Heather Smith
From:	Stephen Black [microskirt@hotmail.com]
Sent:	14 November 1999 12:23
To:	heather.smith@btinternet.com
Subject:	Coded Sexual History
Coded Sexual History of Doctor Who, 21 January - 10 February 1998

Laefl:

Ok, given my rather unfortunate interest in over intellectualising things -
I wonder if it possible to construct a "coded sexual history" of Dr Who - a
sort of chronolgy of sexualisation and sexualised images as they appear in
the show. Obviously Ian and Barbara's relationship is a starting point,
right up to Aces proclivity in the crappy old NA's (ha! I can say that on
this list and not get flamed!!!). Zoes' protruding bottom, The EMn of Unit,
Jo Grants knickers, Mary tamms establishing shot - its a rich tableau...

Russ Massey:

But I suspect it's different things for different people. Some are turned on 
by
certain clothing styles even if that's not a conscious decision on the part 
of
the program makers, others by exposed legs, others by deep cleavage and
still others by squeaky voices and red hair :)

And how dare you refer to the NAs as crappy! Not only have they taken our
favourite show to undreamt of heights of sophistication and er...

Stephen Black:

Firstly and most obviously there is intentionally erotic material: shots 
which can
only have been put in to offer a sexual kick to male viewers. I wrote about 
this in
radw last year. I'll repost the article here for the benefit of anyone who 
missed it.

But this needs to be differentiated from images which happened to have an 
erotic
effect but weren't actively seeking one. Here I'd put most of the knicker 
shots: I take it
there wasn't a deliberate *intention* to show the actress's knickers, when 
it happened
it was a happy accident that gave the sadwanking element in the audience a 
pleasant
bonus. One of the most interesting aspects of this is the fact that the 
directors involved
didn't think it necessary to do a retake in such circumstances. (Of course, 
we all know
about time constraints in the studio, and there were no retakes to remove 
all manner
of bloopers, so maybe the value of that point is limited, unless there ever 
*were* 'knicker
retakes' at other times or on other shows of the time. Unfortunately I dare 
say we shall
never know!)

This kind of sexual image needs in its turn to be differentiated from shots 
or incidents
which would not have been anticipated as primarily sexual by the people 
making
the programme, but which *became* sexualized in the eye of the beholder 
either at the
time as a result of some particular kink, or later as a result of changes in 
sexual attitudes
over time. We know that the sight of a girl's knickers was (and still is) 
considered just
a little risque, but there are also many things which people have found 
stimulating,
but wouldn't figure on a list of obvious sexual material. For example, 
close-ups of
companions' feet probably wouldn't be considered a major source of sexual 
pleasure, but
for all we know there might be sadwankers out there getting just as big a 
thrill (I almost
said kick!) from Sarah's feet as some of us do from her bum.

All of these pleasures are in one sense incidental (though pretty important 
to us on
this list!), but another category is the actual representation of sexuality 
in the events
of the stories. This is generally pretty mild, as we might expect from a 
programme that
was for many years considered as children's viewing, so it often doesn't get 
beyond
googly eyes and marrying a companion off at the end of her stint. But it's 
interesting
how much more open it all was in the earliest years of the series. Most of 
this interest
seemed to revolve around Barbara, with assorted randy trappers, emperors and 
saracens
after her body, but don't let's forget that amazing 'fresh fish' scene 
between Susan and
David in THE DALEK INVASION OF EARTH.

We should also think about those occasions when the programme obviously 
*avoided*
sexual material (which partly goes back to that 'children's viewing' label). 
An example
of this is the way Susan was not allowed to have a crush on Ian and be 
jealous of Barbara.
Zoe was never spanked (on screen, at least) despite the clearest possible 
telegraphing of
such a scene in WHEEL IN SPACE (and, arguably, subtler suggestions in later 
stories).
I can remember my own disappointment in WARRIORS OF THE DEEP when Tegan is
about to go into the ventilation shaft, and the camera cuts away from 
showing us the rear
view we'd been offered with the other characters who went before her, but 
who were *not*
wearing mini-skirts. I'm sure you've all had similar moments of frustration!

