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.)

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

Maybe I watch too much TV, but has there been a point in what we've seen so far where we're supposed to think that the Dollhouse is right in what they do? Like, maybe I'm giving Show too much credit for things it's not adequately showing, but from minute one I thought that the Dollhouse folks were the bad guys in this scenario.

When they're there. Consent kinda doesn't count if you're not about to perform the act. It's just intent, agreement, until then.

has there been a point in what we've seen so far where we're supposed to think that the Dollhouse is right in what they do?

If it weren't for the Dollhouse, the kidnapped girl in the pilot would have been raped and murdered. It was very specifically set up so that only "Miss Penn" could have put that together in time to prevent it.

has there been a point in what we've seen so far where we're supposed to think that the Dollhouse is right in what they do?

No, I don't think we're supposed to think they're right, but handler-guy said that British-woman likes to tell herself they're doing good. That was never explained, but I think we're supposed to believe that they find a way to excuse it to themselves.

If it weren't for the Dollhouse, the kidnapped girl in the pilot would have been raped and murdered. It was very specifically set up so that only "Miss Penn" could have put that together in time to prevent it.

Yeah, but they wanted the guy's money! He's frightened and desperate! Of course they were going to tell him that they're the best solution for getting his girl back! I just don't know that the people who are running the evil organization should count as a reliable narrator.

And, in the meta sense, if the guy doesn't agree to have the Dollhouse fix his problem, then there isn't a show. Sloppy when you compare it with real life? Sure. But how often do TV formulaic scenarios actually reflect how real life operates?

Yeah, but they wanted the guy's money! He's frightened and desperate! Of course they were going to tell him that they're the best solution for getting his girl back!

I'm not talking about the characters setting up that way, I'm talking about Joss.

The Dollhouse operators didn't know that they were sending their client a hostage negotiator with the imprinted memories of a girl who was molested by one of the kidnappers. But without those memories, another hostage negotiator wouldn't have guessed that the current victim was at risk for rape/death until it was too late. Take the Dollhouse out of the situation and the girl dies. That's how the ep is written.

That's how the ep is written.

And that's what makes me wonder how much of the content of that episode is Joss and how much is network effect.