Sex and the Zombie

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

First of all, I have to disappoint whoever reads this if you considered the thread to be related to the question "Do zombies have a sex life?" Sorry, this will not discussed here, at least by this very first posting.

What is this thread about then? Well, there are two things orbiting around my head for quite a while now. First off, WA (as well as The Walking Dead) depicts killing zombies in pictorial / explicit noisily way. A wide variety of killings (zombie/human) is told throughout the storyline. As a listener, you are able to immerse into the bloodshed, to feel the despair whenever something goes horribly wrong.

However, on the other side, there is a tiny little thing that is only touched upon: sex. Now, I am not a 13 year old teenage boy any more (at least I hope so) and I do not need free swinging breasts in a zombie show to gain interest in following it. It is quite the opposite, but regarding the minute descriptions that go along with the task of depopulate the world of zombies (including all the beloved gory situations: bloodshed, open fractures, torn off arms - you name it) on the one side, sex is not a big issue at all it seems. Yeah, there are Michael and Pegs who occasionally practice vanilla sex - but that is about it except Saul and Lizzy.

So would it be over the top to postulate that in American media, guns are good, bare boobs are bad? Just a thought, waiting for some input from you. :)

Let me move on to my second question. Is Scratch a completely asexual character? Throughout the series, there is not real indication what or better who arouses her. I do not have any idea. Whether she is hetero-, homo- or bisexual or lives in a happy relationship with her knife (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/object sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality)) - we do not know. I am just asking because, if there is a lust-driven character in WA, it is Scratch. Torturing and killing people is her "thing" which gives her satisfaction Rolling-Stones-style.

That is it, what are your thoughts. And finally, I am happy that I did not mention anything related to Black Hawks. :)

[scbubba]

So would it be over the top to postulate that in American media, guns are good, bare boobs are bad? Just a thought, waiting for some input from you. :)

You nailed it right there. The groups that give "ratings" to movies and television shows are more inclined (my observation, at least) to show violence to kids instead of the human body. In other words, killing someone is more likely to be shown in popular movies than having sex. My theory is that the WA podcast gets the explicit tag because of the "F word" more than the violence.


Let me move on to my second question. Is Scratch a completely asexual character? Throughout the series, there is not real indication what or better who arouses her. I do not have any idea. Whether she is hetero-, homo- or bisexual or lives in a happy relationship with her knife (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/object sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality)) - we do not know. I am just asking because, if there is a lust-driven character in WA, it is Scratch. Torturing and killing people is her "thing" which gives her satisfaction Rolling-Stones-style.

That is it, what are your thoughts. And finally, I am happy that I did not mention anything related to Black Hawks. :)

Regarding Scratch, I think she shows some interest in Lizzie at the first meeting. And during her story about her rape, I got the impression that Scratch may have decided to be done with men.... I could be wrong though.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

You nailed it right there. The groups that give "ratings" to movies and television shows are more inclined (my observation, at least) to show violence to kids instead of the human body. In other words, killing someone is more likely to be shown in popular movies than having sex. My theory is that the WA podcast gets the explicit tag because of the "F word" more than the violence.



Regarding Scratch, I think she shows some interest in Lizzie at the first meeting. And during her story about her rape, I got the impression that Scratch may have decided to be done with men.... I could be wrong though.

The "F word" - I love the term. :D However, I think that using the "F word" on "The L word" implied far more explicit meanings...

Regarding Scratch's orientation, I concur to you, "The Remains Of Eastern Bay" implied that Scratch could be into women.

+1 Sorry, cannot rep you atm.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Oh God, I think Osiris is going to hate me for discussing Scratch's orientation.

[Osiris]

The fuck... what are you guys smoking? Crack? What's this about orientation? Doesn't anyone remember the great Riley debacle... oh wait... no... neither of you would. Sometimes it's best left to the ether. As far as Scratch's orientation goes, I'm a firm believer that she swings both ways. Sure, she identifies straight... but nothing wrong with some tits once in a while... it's all good... if the balls don't touch, it's not gay. What? That's a true statement isn't it? I heard that was a rule... and since it's a rule, and Scratch has no balls with with to touch other balls....

It's all good in the dark.


P.S. The thread title actually conjured an image of Sarah Jessica Parker right out the gate. For that I blame my ex.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

I can only image the Riley debacle you are talking about. :D

But whereas we got - let's say - at least some evidence pro or contra Riley's orientation, there is merely none even on a subatomic level concerning Scratch.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

And if scbubba and I would smoke crack, we would most likely discuss whether Scratch is going to spank Tardust's buttocks for fun during the WA hiatus. Poor guy, Tardust.