Finally, there's the question of whether the programme also has a more 
latent sexual
coding. I think the recurrent casting of the companion as damsel in distress 
is a pretty
clear indication that it does, even if you don't want to descend into 
Freudian interpretations
of the significance of Mel's screaming mouth. I venture to say that it seems 
to be mildly
sadistic in orientation (one reason why I'm curiously unsurprised by the 
amount of
spanking material on the list, even though it's a fetish that, unlike 
underwear, doesn't
seem especially well catered for in the programme). In fact, I seem to 
remember
reading somewhere that Elisabeth Sladen went out for a drink with Louise 
Jameson
when Louise took over from her, and told Louise that the main requirement 
for an
actress playing the companion was that she should be into bondage, because 
she could
expect to be tied up so often! Says it all, really.

OK, so that isn't quite a chronology of the kind laefl wanted to discuss, 
but maybe
it gives another dimension to the subject.

Laefl:

ah! but it was. It's the way the show mixes the subliminal with the covert
and I think builds on its own sexual history - thats what i was angling at

>Firstly and most obviously there is intentionally erotic material: shots 
>which can only have been put in to offer a sexual kick to male viewers. I 
>wrote about this in >radw last year. I'll repost the article here for the 
>benefit of anyone who missed it

Please do. This is the crucial stuff.

>We know that the sight of a girl's knickers was (and still is) considered 
>just
>a little risque, but there are also many things which people have found 
>stimulating, but wouldn't figure on a list of obvious sexual material.  For 
>example, close-ups of companions' feet probably wouldn't be considered a 
>major source of sexual pleasure, but for all we know there might be 
>sadwankers out there getting just as big a thrill (I almost said kick!) 
>from Sarah's feet as some of us do from her bum.

Feet!!! Theres an unwritten history in dr Who...... I'm wondering whenever
we got a view of SJS's feet (sidetracking - my dear wife always looks at me
ever so strangley when I comment on the delicacy and irresistiblilty of
Helen Hunts feet. Have you ever seen that womans feet??)

>All of these pleasures are in one sense incidental (though pretty important 
>to us on
>this list!), but another category is the actual representation of sexuality 
>in the events
>of the stories. This is generally pretty mild, as we might expect from a 
>programme that
>was for many years considered as children's viewing,

Well, that was alot of the point I raised. There are moments for better or
for worse we sadwankers have adopted as sexual "signposts" int he series (eg
Zoe on the detachced TARDIS console on Mind Robber)

>so it often doesn't get beyond
>googly eyes and marrying a companion off at the end of her stint. But it's 
>interesting how much more open it all was in the earliest years of the 
>series. Most of this interest seemed to revolve around Barbara, with 
>assorted randy trappers, emperors and saracens after her body, but don't 
>let's forget that amazing 'fresh fish' scene between Susan and David in THE 
>DALEK INVASION OF EARTH.

There is also the unbounded sensuality of her performance in "THE AZTECS"
and the rather broad subtext in that. Sexy as hell was our Barb, in a very
60's sense.

>We should also think about those occasions when the programme obviously 
>*avoided* sexual material (which partly goes back to that 'children's 
>viewing' label). An example of this is the way Susan was not allowed to 
>have a crush on Ian and be jealous of Barbara. Zoe was never spanked (on 
>screen, at least) despite the clearest possible telegraphing of such a 
>scene in WHEEL IN SPACE (and, arguably, subtler suggestions in later 
>stories).

Wasnt she? I always thought the tension between Susan and Barbra was
somewhat palpable, and "The Romans" was in part the expression of her
release from that tension. please do repost your r.a.d item,as I aam sure
it would contribute greatly to the discussion!

[Repost of Stephen Black's Voyeurism post from rec.arts.drwho:

Over the years, Doctor Who generally shunned overt sexual
suggestiveness. Oh yes, perves can ogle the array of tight
trousers, figure-hugging tops and visible panties sported by
the female companions, but there aren't very many moments
where the direction and storytelling seems to actively invite
sexual interest as the only or main response. To take an
obvious example, Jamie never gets to give Zoe the spanking
he threatened in THE WHEEL IN SPACE, to the
disappointment of the kinkier viewers (and perhaps Frazer Hines
too). He can threaten, because, as his aggressive male response
to her assumption of superiority, it builds character and
emphasizes conflict. But he can't actually do it, because that
would be gratuitous titillation (not to mention a scene that Wendy
Padbury wouldn't welcome!), and so would be inappropriate in
a children's/family show (delete as preferred).

None the less, it's interesting to survey the times when various
directors did indulge themselves in shots whose main or sole
purpose is to display some aspect of an actor's anatomy in a
sexually interesting way. I don't really want to get into political
arguments about the validity of having such material in the
series. I think there are other interesting things to say, so I'll
leave the PC response to others, if I may.

