(no subject)

[tree_and_leaf]

I hope I'm not the only person who thinks that sexually voracious is a ridiculous way to describe Amy.

... I wasn't wild about the scene where she jumped on the Doctor (actually, it hit my embarrassment squick), but one impulsive decision in the aftermath of surviving Scary Things doesn't make you Messalina. Neither, come to that, does being a kissogram, though again, I don't think it's an ideal career path. But Amy has agency, and the length of her skirts doesn't change that.*

In conclusion: can we please stop playing the slut-shaming card?


* I suppose, since it was a different time, we needn't bring the length skirt of Liz Shaw, all round brilliant scientist, into it....

Comments

[sally_maria]

You're not the only one, it just doesn't make sense in terms of what we see on the screen.

You really do wonder sometimes what a female character would have to be like to please some people.

[grlnamedlucifer]

>You really do wonder sometimes what a female character would have to be like to please some people.<

Be male, basically.

[brightlywoven]

Hmm, there would appear on that reading to be no way for a woman to be sexual without it being problematic. Grrrr.

[grlnamedlucifer]

But if we didn't play the slut-shaming card, how could we possibly write off all other positive characteristics of a female character in one swoop and pretend we would like female characters if they were just written properly?