In theory hookers should be able to say no in the moment, but they work in a morally grey (at best) and unregulated world.

I'd think that if they keep the money, yeah, they need to sex the guy, but do they have to take the dosh?

Surely it depends on the brothel, she says, having just watched some episodes of Deadwood.

But don't prostitutes in a brothel basically consent to whoever shows up? Isn't that intrinsic to that gig?

They agree to terms of a job, not an intimate relationship. I think there's an important distinction there.

"But Steph," someone will say, "the 'job' IS sex! If they agree to the job, they agree to have sex!" And you know what? I don't think that prostitutes in a brothel *can* consent to have sex with whoever shows up. That they *do* is beside the point.

(Also, I'm not ditching the conversation, but I gotta get some work done. Stoopid paycheck.)

But don't prostitutes in a brothel basically consent to whoever shows up? Isn't that intrinsic to that gig?

Take this line of reasoning a little further, though, and it becomes by definition impossible to rape a prostitute. One step further is "you can't rape a slut" and from there it's a short leap to "you can't rape your wife."

Which is why, legally, both parties have to consent every time.

Which is why, legally, both parties have to consent every time.

Exactly. Now, obviously, this is a situation that doesn't exactly exist in the real world, but every outside indicator that we have on the situation makes it appear unethical and illegal:

• The straight-laced (as far as we know) cop looking to take the Dollhouse down.
• The handler who is beginning to see his charge as a person and not an object.
• The former active who is seemingly out for revenge (begging the question of why would he want revenge for, which seems obvious on the face of it.)
• And finally, Echo's own resurging personality, which adds unease to the "programmed" personality.

I think, if you're an inattentive viewer, you would look at the Dollhouse operation and think, "Well, OK, that's probably illegal and unethical, but no harm's really done," as people often think about matters of illegal sex.

But I think the show gives you the pointers to indicate that the situation is actually otherwise, and that what happens to the Actives is far more horrific than it seems on the surface.

And according to some sex workers I've read many prostitutes can and occasionally do turn down a customer. That is they are not as picky as someone not doing it for money would be but they do turn down clients. The most common reason is the John gives off a scary vibe and they are afraid of being subject to violence, or the level of personal hygiene is too poor. The point is though the criteria is up to them. They really do consent or not to their clients on a case by case basis. And the turning down occasional clients, on whatever basis, really does make an argument that the consent is real. Giving general consent, without an ability to change your mind on a case by case basis is much more problematic. Even if the only penalty for saying no is being fired from the particular institution, that is pretty extreme pressure.

[Edit] And again talking about real prostitution not Dollhouse. Spectrum for real prostitution ranges from ability to say no on case by case basis to strong pressure never to say no, to inability to ever say no enforced by threat of violence.

and that what happens to the Actives is far more horrific than it seems on the surface

So explain to me why the pilot episode went to great lengths to show how the Dollhouse prevented a child from being raped and murdered. (All this human trafficking might seem like a bad idea, but see how it also prevents child abuse? Now let's all relax and enjoy the mental image of Eliza Dushku getting a massage.)

THAT is what I mean by Joss trying to have it both ways, and why I will not watch a second episode of this show.

I'm curious to hear opinions on where people think Joss would be going with this if:

a) It's clear that the Dollhouse setup is unethical and the show itself makes that clear.

b) The show's central thematic concerns are identity, ethics and agency.

What's the larger metaphor that has resonance? Surely he's got bigger fish to fry than a look at how Hollywood treats actors, or that human trafficing is bad.

If you extrapolate the Dollhouse outward as a metaphor what do you get? That ethical choices are muddied by the slipperyness of identity and consciousness? That agency and consent are difficult to pin down in role playing? That exploitation has lots of rationalizations?

Actually, when I keep turning it over it looks sort of like Mad Men, just poorly executed. That is, it's clearly a show interested in exploitation, and particularly how women's roles and identity are defined or resisted.

The sexism in Mad Men was difficult to take at first until you could trust that the show didn't condone it and spent a fair amount of time examining the damage it caused. Whereas, that trust isn't present so far with Dollhouse. It indulges too much titillation, and is itself edging on exploitation rather than exposing it.

My take on that* is actually that one always has the right to withdraw consent.

Maybe I'm being too particular, but if I'm going to let some guy stick his dick in me, I want to at least know who he is before it gets started.

You're not being too particular! In fact, I think that probably nobody should consent in advance, but I'm not sure I believe that it's not possible.

If you can't identify who's going to shag you, I don't think you can consent, next-guy-to-buy-me-a-drink notwithstanding.

Okay, why not? At what point do you have enough information to consent?

(*"that" being prostitution and the whole consent-beforehand issue. I got distracted before I could post.)