Jay Peterson
  • Home
  • Acting
    • Headshots
    • Resume
    • Press >
      • C3 Tweets
    • History
    • Reels
  • The Gruntverse
    • Three briefings before a crisis
    • The Preliminary Report of Marshal Bennett
    • So your kid turned out to be a mage
    • Ghost Light Sample Chapter
    • Gruntverse deleted scenes >
      • Gruntverse farewell jasmine
      • Gruntverse chittendens insight
  • Jay at Play
    • Nonfiction >
      • A Millenial's guide to inheriting guns
    • Other videos >
      • Just Blanks
      • Tommy That
      • Machine Gun Shakespeare
      • Igor
  • Blog

Jayne Cobb: ethical perv.

12/30/2016

0 Comments

 
“I’ll be in my bunk.”

It was funny the first time.

Unfortunately its gone past overdone and is sadly now well into the land of creepy, where it has multiplied. Typical scenario goes thusly:

A) Lady posts attractive pic of herself.

B) Casual male acquaintance responds by leaving an open comment with the above quotation. Possibly with a winking emoji if they’re feeling particularly clever.

C) Nobody bothers pointing out that it’s not fun when a casual acquaintance announces they’re about to vigorously masturbate to the lady’s image without further ado.

And the conversation usually comes to a screeching halt there. Even if there are those willing to point out, “He’s Adam Baldwin playing a character. You, nerdboy, have proven you can’t so much as spell ‘respect,’ despite the fact that Aretha was kind enough to put it to music before you were a gleam in your daddy’s nutsack,” there ain’t much in the way of offenders willing to listen.

This is usually where I get trapped in a cyclical argument with our examplatory fuckin' nerdboy, trying to convince him that I haven't been hoarding the panty-dropping cheat codes. However, since this is a case of emulating a pop culture figure, we have an example we can study and analyze. More fortunately, thanks to the sadly limited nature of the media, it's easy enough to rewatch both Firefly and Serenity (Twist my arm, really), to get at what the character's up to.

So how does the hero of Canton express his lechery?

The pilot episode has him making a crass comment about Kaylee at the dinner table. While Mal pointing this out has Jayne doubling down, he shuts up and obeys when his refusal to back off gets him banished from the table. While more graphic than most examples throughout the series, it does set the pattern for how he acts around the rest of the crew. Reactions consist of either friendly banter or an indication that he needs to back off and shut up. Lo and behold, HE BACKS OFF AND SHUTS UP!

Examples? Plenty.

in "Shindig"...

WASH: Captain, can I have money for a slinky dress?"

JAYNE: "I'd chip in."

ZOE: "I can hurt you."

JAYNE: SHUTS UP

and..

JAYNE: "What we need is a diversion... I say Zoe gets nekkid."

WASH: "No."

JAYNE: "I could get nekkid."

EVERYONE: "No!"

JAYNE: SHUTS UP

in "Jaynestown"...

ZOE: "Is that Jayne? Wash, pinch me!"

JAYNE: "I'll pinch you."

ZOE: *waves him off*

JAYNE: SHUTS UP

in "Trash," ...

JAYNE: "Well, as a rule, I say, girlfolk ain't to be trusted."

RIVER: "'Jayne' is a girl's name."

JAYNE: "Well, Jayne ain't a girl! She starts in on that girl's-name thing, [reaches into his pants] I'll show her good 'n' all, I got man parts!"

SIMON: "I'm... trying to think of a way for you to be cruder. I just... it's not coming."

JAYNE: SHUTS UP


Not once does he bitch about his right to continue acting this way. In fact, Jayne rarely displays any sort of outward interest towards the women of Serenity, and definitely doesn't pursue any of them. When he does show interest, it's almost always initiated by someone else, such as the idea of Zoe in a slinky dress above, or "I could stand to hear more" about Kaylee "not having anything twixt my nethers weren't run on batteries."

In fact, much of his interactions run more to the practical. In the above example from "Shindig," Jayne behaved with much more interest to distracting Badger's men than out of prurient interest in seeing Zoe naked. We see more of that in "Our Mrs Reynolds," when his immediate reaction to Saffron is more of seizing an opportunity than anything else.


MAL: "I don't know this girl!"

JAYNE: "Can I know her?"

... Followed by yet another example of him shutting up when shut down. Later in the episode, he offers to barter Vera. Played for laughs, obviously, but think about it for a second: Jayne NEVER could have afforded a weapon like Vera on his own. He had to kill SIX men who were coming for him in order to acquire Vera as a trophy. In his eyes, he's offering more than he can ever earn at once.

His practicality reasserts itself in "Heart of gold," when he makes sure to train his chosen playmate into duty as his A gunner before jumping into bed (or not bothering and staying in the chair, as it were).