[LiamKerrington]

As for showing guns and violence on the one side and anything regarding exchanging body-fluids ... I remember that on iTunes WA is marked as explicit. And I bet that has nothing to do with Michael asking Pegs, whether she was naked or not while bathing at the coastline of lovely zombie-LA ...

In general and considering the very "nature" of America's people, guns may be considered much more accepted then showing love and tenderness in the open. Thus I consider it normal and not even slightly disturbing that there is a similar treatment of both on shows like this. Besides: the different jibes from Michael, Pegs, CJ, Saul, Lizzy ... Hell, it's fair enough that very personal things remain personal in this show.

Ok, and as for Scratch. No clue, what you are up to. Let me quote this:

2348

All the best!
Liam

[LiamKerrington]

About Scratch and her sexual agenda ... Your argument is: Scratch could be this and this, because on the complete show we have no indication for what she likes - hetero-, homo-, bi-, objecto- or a-sexual.
Dude: Then most characters in this show could be anything. I wonder what makes Scratch so special to think about her sexual agenda. Because she is supposed to be the main villain on the side of the humans? Or that she has some of the most awesome quotes and scenes on the show? That she has such a brutal background-story, which would explain almost anything that is not aiming at hetero?

Really ... No clue what to think about it. In my humble opinion: If Scratch ever finds the right person to fall in love with, she may even share some acts of love with that person. Actually I don'T even care what type of sexuality this would involve. Does it matter anyway? No.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Well, the question simply manifested in my head. It is just that a question posted as a thread on this forum. Does it matter? Probably it does, probably it does not. Who cares? If someone feels compelled to post on this - feel free to do so. If not, it is ok as well. A thread is just a thread, that is all, mate.

And I really enjoyed reading Osiris posting, so creating this thread has been totally worth it.

[LiamKerrington]

And I really enjoyed reading Osiris posting, so creating this thread has been totally worth it.

:rolleyes:

[Drannix99]

[QUOTE=LiamKerrington;53371]
Dude: Then most characters in this show could be anything.

Sorry but I disagree. You know the orientation of just about every character in the show either through statement or their suspected intrest. (Michael and Pegs, Lizzy and Saul and CJ, Victor and Kelly, Riley likes women, Datu likes women, Tardust likes women, etc.) We know it for just about everyone except Scratch. Why is it important? Well...orientation and intrest give you an Idea as to what else these characters would be willing to fight for besides suvival. It adds another layer of debt to the characters becides the one of action-hero/zombie-slaughtering/villan/warrior/etc. Some of the funniest scenes were during the party at the tower were everyone awkwardly/drunkenly tried to hook-up. Likewise some of the most heroic and/or stroy building scenes were those where Michael, Saul, or any other character did something to defend those they care/cared about. I don't care who you are, the desire for revenge and survival can't be the only things keeping Scratch going. If so? She's a pretty shallow Character, even for a villian.

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

[QUOTE=LiamKerrington;53371]
Dude: Then most characters in this show could be anything.

Sorry but I disagree. You know the orientation of just about every character in the show either through statement or their suspected intrest. (Michael and Pegs, Lizzy and Saul and CJ, Victor and Kelly, Riley likes women, Datu likes women, Tardust likes women, etc.) We know it for just about everyone except Scratch. Why is it important? Well...orientation and intrest give you an Idea as to what else these characters would be willing to fight for besides suvival. It adds another layer of debt to the characters becides the one of action-hero/zombie-slaughtering/villan/warrior/etc. Some of the funniest scenes were during the party at the tower were everyone awkwardly/drunkenly tried to hook-up. Likewise some of the most heroic and/or stroy building scenes were those where Michael, Saul, or any other character did something to defend those they care/cared about. I don't care who you are, the desire for revenge and survival can't be the only things keeping Scratch going. If so? She's a pretty shallow Character, even for a villian.

Riley had some sort of crush on Angel, otherwise some events at the end of episode 36 would not make much sense.

[LiamKerrington]

You know the orientation of just about every character in the show either through statement or their suspected intrest. (...) We know it for just about everyone except Scratch.

Puck, Kimmet, Bricks, Pippin, Skittles/ Duncan, Kelly, Bill, Tommy, Ryan, Carley, Simon, Mary, Steven, Hope, Jakob, James, Paul, Leopold, Lewis, Latch, Durai, Charlie, Johnny, Sam, Muldoon, Robbins, Fernando, Pete, Marcus, Bixby, Supervisor, Glenn, Amy, Sean, Bill Roberts, Sean ...