For the first five seasons, as far as the available evidence
shows, the programme was pretty reserved in its visuals.
What made certain directors break ranks was, it seems, Wendy
Padbury's bottom. Take that shot in THE MIND ROBBER
(you all know which one I mean) - was there any reason for
it except to show the Padbury posterior swinging towards the
camera in all its curvaceous glory? It happens again in THE
INVASION when Zoe climbs down into the sewers - the only
reason for choosing that particular shot was to give the male
audience a chance to look up her skirt. (Those old enough to
have seen it say Zoe's appearance in the helicopter sequence
in Part 4 was pretty memorable too!)

Things calmed down in the early 70s. We all remember Jo
Grant as a sexily-costumed, mini-skirted companion who
showed her knickers a lot, but no director featured her in
the kind of gratuitous bending-over pose to be seen in some
sitcoms of the day, where showing the girl's knickers is the
whole point of the shot. Even when costume designer Mary
Husband (or perhaps actress Katy Manning?) chose to give Jo
an unmissably eye-catching pair of non-matching red knickers
in DAY OF THE DALEKS, the sight of them was always a
distracting bonus and never the point of the shot.

I can only think of one voyeuristic shot of Sarah, where she
climbs up the library steps in TERROR OF THE ZYGONS,
her bottom proffered to the camera (with added visible panty
line which I take to be an accident), but the advent of Leela
changed things. Again, directors took the chance to point the
camera in unexpected directions to show us things like Leela
climbing down the ladder in THE SUN MAKERS, with only a
thin strip of leather covering her cheeks, or the close-up in
THE INVASION OF TIME Part 6 of Leela's knickers swinging
past the camera to enact revenge on Castellan Kelner.

Mary Tamm and Lalla Ward escaped this sort of thing, but in
the 1980s voyeuristic Doctor Who reached its peak. Strangely
enough, it begins with Adric, and that shot in LOGOPOLIS Part
4 where the lad's bottom is dead centre of the frame and you're
so obviously being invited to look - not that I wanted to!
More conventionally, there's the shot of Nyssa's bottom
falling into the water in CASTROVALVA (and wet bottoms
in general seem to have been a popular feature of this era)
and the creeping pan up her skirt as she recovers in TERMINUS
Part 4. And then Peri arrived, accompanied by that slow pan up her
bikini-clad body in PLANET OF FIRE, and later the close-up
of her bottom slung over Shockeye's shoulder in THE TWO
DOCTORS - the last story with a scantily-clad companion,
and so an appropriate end for the eighteen-year history of Who
voyeurism.

I think it's probably not a coincidence that so many of these shots
involve bottoms. It's easy for a director to show off an actress's
breasts (not that very many Who companions are well endowed
in that department, Peri excepted), because they can easily go in the
same shot as her face. In the terms of my survey, it's only an
opportunity to ogle, not a moment where you have to do so, or else
look away. But bottoms are more gratuitous, because you wouldn't
normally choose to show them as the centrepiece of a shot. (It used to
be called an 'unflattering view', I'm told).

My interpretation of this little history is that, in the 60s and 70s,
directors generally succumbed to temptation when the female
companion's costumes were considered unusually sexy. I think that's
why Jo Grant wasn't ogled by the cameras, because her outfits were
typical of the groovy early 70s style. Zoe and Leela were, because
you didn't see form-fitting catsuits or leather mini-skirts every day.
The anomaly is TERROR OF THE ZYGONS, which I put down to
a preference of the director, Douglas Camfield, for sexy ladder
shots (remembering he directed THE INVASION too).

Speaking of directors, it's interesting that three of the five 80s
examples were directed by women (Fiona Cumming and Mary Ridge).
You might expect them to avoid images that could be seen as
sexist or degrading to the actresses. So, since this kind of shot
was quite common in the early-mid 80s, I wonder if exploiting
the charms of the companions (including Adric and Turlough)
was more overtly part of Doctor Who's intentional house style
then?

Russ Massey:

Mmm - I remember reading it now.

There's a *very* comprehensive history of bum shots in John Molyneau's
'Anals of History' in the fanzine 'Cottage Under Siege'. Probably deliberate
ones include (and I'll stick to the female ones only):

Susan climbing doen a ladder in tight trousers (Invasion of the Daleks 5)
Zoe on the TARDIS console (Mind Robbers 1)

(Oh, and I noticed that in the final episode of invasion one of the soldiers 
at
the missile base can't help giving Zoe's bottom a good leer as she scampers
past trying to compute the missile trajectory.)

