The scene depicts polymorphously perverse series protagonist Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) with guest star James Marsters (Buffy the Vampire Slayer).
I was not impressed by the first season of Torchwood, as it is rather too cute and the special effects too cheap to make up for the snarkiness of the whole affair. The short-lived U.S. series Firefly was far superior. Not recommended.
For additional information about the series, visit the BBC America Torchwood page.
Update: In the original version of this article I used the words ‘sex scene’ to describe the sequence, which may have been technically accurate but certainly had the unfortunate effect of suggesting that the scene includes pornographic effects. That is an inaccurate impression, according to reports. Hence I have changed the term to avoid any potential confusion. As it happens, it took me rather a long time to figure out a phrase that wouldn’t sound too creepy or would too weakly describe the scene, and I’m not altogether sure that I have succeeded.
Thanks for your comment, John. Unfortunately, all of your premises here are false. One, it is most certainly possible–and indeed quite common–to induce sexual attraction; that is confirmed by the entire history of human relationships and by the existence of vast industries catering to the inducement of sexual attraction. Two, there are nowhere near 20 million homosexuals in the United States; the real number is about one-tenth of that. Three, the number of persons engaging in a particular type of behavior has no bearing whatever on its salubriousness or moral standing. The fact that everyone lies does not make it right or good, to take an obvious case. Four, to observe and identify attempts to transform people’s thinking is not a denial of reality but an acknowledgment of it.
One cannot “induce” sexual attraction to someone that one is not sexually attracted to.
True “social engineering” is the denial and pretense that approximately 20 million Americans do not exist.
Acceptance of reality is not a “tactic”.
Thanks Sam. Over the last few day you have provided me with reason enough to reconsider at least two thoughts I’ve delved into before.
Again, one was to review and expand by example my induced behavior theory. Maybe I’ll finally write it up and post it at my own site.
And the other is how lost souls are always looking for new recruits — a seeking to validate their errors by having plenty of company. As revealed by the laughter of the guy who was shocked when he heard my retort and saw that I had joined his “club” of foul-speech.
When we are forced to view something not good for us, it becomes another element that we must guard against. A civilized man is always on guard to keep his more primitive inclinations under control. Isn’t this one reason we wish to shelter our children as long as possible? To gain them time and footing. Hopefully, when the world intrudes on their naivety, they are ready at that point to protect their innocence.
What to reveal and when has always been a parental obligation whether parents wanted to own up to it or not. With the media having become as intrusive as it is, and with crazy legislatures and governors like we have here in Calipornia, that challenge is made all the harder.
A word about conspiracy.
Can it be a conspiracy when there are whole institutions OPENLY dedicated to promoting zero and negative population growth? LOL. Hardly.
That there are many who have and will fail prey to the promoted idea that ones life is infinitely better and the world will be a better place without children the suckers’ children, well, I think that question I raised at the end of my last comment is one that I believe is already troubling us.
Pascal-I think that your observations about the process of induction in the culture resulting in social engineering are accurate, though I certainly don’t see any conspiracy in it all. However, in the Torchwood case and many others, it is clear that the authors of the products do indeed hope to alter society bit by bit.
Those who claim that the culture does not change people’s minds must explain why advertisers spend so much money to accomplish the same thing openly.
I do indeed encourage you to continue on this subject.
S.C.-I appreciate your response. I recognize that the phrasing I used, though technically correct, is apt to cause some confusion. I have added an update to the original item to clear that up. Too bad that our language has become so dismally bastardized these days, but you’re right to point out that it’s a reality we have to deal with.
I very much like your assessment of both the Dr. Who update and Torchwood, and I agree fully. Davies is clearly a very clever and inventive writer, and his work would be much more appealing if he were to turn off the political drumbeat.
People with influence, money and power have been attempting to reshape the American culture into what they’d like to see it for quite some time. In my glossary I have an entry which attempts to explain how social engineering functions. In there I only hinted at one of its tactics that has many times since crossed my mind. I have even expanded upon it comments at various sites I visit. And in the last few days what you have written has prompted me to do so again.
It is social engineering through the use of induction. That’s the term I recommend using when speaking of the inducing of behavior through suggestion. It has often been described with the phrase “monkey see, monkey do.” It is accomplished through the parading of all sorts of often negative behavior in front of others, to the effect that a handful will fall for one thing, another handful for another trap, on ad infinitum, each new victim being self-victimized all depending upon his affinity for the paraded behavior. I never saw it, but wasn’t there a show named Jackass that implies precisely this sort of thing?
It has its analog in electrical engineering. Where wires that are wrapped around some metals (such as an iron nail), a magnet will be induced in the nail when an electrical current is run through the wires. Wrap the same wires around even a good electrical conductor like aluminum, or a bad one like plastic, and in those materials the magnet is not induced.
And so it is with those who have been attempting to alter the American culture. Some people will succumb to a suggestion, others will not.
Ask snake oil salesmen and they’ll tell you some people are immune to a pitch. But come up with enough different pitches, and you greatly increase the chances of making a sale.
If the Dana Jacobson debacle is ever aired (I can’t imagine someone will not save a copy and eventually leak it), whatever it was will wind up prodding others to do things like she did no matter what ultimately happens to her and her career. Same with this Torchwood development. It will induce behavior in people that might not otherwise do anything of the sort until they witness the suggestion, as a moth is drawn to a flame.
If nothing else episodes from the past, like Torchwood today, have no doubt created sexual confusion as well as acceptance of non-reproductive sexual behavior and that will certainly be reward enough for the anti-natalist wing of our social engineers.
The question that is raised in my mind is, will when the future hits those who have fallen prey to this deceptive manipulation, and they are past their prime and regret not having had kids, who will they blame for their having been misled and how will that anger manifest itself?
(As you know, I have more to say on this subject. Will you encourage me to continue?).
My objection was your characterization of the incident as an “explicit male-male sex scene;” perhaps my sensibilities have been coarsened by our culture, but a kiss, no matter who the participants are, hardly qualifies as an explicit sex scene.
I’m bothering to respond because that sort of hyperbolic characterization diminishes the impact of your other comments by allowing critics to fixate on the characterization rather than the underlying argument. As I already stated, I agree with your assessment of the first season and that kiss was not something I wanted to see, either. Quite frankly, while Russell Davies deserves praise for reviving the Doctor Who franchise (and for making it successful enough to spawn spinoffs), his work as a writer for either series deserves somewhat less acclaim. If you watch either Doctor Who or Torchwood, one cannot help but notice that the weakest episodes are generally those penned by Mr. Davies, in large part because he often has some overt agenda (such as acceptance for homosexuality) he wants to push, and he pushes it with all the subtlety of a 50 pound anvil being dropped on one’s head. That deserves to be noted, but just because Mr. Davies is over the top, why do you need to follow suit?
Thanks for your comment, S.C. A scene showing two men kissing for even five seconds is not something I want to see, and it does have the effect of normalizing homosexuality, which is evidently the intent of the scene and of that aspect of Jack’s character in the series. So no, in this case it appears one does not have to see the episode to understand what it’s doing. My clear intent in this story was to inform readers of this event, and I am glad that I accomplished that.
I agree with your assessment of the first season, but I actually saw the season premiere and the “explicit male-male sex scene” involved the two characters kissing for about 5 seconds and then engaging in an old-fashioned bar brawl.
Is it really unreasonable that commentators actually WATCH the programs before they comment?
Sam, I would like to comment on this, but my tangential mind managed to go quite afield from my initial response, found in the following sentence fragment:
More attempted social engineering via induction.
Please check your email for the rest.
PF