PDA

View Full Version : Torchwood- Owen Harper & his actions (spoilers)



ShadowMaat
October 26th, 2006, 11:04 AM
Rather than have a couple of threads veer off into a heated discussion on whether or not Owen raped the couple in the pilot ep and if it was funny or if he'd done it before, I figured I'd start a separate thread for it.

So... Owen sprayed himself with some kind of alien drug/pheremone for the express purpose of attracting a woman who had no interest in him. She immediately became interested and wanted to take Owen back to her place to have sex with him.

Unfortunately (depending on which school of thought you ascribe to) they were interrupted outside the pub by the woman's boyfriend. An argument ensued and chances were looking good that Owen would get the crap beaten out of him, so he used the spray again and became irresistible to the boyfriend as well. The argument then turned to which of them (woman or boyfriend) would get to shag him first.

Now, as I remember it the scene ended in a tug-of-war which left it ambiguous as to whether he had sex with both of them or if he used the confusion to escape. Some say he went through with it, others say he ran off. Personally I think he went through with it as it seems to be in character for him (although admittedly it's hard to know what's in character in a pilot ep).

I also got the impression that this wasn't the first time he'd used the spray, but I could easily be wrong about that and again, the ep didn't make it clear.

Personally? I find the character repugnant. While I can understand how- on the surface- the whole scenario might seem funny and I even managed to grin initially at what he was doing, that quickly changed when I realized he was going to go through with it. The only thing that stopped him- or may have stopped him- was the intervention of the boyfriend.

Now... if you go with what some are saying and believe that Owen ran away at earliest opportunity that doesn't change the fact that he intended to have sex with a woman who had, until the use of the drug, refused his attentions. I equate what Owen did with slipping someone a roofie and proceeding to rape her. The fact that she would have been a willing participant is invalid because of the drug involved and that, in my opinion, isn't funny at all.

Am I taking it too seriously? Maybe, maybe not. I certainly don't think so, especially since I know women who've been raped. I have no real issue with people who didn't read deeper into the scenario and who found it to be amusing, but I'd appreciate it if those who DID like the scene wouldn't imply that there was something wrong with me for disliking it or that I'm the one at fault. It's called an opinion. It can't be wrong. You don't have to agree with it, but try to at least respect it.

Now... anyone else? :D

VirtualCLD
October 26th, 2006, 01:08 PM
I know this would open up a huge can of worms, but it would be interesting to see how many of the viewers who thought the scene was amusing were male and how many viewers who stopped and thought date rape were female. I can honestly say that I thought it was completely amusing until someone on the forums here brought up date rape and that was like having a bucket of cold water thrown on memory of that scene. It never even occurred to me that Owen's intentions were date rape and suddenly his character and in fact the episode was in a new light. I realized how this could be seen as an example of why technology is not allowed outside of Torchwood and at the same time, foreshadowing Suzie's role in the episode.

What's even more interesting is I still find myself smiling at Owen's antics even perverse and wrong though they may be and I wonder if that was intentional. It's sort of a "like-to-hate" attitude with him. While others may just despise him, some may actually enjoy despising him. We've certainly seen more evidence of is low moral standards later on and in the next episode, but I still find myself smiling and enjoying his presence on screen even if his actions are downright awful. As for the following episode itself:
It was also satisfying to see him get a little bit of his just desert.
In any case, I think part of this post was just to state how truly despicable Owen can be viewed and another part of it was myself feeling guilty for not even recognizing date rape when it was staring me in the face and needing someone to spell it out for me.

Pitry
October 26th, 2006, 04:05 PM
Yes, I think he was attempting a date rape. However -

re-posting from the Torchwood thread...

They weer all abusing the techonology. Which is why I don't think we're particularily supposed to dislike Owen. Suzie was murdering people, but the scene to explain what her feelings about all of this were ambiguous, showing the viewers her side of the story, as well as the wrongs she did. You don't come out of the episode feelign she's a horrible murderer, in some way you migth even sympathise her, even if just a little bit. What Toshiko did was just as moraly wrong as Owen or Suzie, just the outcome wasn't as horrid.
Yet.
She got lucky.

I see this much more as the metaphore on people abusing technology rather than having one fo the main characters as an evil rapist.

I don't hate Owen. I don't think that implication has elluded RTD's mind, and yet don't think he created a character we're deliberately supposed to hate. I think there's the bigger metaphore here - what Kurt Vonnegut referred to in one of his books as "had I been German in WW2 I would have probably been a Nazi". All three characters abused technology to some extant - hinting that this could have been any one of us. Taking the moral high ground and saying "he's a filthy despicable rapist and I hate him" is equal to saying "I would never be in this place, I'm much above that". But until you've been there, you can't tell, not really. And it is my own personal opinion (again, feel free to disagree) that we're more vulnerable to falling as low when we're not aware of the risk.
So no, Owen is an imperfect person who has acted in a flithy, despicable way - and I agree that whether this was his first time using this pheromone or not, whether he did manmage to use it this time or not, it doesn't matter. The act itself was bad enough. But this specific act isn't enough, IMHO, to judge the character. Not yet.