Liz bending up and down to chat with the Doctor working on the car 
(Silurians 1)
Jo hopping up on the table and showing about all the thigh possible (Time 
Monster 1)
Thal Jane How crawling through the Spiridon tunnels (Planet of the Daleks 3)
Peri (Planet of Fire)

Hmm, not as many as I thought that have to be deliberate on the part of the
director, but there a great many possibles and probables as well (and far
more gratuitous bum shots of male actors than the females ones if this 
article
is accurate).


>close-ups of
>companions' feet probably wouldn't be considered a major source of sexual 
>pleasure, but
>for all we know there might be sadwankers out there getting just as big a 
>thrill (I almost
>said kick!) from Sarah's feet as some of us do from her bum.

And fans of bondage won't find many stories going by without something to
tickle their fancy, with Jo and Sarah seemingly particularly prone to being
roped up at the first opportunity.

>We should also think about those occasions when the programme obviously 
>*avoided*
>sexual material (which partly goes back to that 'children's viewing' 
>label). An example
>of this is the way Susan was not allowed to have a crush on Ian and be 
>jealous of Barbara.

And Steven was rescued from years of solitary captivity with no apparent
interest in female company whatsoever :)

>Finally, there's the question of whether the programme also has a more 
>latent sexual
>coding. I think the recurrent casting of the companion as damsel in 
>distress is a pretty
>clear indication that it does,

But there are also good dramatic reasons why
a) The companion should tend to be a young woman, and
b) be placed in positions of danger
so it could be argued again that this is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think you can equate bondage with sadism necessarily. On screen
torture never really progressed beyond screaming at the (somewhat abstract)
mental distress caused by things like mind probes etc. The restraint always
had a *reason* - it was never there because the villain was depicted as 
getting
his kicks from it. And I suspect the Doctor was restrained just as often as 
the
companions were when it comes down to it.

Stephen Black:

>But there are also good dramatic reasons why
>a) The companion should tend to be a young woman, and
>b) be placed in positions of danger
>so it could be argued again that this is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think it needs to be deliberate at this level: I was talking about
latent coding rather than intentional attempts to titillate by showing women
in distress. My point was that this is *inherently* a situation with sexual
undertones, irrespective of the overt dramatic reasons for it.

>I don't think you can equate bondage with sadism necessarily. On screen
>torture never really progressed beyond screaming at the (somewhat abstract)
>mental distress caused by things like mind probes etc. The restraint always
>had a *reason* - it was never there because the villain was depicted as 
>getting
>his kicks from it. And I suspect the Doctor was restrained just as often as 
>the
>companions were when it comes down to it.

I think you oversimplify my point. As I take it, the bondage scenarios are 
not so
much an end in themselves as part of a broader streak of (mild) sadism in 
the
representation of women in situations of distress. The same argument doesn't
apply to the Doctor because, in the dynamics of the series, he is capable of
getting himself out of trouble (and indeed usually has to). The female 
companions
are generically 'helpless' figures who need to be rescued (notwithstanding
individual cases - characters and incidents - where they effectively rescue
themselves). So the series' basic fantasy, in this aspect, is the pleasure 
of
seeing a woman menaced, followed by the reassurance of seeing her saved
by a dominant male. That seems (assuming you can identify with both the
villain who menaces and the hero who saves) remarkably like a BDSM pain-
and-comfort scenario to me.

Russ Massey:

Hmm. You seem to be saying that if we ignore

a) Situations where the Doctor is restrained, and
b) Situations where the companions get themselves out of trouble

then we have situations where young women are menaced and then saved by
the hero. Yup, can't argue with that one :)

But facetiousness aside, I think I would agree with you. I'm still not sure
whether or not it's only *now*, with the generally higher level of awareness 
of
media techniques and the skills of deconstructionism that the situation you
describe would be thought of in that way. My argument might be that these
scenes were filmed in a more naive time, where underlying sexual themes
were much less likely to be picked up on consciously.

And no, I don't think I'm convincing even myself here. I'm damn sure that 
the
directors and the actors were completely aware of such things, even if they
might have gone over the head of the average viewer.

Stephen Black:

Well, a good piece of evidence about that is a memo from Christopher
Barry about THE RESCUE which was printed in an '80s DW book (THE EARLY
YEARS, I think). He tries to fathom out the various character motivations,
and comments in passing that Bennett has probably chosen to keep Vicki
alive for sexual reasons...

Of course, he may just have ODed after reading the script for THE ROMANS!


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com