So much as for, 'you know the orientation of just about every character in the show either through statement or their suspected interest', while noone knows nothing about Scratch's sexual agenda. I think, you are proven wrong.

I agree with you on two things:
a) I was not accurate; I should have stated something along like "most" or "nearly everyone";*
b) knowing the sexual agenda of an individual may help us understand about and assume how someone might react in a certain situation. But that was not important in this show in general, but only in the few chosen moments.

*Oh, WAIT! I actually wrote 'most' and not all or just any ... Thus my posting already implied that there were few or some that ... Oh my! ... :hsugh:

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

I think that it is legitimate to ask the question.

What are Scratch's motives? Gathering wealth? No. Ruling a large group of people? I doubt it. Could her sexuality be some sort of driving force? Might be. At least it might be an explanation, even a wicked one, for her behaviour.

[LiamKerrington]

Her sexual agenda/ orientation is (part of) the driving force behind her actions? Seriously? And your main point is, this would be important because the WA-show has not revealed anything about her relation to sex, while the WA-story cared to give us insight to FEW, and not even close to many other characters' interests?
I am glad that you clarified that this is actually you who is interested in it and that you wished to see some reaction from Osiris. Congratulations. I wonder where this will end.


What are Scratch's motives? Gathering wealth? No. Ruling a large group of people? I doubt it. Could her sexuality be some sort of driving force? Might be. At least it might be an explanation, even a wicked one, for her behaviour.

To avenge the death of her brother - probably the only real family member in her life, the only person she had a close relation with, she could trust, who was reliable etc.? Does this make her longing for inbreeding? Or is this based on the deeper personal structures for lust and sex and rock'n'roll? Really ... You should stop reading Freud.

/rant

[scbubba]

I'm not sure we really have to justify why someone asks a question regarding characters in the show. I think it's kinda interesting that it matters so much to folks that YABC asked the question. Is it taboo in some way to talk about sexual topics?

Anyway, I think topics like this could (emphasis on the word could) lead to deeper discussions about characters. Ones of the reaons I like the how so much is that Kc has developed his characters so well. We, the audience, want to know more about these characters. We get attachments, if you will, to them over the course of the show.

That being said, I'm not sure Scratch's sexual orientation/desires are driving forces in her role in the WA story. Maybe they play in to some parts - the first meeting it did come up when Latch & Scratch were eyeballing Lizzie - so it did help establish the listeners opinion of the character.

[Osiris]

Seems to me that Scratch is motivated by survival. It doesn't appear as though she's really drawn by much else--at least as far as the story has let slip thus far. I would find the idea of her being driven by sexual orientation, or sexuality in general, to be highly suspect.

[LiamKerrington]

No need for justifications. I don't ask for this. I just speak up for my mind. And good point: Asking questions for delving deeper and deeper into the characters - sweet - go ahead! Even I have understood that this forum is there for things like this.

I wonder why I feel like I have to justify my complain instead - why? If people seem to be annoyed about what I write, then hit DISAPPROVE on my postings; that's what it is for! (Now, does my rep decrease all of a sudden?) I provided the points, why I see absolutely no reason in discussing something based on weird arguments and which cannot be supported by any given fact from the show itself. It's like discussing for the purpose of discussing only, and not for the content.

I keep the facepalm up on this particular part of the question.

And if I killed the discussion, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Just ignore my rambling and rant. I am out of this thread.

All the best!
Liam

[Witch_Doctor]

Scratch - In addition to what else was mentioned, she seemed very upset that Tardust and Bricks found a 'girl' without telling her. She could have meant any person and just said girl because that's what Bricks mentioned. But, she sounds focused on the fact that it was a female.

There are quite a bit of sexual references through out the story. The first season treated sex in a silly 8 year old's perspective way. (Sorry KC) For example the scene when Angel and Riley have to strip down to pour water on each other or the preteen-like flirting between Pegs and Michael.

I can't help but to wonder if the events that take place in the center of the arena is some sort of zombie orgy. Riley points out that the zombies exhibt some sort of animal lust when they react to the sweat bottles, and that sex is a powerful drive.

[scbubba]

Scratch - In addition to what else was mentioned, she seemed very upset that Tardust and Bricks found a 'girl' without telling her. She could have meant any person and just said girl because that's what Bricks mentioned. But, she sounds focused on the fact that it was a female.

There are quite a bit of sexual references through out the story. The first season treated sex in a silly 8 year old's perspective way. (Sorry KC) For example the scene when Angel and Riley have to strip down to pour water on each other or the preteen-like flirting between Pegs and Michael.