ShadowMaat
October 26th, 2006, 04:13 PM
So what is this "blatant" point that so many people are missing?

I don't recall anyone saying that the reason they think Owen ran away is because he couldn't have been intending to shag the boyfriend, I thought it was pretty clear he was going to (or would have) had sex with the guy as well as the girl, but then, my eyes started to glaze over a bit on the rage thread, so I may have missed a few things.

If I had any "issue" with the fact that Owen made a play for the boyfriend, it'd be that I'm pretty sure the boyfriend is straight and that it seems worse to me to force sex on someone who's not only not interested, but not of the right orientation. I can remember feeling more sympathy for the gay sperm donor the possessed woman absorbed, too. That probably says more about me than about the writing, though. ;)

smurf
October 26th, 2006, 04:40 PM
So what is this "blatant" point that so many people are missing?

I don't recall anyone saying that the reason they think Owen ran away is because he couldn't have been intending to shag the boyfriend, I thought it was pretty clear he was going to (or would have) had sex with the guy as well as the girl, but then, my eyes started to glaze over a bit on the rage thread, so I may have missed a few things.

If I had any "issue" with the fact that Owen made a play for the boyfriend, it'd be that I'm pretty sure the boyfriend is straight and that it seems worse to me to force sex on someone who's not only not interested, but not of the right orientation. I can remember feeling more sympathy for the gay sperm donor the possessed woman absorbed, too. That probably says more about me than about the writing, though. ;)
I wasn't going to get involved anymore but...
1) You think it was clear he intended to have sex with them both. I think it is clear that he intended to get them arguing so he could run away.
Both of us could be right, because we saw no further than him hailing a taxi. Not getting in and fleeing, or inviting them in with him, or even saying "I'll leave you to it/I've got a great idea, why don't we..."
I maintain further that the later discussion over dinner suggests he sees Jack as the "other", and thus he is not like Jack, so probably actually legged it.
So anyone telling me my interpretation is incorrect, or in any way needs to be seen in context of "challenging perceptions of sexuality" will get a short shrift from me, thank you.

2 - on topic) I'm quite sure it was designed to show how power corrupts, yet still remaining mildly humourous. Sadly, I actually don't think as much thought was given to the date-rape implications.
Unless he gets a real comeupance later on. But I kinda doubt it.

Willow'sCat
October 26th, 2006, 04:48 PM
I want to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and say, "they were only meaning it as a joke, a light bit of fun..." unfortunately these days, this is so common; date rape or drug *including alcohol fulled* sexual assault, that I just cannot laugh at it.

I am even one who had a problem with Jack using the cocktail of drugs on Gwen; so no one is really going to change my mind on this. :cool: It was, what it was; non-consensual and plainly illegal. Hopelessly unethical, and dare I say immoral. :cool: But that is just my opinion. ;)

btw, this does nothing to help people understand why rape occurs, it just adds to the stupid and wrong belief that rape is only ever about sex, it isn't. It is an act of violence and taking control of someone against their will. That is another reason I didn't like this, Owen doesn't seem to get that.... I am really not liking this character. It is one thing to be an idiot in social situations but this goes way beyond that IMO. :cool:

smurf
October 26th, 2006, 05:00 PM
I want to give the writers the benefit of the doubt and say, "they were only meaning it as a joke, a light bit of fun..." unfortunately these days, this is so common; date rape or drug *including alcohol fulled* sexual assault, that I just cannot laugh at it.

I am even one who had a problem with Jack using the cocktail of drugs on Gwen; so no one is really going to change my mind on this. :cool: It was, what it was; non-consensual and plainly illegal. Hopelessly unethical, and dare I say immoral. :cool: But that is just my opinion. ;)

btw, this does nothing to help people understand why rape occurs, it just adds to the stupid and wrong belief that rape is only ever about sex, it isn't. It is an act of violence and taking control of someone against their will. That is another reason I didn't like this, Owen doesn't seem to get that.... I am really not liking this character. It is one thing to be an idiot in social situations but this goes way beyond that IMO. :cool:
I didn't like the drug cocktail thing either. A Men in Black doodad is one thing since it is obviously sci-fi and a little way away from reality, but this was very close to the bone and is all too easily replicated in the here and now.

I'll be interested to see (if I manage to stick it out) if this immorality on the fine details disappears/modifies itself as Gwen gets more deeply involved, or if it's an underlying blind spot on the part of the writers.

