary people.)

Interesting questions...I don't really have any answers, but I think this is why I'll keep watching. Well, that and my crush on ED.

Assuming Jenny had the free-will to say no to someone who was threatening to kill her, do you also think the Dollhouse has given her free will to turn down a client who'd forgotten his deodorant and smelled bad?

Yes. I figure the imprint is tailored to the person. If a guy WANTS a girl who doesn't care if he smells bad, well, then the Dollhouse could use a personality who doesn't care. But I don't think they deliberately tinker with specific things. Except for asthma, I guess.

If, therefore, "hot chick who will have lots of wild sex with me" is part of the criteria, then there is no way the Active would NOT have sex.

Which, again, is total lack of free will. To me.

And I disagree because of what Emily said. If we are Who We Are, and our own experiences and character traits determine our actions, then our will isn't entirely "free." We often stop ourselves from doing things. In a sense, our will is free not to be free. Or something. What I'm saying is that if a personality is built to act a certain way, and she acts that way without issues, then maybe that's just who she is. I don't think we know for a fact that an Active can't refuse to do something.

Let me put it this way. Let's say a client wanted someone to go to the comic book store with. So the Dollhouse imprints an Active with my personality. Now, that Active is not going to have any problem going to the comic book store with this client; he'll enjoy it. Does the Active lack free will just because he wants to go to a comic book store? If he were incapable of not going to the comic book store, then there would be an issue, but I don't think we have enough evidence for that. They haven't set up a situation like that.

I don't think that was a good example. I should just let Emily talk; she's making more sense than I am.

They haven't set up a situation like that.

See -- and I really *am* thinking hard about your points, and Emily's -- I still think it comes down to a simple matter of economics/client satisfaction. The clients have to be paying insane amounts of money, and when you have someone paying that much, they want a guarantee that their experience will be perfect.

Let's say a client wanted someone to go to the comic book store with. So the Dollhouse imprints an Active with my personality. Now, that Active is not going to have any problem going to the comic book store with this client; he'll enjoy it. Does the Active lack free will just because he wants to go to a comic book store?

If you're assuming that the imprints have free will, but also that they're just an imprint of someone who really, really likes doing [x activity], that's still not a guarantee that the imprint will do [x activity]. You can't program an imprint that would always, no matter what, definitely you betcha agree to have sex, IF you're also saying they have free will.

And the clients want a guarantee, given the amount of money they're paying.

The clients have to be paying insane amounts of money, and when you have someone paying that much, they want a guarantee that their experience will be perfect.

They are also assembling these imprints from existing personalities, which means they can probably tailor the probability of acceptance/refusal.

After all, if a man just wants a woman who will 100% sleep with him, he can hire a prostitute. This is a different kind of thing.

if a man just wants a woman who will 100% sleep with him, he can hire a prostitute

Except the prostitute knows she's been bought, and the client knows she knows etc.

An Active doesn't know s/he's been bought.

And now I'm wondering about male Actives and male clients--or female clients and female Actives

I think what Teppy is saying that sure they start by creating someone who would want to have sex (or go to the comic book store) with the client. But they are not going to rely on that tendency. So the Dollhouse also does a tweak to guarantee that so long as certain parameters are not violated the active will follow that desire - not get a headache not fall out of the mood for sex, not decide that even though they love comics they would rather go to a movie that day. [ On edit: should not attribute my guess to Teppy. But at any rate a reasonable guess given the incentives for the Dollhouse.]

As for the girl-hunter. I don't know whether it was the violation of the contract, or simply that the "no free will" is a programmed range of behaviors in response to another range of behaviors. When that is exceeded, then the active has a choice of how to behave, and since actives are valuable probably a healthy wish to survive.

In terms of titillation: it was a brief scene before the hostage negotiation. Given the context I think pretty obviously post-good-sex dancing and playing, along with actual sex flash backs were intended as titillation.

And now I'm wondering about male Actives and male clients--or female clients and female Actives

I was thinking about that. I'm sure that the boys are watching the show, thinking "oh, that's so awesome, a hot girl guaranteed to sleep with you no matter what" But, I doubt that they would think that it was so hot if a male active was programmed to sleep with a male client.

Also, there are some things that are programmed against their will, like the desire to return for their "treatment". Echo was having a good time with motorcycle guy, she suddenly stopped and returned to the van as if compelled.

Wasn't she filled with an urgency to have her treatment? I think that was kinda her will too, just...a choice she'd always make.

Perhaps that's too much semantic juggling. I'm not convincing myself.