I can't help but to wonder if the events that take place in the center of the arena is some sort of zombie orgy. Riley points out that the zombies exhibt some sort of animal lust when they react to the sweat bottles, and that sex is a powerful drive.

I took Scratch's reaction to them finding "a girl" as being related to her obsession with getting Pegs. Obviously, her right hand man (Tardust) would know that finding "that girl" is a pretty high priority for Scratch.

The zombie sex thing, hmmmm, that just leads down some dark alleys.... *spine crawling*

[Osiris]

No need for justifications. I don't ask for this. I just speak up for my mind. And good point: Asking questions for delving deeper and deeper into the characters - sweet - go ahead! Even I have understood that this forum is there for things like this.

I wonder why I feel like I have to justify my complain instead - why? If people seem to be annoyed about what I write, then hit DISAPPROVE on my postings; that's what it is for! (Now, does my rep decrease all of a sudden?) I provided the points, why I see absolutely no reason in discussing something based on weird arguments and which cannot be supported by any given fact from the show itself. It's like discussing for the purpose of discussing only, and not for the content.

I keep the facepalm up on this particular part of the question.

And if I killed the discussion, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Just ignore my rambling and rant. I am out of this thread.

All the best!
Liam

lolwut?

[LiamKerrington]

lolwut?

Would get too offtopic, wouldn't it?
edit:
And yet: Yesterday this topic just caught me in the wrong moment, and I took things way too seriously. Still: I think the second part of the original posting is absurd; but who am I to question things? Right.

Enjoy.

[reaper239]

First of all, I have to disappoint whoever reads this if you considered the thread to be related to the question "Do zombies have a sex life?" Sorry, this will not discussed here, at least by this very first posting.

What is this thread about then? Well, there are two things orbiting around my head for quite a while now. First off, WA (as well as The Walking Dead) depicts killing zombies in pictorial / explicit noisily way. A wide variety of killings (zombie/human) is told throughout the storyline. As a listener, you are able to immerse into the bloodshed, to feel the despair whenever something goes horribly wrong.

However, on the other side, there is a tiny little thing that is only touched upon: sex. Now, I am not a 13 year old teenage boy any more (at least I hope so) and I do not need free swinging breasts in a zombie show to gain interest in following it. It is quite the opposite, but regarding the minute descriptions that go along with the task of depopulate the world of zombies (including all the beloved gory situations: bloodshed, open fractures, torn off arms - you name it) on the one side, sex is not a big issue at all it seems. Yeah, there are Michael and Pegs who occasionally practice vanilla sex - but that is about it except Saul and Lizzy.

So would it be over the top to postulate that in American media, guns are good, bare boobs are bad? Just a thought, waiting for some input from you. :)

Let me move on to my second question. Is Scratch a completely asexual character? Throughout the series, there is not real indication what or better who arouses her. I do not have any idea. Whether she is hetero-, homo- or bisexual or lives in a happy relationship with her knife (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/object sexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_sexuality)) - we do not know. I am just asking because, if there is a lust-driven character in WA, it is Scratch. Torturing and killing people is her "thing" which gives her satisfaction Rolling-Stones-style.

That is it, what are your thoughts. And finally, I am happy that I did not mention anything related to Black Hawks. :)

i'm sorry, i hit free swinging breasts and got lost... sorry, what?

[scbubba]

i'm sorry, i hit free swinging breasts and got lost... sorry, what?

O_o

[reaper239]

ok, here is my two cents. in the middle of surviving a zombie apocalypse, i'm going to be a little hesitant to drop trou and do the wild thing. i mean really? if you want sex go watch a zombie porno (i'm sure it's out there somewhere). second, we know pegs and michael slept together, and we KNOW liz and saul slept together, what did you want, to listen? i think that would be pretty boring to listen to fifteen minutes of WA sex. we know the acts occured, which is really all we need with this story, the knowledge that those intimate moments transpired between prominent characters and changed their dynamics. as far as the walking dead is concerned, that show is loaded with sex, granted they don't show the sex, but they show the moments leading up to it. what do you want? it's not porn, it's a zombie show. and why are you complaining? a freaking zombie show is actually a running serial on tv, that's like the first ever. so between not listening to sex in the zombie apocalypse on WA, and TWD not being a porno... i'm sorry, where was i going, i read free swinging breasts again... sorry what?

[LiamKerrington]

if you want sex go watch a zombie porno (i'm sure it's out there somewhere).

Not sure, if this is a zombie-porno; by I guess it has the potential getting close to it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0960890/

2352