ShadowMaat
October 26th, 2006, 05:07 PM
I wasn't going to get involved anymore but...
1) You think it was clear he intended to have sex with them both. I think it is clear that he intended to get them arguing so he could run away.
Ohhhh. So maybe I'm being too open-minded in simply assuming Owen swings both ways. ;)



I am even one who had a problem with Jack using the cocktail of drugs on Gwen; so no one is really going to change my mind on this.
Did you have any issues with the various uses of the neuralyser in the Men in Black movies? Seriously, I'm curious.

I think it was a rotten trick (as is the neralyser, in its own way) but I could understand why he did it and considering that in the old days folks who "learned too much" tended to be killed, I'm willing to settle for just having their memories erased. It is pretty unethical, though, and another example of abuse of power.

I'd have been more upset if he'd used the opportunity to take advantage of her in some way. Not necessarily sexually. There was an episode of Eureka that I think was called Blink wherein

one of the characters was using a short term memory erasure device for personal gain. He "convinced" a happy couple they had broken up so that he could marry the woman and he routinely let the scientists (particularly his wife) figure out all the hard stuff only to erase their memory of it so he could waltz in and "solve" the problems.

So... Jack might have been bad, but it could have been a LOT worse.

smurf
October 26th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Ohhhh. So maybe I'm being too open-minded in simply assuming Owen swings both ways. ;)
Thank you for implying I'm closed minded. It's very kind of you. :rolleyes: And for ignoring the entirety of the argument. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So, again to reiterate, anyone who thinks there is a possibilty that he actually had no intention of bedding either the girl or boy once he knew there was a boyfriend involved is not open minded and has problems with sexuality other than your (completely guessed) view of what the person thinks is normal?
Or are we saying that just because he was kissed by a man it automatically means he swings all ways? That's a narrow view of sexuality...

Actually, to throw something different into the ring. His shocked reaction to finding out about the boyfriend suggests he only intends to go for single girls, and does have some sort of morality as to what is and is not acceptable.
ie. not taking another guy's girl.

ShadowMaat
October 26th, 2006, 05:26 PM
Sorry, smurf, didn't mean to imply you were close-minded. :S But since I can't think of a rational explanation for what I WAS thinking I'm not gonna try because I'll just dig myself deeper.

MasySyma
October 26th, 2006, 07:23 PM
Ok, as the person who hasn't seen Torchwood yet (I'm in the US) I want to add my two cents from a theoretical standpoint.

I can't comment on the episode in question because I haven't seen it, but this trope has a long history.

The orginial Star Trek and TNG both have episodes where various viruses make the characters want to sleep with each other. After the TNG's episode, the characters went "oh crap!" and dealt with awkward moments, but the virus was not deemed similar to a date rape drug because it was an illness.

By DS9, this tactic had again changed. This time, Luwaxana Troi's hormones causing trouble, and everyone in a three foot radius tried to act on their unspoken, subconscious attractions. The episode was a fan favorite because the characters acted insane, but at the end of the episode, no one "got" anything more than a kiss.

Recently, SGA tried this tactic, and while I didn't see the episode in question, I can see how many viewers felt that the character's use of a way to make women love him bordered on a date rape drug.

Now, we have Torchwood with someone using a spray. I agree that this is getting too close to home, especially with commerials encouraging just this type of behavior. Has anyone else seen the horrible Tag bodyshots commercials? For those that haven't: a young male goes to a location with lots of women (like a sorority house), sprays on the cologne, and all the women go nuts tearing off their clothes and trying to instantly have sex with him. I don't find these commercials funny, so I'm not inclined to find this example in Torchwood funny either. While appearing harmless, it encourages deception and the objectification of women. It also implies that whomever the spray lands on is a mindless machine only capable of sex.

If we would not find it funny if people used a spray to make others want to kill someone, then we should not find a spray that increases desire while lowering consent amusing.

Then again, that's just my view.

ShadowMaat
October 27th, 2006, 04:42 AM
The episode was a fan favorite because the characters acted insane, but at the end of the episode, no one "got" anything more than a kiss.
Exactly. My "issue" with such scenarios kicks in when it moves beyond kisses and gropes to full-on sex. In the past, shows have managed to stay short of that particular line, but now the "in" thing seems to be crossing it. On Atlantis

Lucius married those women and you will never convince me that he didn't "consummate" his relationships with them... and that he didn't do it on a regular basis.

And now Torchwood has Owen. Unlike Atlantis, though, I think there's a chance we may actually see some consequences to what Owen's been doing... and I look forward to seeing the fallout from that. It might not redeem the character for me, but at least I'll be reassured that it isn't being played off as a cheap joke.

rich44
October 30th, 2006, 01:31 AM
I think you're all taking it far too seriously tbh. How many men buy that pheromone X crap advertised in the back of tabloid papers and dodgy mens magazines (so i'm reliably informed lol) it's the same premise. As for it being akin to giving someone Rhohipnol or a "roofie" I find that remark pretty stupid.

Rhohipnol and other DR drugs apart from the abhorrent nature of their use they can also leave the person theyre used on seriously ill if not worse.

A friend of mine had a drink spiked by a "friend" who thought it would be funny she died TWICE in the ambulance and was resucitated both times then spent weeks in a coma and many months recovering, fortunately she did recover and is now a keen sports person representing a company at big sporting events and has been in many many magazines etc so kudos to her!!

I think we need to keep in mind it's sci-fi and as to that drug it was a drug that made the person on the receiving end totally attractive to the person near them so hardly DR at all

rich44
October 30th, 2006, 03:07 AM
lol ok then hey im a 51st century guy ;)

{Snip} you will see what I think to drinks being spiked and DR and I didnt intimate at any point that I don't think that these crimes should be taken seriously at all just what Owen was up to was underhand and morally indefenisable but it WASNT DR nor would it ever be if anything because of the pheromones she was jumping him ;)

Admiral Mappalazarou
October 30th, 2006, 04:32 AM
After watching the Torchwood DE-Classified afterwards, it appears that more of Owen's past will be revealed. Personally I think that he's from either another planet, dimension and time. :)

ShadowMaat
October 30th, 2006, 04:36 AM
You want to disagree, fine, but next time try and keep the insults out of it.

And just because there are no ill side-effects to the alien drug/perfume (as far as we know) doesn't make it okay and I don't see how it makes the comparison to a roofie invalid. Making someone sick is a side effect of a roofie (so you say) but the purpose is to make them more pliable. Same as the perfume.

Skydiver
October 30th, 2006, 05:11 AM
Let's remember guys to debate the topic, not each other.

Every person has his/her own opinion and it's not 'wrong' or 'stupid', it's just thier opinion. YOu may not agree. That's your right. But don't diss anyone's opinion.

The topic of this thread is Owen and his actions on Torchwood, so let's keep it at that please

Madeleine
October 30th, 2006, 05:54 AM
I think you're all taking it far too seriously tbh. How many men buy that pheromone X crap advertised in the back of tabloid papers and dodgy mens magazines (so i'm reliably informed lol) it's the same premise. As for it being akin to giving someone Rhohipnol or a "roofie" I find that remark pretty stupid.

Rhohipnol and other DR drugs apart from the abhorrent nature of their use they can also leave the person theyre used on seriously ill if not worse.

Why is it stupid to compare it to Roophinol? One is a drug that enables rape, the other is a drug that enables rape. One can have dangerous side effects, the other has probably not been tested under clinical conditions to establish if there are side effects. Seem pretty similarly vile to me.



I think we need to keep in mind it's sci-fi and as to that drug it was a drug that made the person on the receiving end totally attractive to the person near them so hardly DR at all

No, it wasn't 'DR' cos there was no date. It was just rape or an attempt at it.

If a flirty woman had been eyeing him, and then his spray tipped the balance, or if a non-responsive woman had started chatting friendly-like and ended up liking him enough to go with him, there might be ambiguity. Then, we wouldn't know if the spray had made sex inevitable from the start, or if it had just made him more attractive and upped his chances, like the makers of certain deororants would have us believe we can do with one of their aerosols.

It wasn't like that though. No amount of lipstick, perfume, smart clothes or hormonal scent can turn Sod Off Creep into Take Me Now. Do you think that woman had a choice? I don't. His spray clearly made her agree to something that was anathema seconds before when in her right mind. It was an attempt to rape her.

Flyboy
October 30th, 2006, 11:42 AM
I'm sorry, but to me it was obvious that he was using the couples fighting as a chance to escape quickly...

Flyboy
October 30th, 2006, 01:01 PM
Besides, the guy wasn't exactly Brad Pitt either was he?

yaaayoubetcha
October 31st, 2006, 07:03 AM
If a flirty woman had been eyeing him, and then his spray tipped the balance, or if a non-responsive woman had started chatting friendly-like and ended up liking him enough to go with him, there might be ambiguity. Then, we wouldn't know if the spray had made sex inevitable from the start, or if it had just made him more attractive and upped his chances, like the makers of certain deororants would have us believe we can do with one of their aerosols.

I just took the scene as a scene. I admit I took nothing about date rape out of it and I think I'm a bit more in tune with that than most men might be, but after reading this thread, I do think there was some ambiguity based on your criteria above. The woman scoped him when he sat at the bar and when he turned and saw her, she made obvious eye contact letting him know the game was afoot. She then did not make any overt gestures of rejection, maintaining eye contact and not pulling away when he sat beside her. So, I look at that and say, she thought the usual evening flirting was going to happen...the verbal games and whatnot. Was she committed as soon as she saw him to sleeping with him? who knows. Did the spray tip the balance in his favor despite what she might have been thinking? who knows.


Why would a Taxi be a way of wanting more? If you're having fun with whatever you're doing, a Taxi doesn't tend to increase your fun, it removes you from the place of fun. If you're stressed and wanting out however, a Taxi achieves that.

I agree with this. To my mind, Taxi! is usually associated with trying to get away from somewhere, be it for dramatic or comic reasons. The verbal queue that usually denotes something to progress is more of a restaurant scene where one of the characters shouts 'Cheque!' indicating they want the current event to end so they can get on with something more appealing.

Skydiver
October 31st, 2006, 05:29 PM
Ok guys, i will preface this by saying that i know nothing about the show. Haven't seen it, likely won't unless a us station picks it up

that being said, 'obvious' is a relative term. Y'all remember a trek eps way back when and they went to a commercial with kirk snogging chick of the week, came back to him sitting on the edge of the bed putting on his boots

what happened during that 90 second commercial break????

well, it was supposed to be OBVIOUS that he and chick of the week 'did the nasty', yet it also couldn't be too obvious or the censors woulda snipped it.

Obvious is in the eye of the beholder.

To some, the implication is enough, to others, it needs to be seen, not implied.

Neither way is right or wrong.

The topic is 'what owen did', and the debate is whether his actions are right or wrong.

Thus, to debate, a person would have to conceed that owen did something. (did that something stop at snogging or did it go all the way to shagging???? your pov may vary) If you don't beleive that he did anything, then you have no need to debate here cause what they're debating didn't happen as far as you're concerned.

Now if folks can't keep it on topic, which means to debate owen's actions and the correctness or wrongness of them, then maybe y'all might want to move onto another thread and leave this one alone.

Perhaps those of you that feel it didn't go beyond a snog will leave those that think it made it to shagging have their debate and those of you that feel that it went to a shag will just leave the snoggers alone.

agree to disagree and concentrate on this....snogging or shagging, was he wrong?

If you can't keep this dispassionate, then give this thread a miss and move on down the forum please

Skydiver
November 1st, 2006, 07:59 AM
keep your private issues private and personal disputes out of this - or any - thread

No one person's interpretation of events on the show are empirically right or wrong. they are just that person's personal interpretatino of things, which is colored by each person's own predjudices, emotions, feelings and experiences

GateGipsy
November 5th, 2006, 03:15 AM
The post I originally quoted has been removed by the author, so I have removed its recurrance here

I do disagree that people may hold these opinions because they're 'not aware' of another purpose. Personally, I feel that portraying the use of the drug to get someone into bed was offensive - even while knowing that it could possibly be a device to show the opposite. My reason for that is, the use of drugs to get women into bed is reaching epidemic proportions, and I don't think we're at the point where you can make a scene like that with the intention that it actually means the opposite.

If that is what Russel Davis meant by that scene, then I think he got it wrong. It wasn't obvious enough at all, and any guy watching that who might be inclined to use drugs to get a woman into bed certainly won't go 'oh I see! It is wrong for me to do that, so I won't'. And to any woman who's about to be affected by a drug induced rape, that scene won't say 'that's wrong' instead it says 'well as long as you consent, even if you're manipulated into doing something you wouldn't have done at all if you weren't under the influence of drugs' it is OK really so you can't complain.

What those three scenes said to me - the dead flies, the picking up women, the absorbing books - was a very succinct, very powerful and excellent way to build up these characters. The fly imagery was quite powerful - there were parallels with the psycho pulling off the wings of flies, except here they were being brought back to life. But it was no less a sign that there was something seriously wrong with her. Bringing dead creatures back to life? And the book absorbing - here's a character who was probably a book worm as a child, who most likely eschewed real life friends for those in her books and imagination. And Owen? Well it summarised him most of all, and made us want to despise the character. There's a lot to be redeemed for Owen now, and that makes for great drama. The scene under the bridge in the third episode was all the more powerful because of what happened in the pilot.

Major Clanger
November 5th, 2006, 11:31 AM
There's a lot to be redeemed for Owen now, and that makes for great drama. The scene under the bridge in the third episode was all the more powerful because of what happened in the pilot.

yes, I totally agree.

Since we have experts here, perhaps they'd like to consider that sometimes the scriptwriters actuall know a wee bit more about a character and what is to come than we give them credit for?

Could it be possible that RTD wanted to give us a reason not to like Owen (or, in any case to have a strong reaction to him: women - ergh, what a creep that is very wrong, men - lucky bugger, wish I had some of that)?

FWIW: I thought that his spraying of the boyfriend and subsequent hailing of the taxi came not only because he realised that he had a problem on his hands, but could it also be that actually... alien tech aside... he actually has a moral core and he shocked himself by overstepping the boundary?

He seemed quite relieved to me when he left - it could be because he had got himself out of something he was going to hate himself for in the morning.

and now...

I don't mind discussion. I love it. That's why I come to discussion boards. But I have not survived n years of The Great Sam and Jack Ship Debate (TM) in order to start having people tell me (and other board members) what is or is not on my screen. Because, believe me, that way lies not only madness but a great big bloody fandom hoo-hah. And frankly I don't have the patience for it.

And if I get put off a Torchwood discussion because some people can't accept that (despite what a programme synopsis, DVD commentary, Author interview etc etc say) we all see things differently - it's going to get very messy.

And we don't want that. Do we?

uknesvuinng
November 5th, 2006, 10:11 PM
Multi-Quote Power... Activate!


I didn't like the drug cocktail thing either. A Men in Black doodad is one thing since it is obviously sci-fi and a little way away from reality, but this was very close to the bone and is all too easily replicated in the here and now.

That could very well be intentional. If it's some scifi-looking device, it's easy to compartmentalize and not be shaken by it. However, slipping her chemicals is something that could easily happen in reality (though probably not with the effect portrayed on the show) and it sticks with you a bit, giving you things to think about.


I've more often seen it used as shorthand for "Get me out of here".
Same for me. It's really situationally dependent as to what it could mean. Unfortunately, there wasn't much time to establish if he was trying to make distance from them or get a taxi so they could go somewhere else. It's too vague for an "obvious" interpretation one way or the other. However, I really don't think it can be a too simple "he's a scummy rapist, period" interpretation. What we got of the scene suggested, at least to me, that he might not have been fully committed to his actions. Therein lies a whole new discussion about the various facets of his character and his apparently conflicting morality. Especially in the light of the events of episode 3.




That's not baggage, that's my way of saying that the possibility exists that he was up for a bloke, and the possibility also exists that he wasn't, but we've no way to know, so it's time to move on to some actual evidence.
Evidence like his freaked-out unsmiling face, when he shouted Taxi.

I wouldn't call it "freaked-out unsmiling." He moved for the taxi and was calling for it so quickly that there wasn't a chance to really see a clear expression. The scene was simply vague, and personal "baggage" causes people to see a particular path after the end of the scene.


Is it Baggage if I assume that people about to have fun frolicky sex have smiles? :p

Fun frolicky sex always brings a smile to my face.


There's a lot to be redeemed for Owen now, and that makes for great drama. The scene under the bridge in the third episode was all the more powerful because of what happened in the pilot.
Indeed. These aren't flat characters. They have incredible depth and are even a bit contradictory from time to time, but so are humans in real life. This kind of character depth has been missing from my scifi for a while.

uknesvuinng
November 5th, 2006, 10:27 PM
I think you're all taking it far too seriously tbh. How many men buy that pheromone X crap advertised in the back of tabloid papers and dodgy mens magazines (so i'm reliably informed lol) it's the same premise.

That just shows that these "reprehensible" acts aren't nearly as foreign to the populace as people would like to think.


As for it being akin to giving someone Rhohipnol or a "roofie" I find that remark pretty stupid.

Rhohipnol and other DR drugs apart from the abhorrent nature of their use they can also leave the person theyre used on seriously ill if not worse.
This is the logical fallacy known as a "red herring". Side effects are irrelevant in this comparison. No one gives a "roofie" to a person intending to give them the side effects. They're shooting for the main effect, making them pliable for sexual activity.


you will see what I think to drinks being spiked and DR and I didnt intimate at any point that I don't think that these crimes should be taken seriously at all just what Owen was up to was underhand and morally indefenisable but it WASNT DR nor would it ever be if anything because of the pheromones she was jumping him ;)

The show never said the spray was a pheromone. Besides, sex pheromones are gender-dependent. They can't force one's orientation or cause total loss of sexual choice. There are a multitude of factors involved in sexual selection, and no one factor can override the failings of the others. The spray was a form of mind control, forcing one into actions against his/her will.

Personally, I'm wondering if the spray consisted of nanites similar to those in Doctor Who when Jack was introduced (I forget the episode title). The effects used for the spray showed it move in a way that seemed to me a bit "unnatural" for a mist. Of course, it could just be the way they animated it, and there wasn't that much thought put into the contents of the spray.

GateGipsy
November 6th, 2006, 02:18 AM
LOL a messy Clanger - now that is scary.

Nanites in the spray is an interesting idea. And a very scary one too. I really hate the idea of nanites at all. I just don't want to think about very tiny invisible things that can run around our bodies at will.

MC I do hope that there is a deeper meaning to all this, that there is some intention there. The writer is Russel Davies, so there is a higher chance that is the case. However, British writing is often too predictable - it is almost too easy to believe that they were sitting around thinking, what would Owen do with alien technology? Ah I know use it to pick up girls! If that is the case, then it does a disservice to men and women! I just hope this develops further down the line - I really want to have a much higher opinion of Russel Davies than that. I don't want to find out he has feet of clay!

scarimor
November 6th, 2006, 03:44 AM
[SNIPPED: off topic]


I don't recall anyone saying that the reason they think Owen ran away is because he couldn't have been intending to shag the boyfriend,
I wouldn't expect you to, because I don't remember you being there :) I've only encountered two people who said so, and they have a particular view of what constitutes the generic portrayal of a gay/bi guy on TV. Personally, I didn't think Owen showed the slightest interest in the bloke (just imo!) and only saw the possibility of having him along as the price to pay for having the woman (just imo!) but ymmv.

[SNIPPED: off topic]


Multi-Quote Power... Activate!
It's great, isn't it?



The show never said the spray was a pheromone.
Good point!


Besides, sex pheromones are gender-dependent. They can't force one's orientation or cause total loss of sexual choice. There are a multitude of factors involved in sexual selection, and no one factor can override the failings of the others. The spray was a form of mind control, forcing one into actions against his/her will.
In that sense, just using it on them was an act of violation: a rapid form of brain-washing?



MC I do hope that there is a deeper meaning to all this, that there is some intention there. The writer is Russel Davies, so there is a higher chance that is the case. However, British writing is often too predictable - it is almost too easy to believe that they were sitting around thinking, what would Owen do with alien technology? Ah I know use it to pick up girls! If that is the case, then it does a disservice to men and women! I just hope this develops further down the line - I really want to have a much higher opinion of Russel Davies than that. I don't want to find out he has feet of clay!
Me too. I'm optimistic after last night's episode (which is the best so far imo) because I'm seeing more shades of grey than ever.

GateGipsy
November 6th, 2006, 04:58 AM
Stepping in with my moderator's hat on here.

Let's keep this thread on topic please. Any further postings that are more about how a person has posted in this thread rather than the topic itself will get snipped. Please feel free to PM me or another mod if you'd like to discuss this.

Also just a reminder - if you have a problem/dispute/issue with another poster then please take it off forum to email or PM.

scarimor
November 6th, 2006, 07:54 AM
After watching the Torchwood DE-Classified afterwards, it appears that more of Owen's past will be revealed. Personally I think that he's from either another planet, dimension and time. :)
I'm guessing he's been struck off. But it's not much more than a guess.

smurf
November 6th, 2006, 12:50 PM
That could very well be intentional. If it's some scifi-looking device, it's easy to compartmentalize and not be shaken by it. However, slipping her chemicals is something that could easily happen in reality (though probably not with the effect portrayed on the show) and it sticks with you a bit, giving you things to think about.

I have to admit that to be honest, after seeing three episodes of the show (not the interviews/wikipedia articles) I don't believe there is that much depth to it. It would be nice to think everything is intentional, but like the whole Owen thing there slightly to much plot point hitting, and aiming for the fun aspect, IMO.
Which is a shame.

uknesvuinng
November 6th, 2006, 12:54 PM
I have to admit that to be honest, after seeing three episodes of the show (not the interviews/wikipedia articles) I don't believe there is that much depth to it. It would be nice to think everything is intentional, but like the whole Owen thing there slightly to much plot point hitting, and aiming for the fun aspect, IMO.
Which is a shame.

Let me live in my delusions!!! :P

It's very possible that it's not that involved, but I'm going to hold out hope for now that it is. At the very least, I found something meaningful where there was no meaning, and it gave me something to think about. Good scifi should give you something to think about.

Willow'sCat
November 6th, 2006, 01:16 PM
Besides, the guy wasn't exactly Brad Pitt either was he?Um, what? I really don't understand what that has to do with anything.

Owen did intend to at least take the female home so what do people think he was going to do with her? I know sit up all night talking women's rights. :rolleyes: We all know what he was after and if the boyfriend showing up put an end to it then fine, but it still does not make Owen's intentions any more honorable :cool: where the female was concerned.

I guess for me the question is, would the women have gone with Owen if the spray wasn't used? Seems she didn't even want to give him the time of day (with or without knowing she already had a bf) it seemed clear to me; but you know everyone is entitled to see something different.

smurf
November 6th, 2006, 01:23 PM
Let me live in my delusions!!! :P

It's very possible that it's not that involved, but I'm going to hold out hope for now that it is. At the very least, I found something meaningful where there was no meaning, and it gave me something to think about. Good scifi should give you something to think about.
:)
Hey, I think Supernatural is a post-ironic take on road movies and teen horror. Well, that's my excuse. :o
I'd tweak your last sentence to "Good television should give you something to think about". I think that one of the most harmful things for many shows is to be treated as just scifi, something separate from the rest. Something I think, from the reviews I've read, Torchwood has suffered a little from.

uknesvuinng
November 6th, 2006, 01:29 PM
:)
Hey, I think Supernatural is a post-ironic take on road movies and teen horror. Well, that's my excuse. :o
I'd tweak your last sentence to "Good television should give you something to think about". I think that one of the most harmful things for many shows is to be treated as just scifi, something separate from the rest. Something I think, from the reviews I've read, Torchwood has suffered a little from.

Well, not all TV exists to give someone something to think about. However, I think scifi specifically should, hence the distinction. Being science fiction shouldn't make it somehow not a TV show.

smurf
November 6th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Well, not all TV exists to give someone something to think about. However, I think scifi specifically should, hence the distinction. Being science fiction shouldn't make it somehow not a TV show.
But good television should.
Unfortunately I do see a lot of "fun" being aimed for in sci-fi. I think making a specific distinction for sci-fi is not helping the genre's mainstream perception. To me good sci-fi is good television first and foremost, just saying a show is good sci-fi is, to me anyway, saying "well, I know it's not proper tv".

But this is off topic. So, as fascinating the topic of mainstream perception of sci-fi is, I shall desist. :)

uknesvuinng
November 6th, 2006, 01:50 PM
So, on topic: We can all agree at the least that Owen is a scumwad.

smurf
November 6th, 2006, 02:01 PM
Yep, and that Jack uses dubious chemicals as well. :)

scarimor
November 6th, 2006, 02:08 PM
So, on topic: We can all agree at the least that Owen is a scumwad.


Yep, and that Jack uses dubious chemicals as well. :)
I'm waiting for Toshi to turn out to be a junkie now.

smurf
November 6th, 2006, 02:11 PM
I'm waiting for Toshi to turn out to be a junkie now.
Why? What did she do?

scarimor
November 6th, 2006, 02:16 PM
Why? What did she do?
Oh nothing. I didn't mean to imply that she had, I was being a tad facetious :p But we've not had much about her yet, and the first stuff of note we seem to learn about any of them (exluding Gwen) is that they have a dark secret.

ETa: if she does turn out to be one I'll be a tad embarrassed now :p

smurf
November 6th, 2006, 02:24 PM
Oh nothing. I didn't mean to imply that she had, I was being a tad facetious :p But we've not had much about her yet, and the first stuff of note we seem to learn about any of them (exluding Gwen) is that they have a dark secret.

ETa: if she does turn out to be one I'll be a tad embarrassed now :p
Maybe we should open a book.
Ten on Tosh being a Slayer. :D

scarimor
February 22nd, 2007, 07:51 AM
Um, what? I really don't understand what that has to do with anything.

Owen did intend to at least take the female home so what do people think he was going to do with her? I know sit up all night talking women's rights. :rolleyes: We all know what he was after and if the boyfriend showing up put an end to it then fine, but it still does not make Owen's intentions any more honorable :cool: where the female was concerned.

Just this week I saw a local student workshop production which dealt with a similar issue on similar lines. The play involved use of the drink-spiking "date-rape" drug at a private party, and used deliberate ambiguity of both the male culprit's motive and the outcome to focus the audience's mind on the ethics involved.

Essentially, whether or not the teenaged girl was attracted to the boy was somewhat equivocal; but there were strong indications that even if she were, she would not agree to sex at this time.

Then, whether or not sex had actually taken place by the time they woke the next day with the other sleeping party-goers and went their separate ways was not equivocal either. For example, the girl didn't seem upset - but then if something took place she might not have remembered...

Much like this Torchwood scene with Owen, the point of revelation was not conventional, (e.g. do we have to see the threesome in a bed to know that they had sex? Do we have to see Owen speeding away alone in the taxi to know that he ran away instead?) It left the audience wondering or interpreting the scene differently depending on what they brought to the performance from their own views and experiences, and therefore debating how far the protagonists were prepared to go of their own accord, to what extent they were undermined, to what extent it mattered, etc.

It was interesting to listen to the observations afterwards. Just as with this scene, some people interpreted one way in the moment (they shagged), while others interpreted it the other way in the moment (they didn't), and a third much smaller group were "on the fence" in the moment - i.e. they absorbed the deliberate ambiguity as they watched and were left unsure. The resulting discussions did indeed focus on the rights and wrongs of what was/was not done.


I guess for me the question is, would the women have gone with Owen if the spray wasn't used? Seems she didn't even want to give him the time of day (with or without knowing she already had a bf) it seemed clear to me; but you know everyone is entitled to see something different.
Indeed we are. I've never got why a few people think otherwise. And where a scene is deliberately left open, that entitlement is implicit, surely? It goes without saying - or at least it should.