Which leads us full circle into the phrase that got us into this in the first place: "I'll be in my bunk."

Jayne says this exactly twice: once when the counselor arrives as he's looking from the galley hatch on the far side of the cargo bay, once as the counselor leaves while Jayne is spotting Book on the weight bench near that same hatch. While not exactly sotto voce, he's not saying it with the counselor in earshot, either. The only ones close enough to hear him are Book and Kaylee, neither of which comment.

The online equivalent to Jayne's use of the term, "I'll be in my bunk," would be a PM to a mutual friend.

Examplary nerdboy's typical use of the term, however, is the equivalent of saying it over the shipwide PA system and broadcasting over the cortex simultaneously.

The long and the short of it is, there is a time and place for everything, including appreciation of eroticism. I’ve got my preferred terms and delivery methods, which I’m not pointing out here.

After all, an ethical scoundrel needs a few secrets of his own.

~J.
0 Comments

What I want?

12/20/2016

0 Comments

 
I want you to think before you talk.
If you're going to lambast "Those people," on your wall, but you're not friends with or followed by any? Then all you're doing is standing on a soapbox to viciously masturbate, convincing nobody and leaving a puddle of vitriol spooge in your wake. If you must vent your spleen, find a heavy bag or a treadmill. At least then you're burning calories along with the ugliness.
If you're declaring what must or must not be done, have a care as to who you're giving orders to. Giving orders inconsiderate of consequence and without the power to enforce them is the province of children demanding ice cream three meals a day: not as fun as they'd imagine, having consequences they neither know of nor intend, and not what's going to happen no matter how passionate their yowling.
Take what you've dismissed and listen to it again. No, don't let it happen while you formulate a response, really listen.
If you demand something change, are you demanding it because it caused an outcome you don't like or because it needed changing in the first place? Know the difference and have the class to admit it.
If you don't know the difference between those who disagree with you and those who want you and everyone like you dead, then you've either never had a close encounter with the latter or you're being a fucking asshole to the former.
Focusing on a single issue means looking at a group photo as if it was a portrait: you're missing exponentially what you see.
I want you to go to the effort to be a person, even if whoever you're encountering deserves a little shit. That little shit doesn't have to be you.
And Santa can't fit any of this shit in his sack, so it's up to you.
0 Comments

I've been asked for my commentary on the Standing Rock protests.

12/1/2016

0 Comments

 
... I knew there was a reason I didn't officially quit drinking.
There's three parts to this:
First, my thoughts on the protest as a whole.
Second, on police response.
Third, the Walinsky incident, which is the one place where my expertise is warranted.
This is one of those things where I don't have any deep insight into the overall picture. I'm not an expert in First nation affairs, a geologist, a geographer, a petrochemical engineer, or even a roughneck. I'm a gunslinger and a tactician. Those are my wheelhouse.
That said, I do have a fondness for primary sources and people who track them down. And so far, the winner to come across my feed has been a gentleman by the name of Scott Gates. I don't know him personally, but he's put together a large and cited-to-hell-and-back note detailing the background of the pipeline and the protest in general.
(link to the note is in the first comment).
After tracing about half of his primary sources and finding them legit, I've been convinced that:
One, the pipeline is the currently known best alternative out of the options available.
Two, the actual threat to the water supply of Standing Rock is far, far less than claimed.
Three, While protesters have the right to object, they definitely don't have the right to block further work.
(As a side note, I will point out that Standing Rock has grown to a point where it's impossible to tell how many are members of standing rock and allied tribes, how many are miscellaneous hippies who needed something to do and missed OWS, how many are molotov cocktail-throwing anarchists, and how many are feds waiting to testify later.)
Which leads to part 2.
I've watched a good two hours of footage from police encounters from the protest camp. And what I'm seeing is more or less what I would have done: police occupying the bridges on 1806 where it crosses the cannonball river and heads north to where the pipeline is being constructed. Now that it's winter, it's the only effective way protesters could use to interfere with the pipeline. So the police have set up roadblocks marked with barbed wire barricades, and using less-lethal munitions on anyone who gets too close to the barricades.
This means the police are spending an overwhelming amount of their time in the defense. They're not raiding the protest camp (at least not on any large scale I know of). Those who are getting hit with munitions are those getting too close for the barricades.
For those objecting to that, I will point something out.
It's called crowd control.
Not crowd accommodate nor crowd tolerate nor crowd witness. Crowd control.
And while your average crowd may be full of incredibly bright individuals, collectively, a crowd is about as dense as your average mule and relatively as stubborn. Which means SOP is to use small, simple words in loud voices to tell them what to do. If words don't work, smacking them until they go in the opposite direction of the pain usually does.
Which leads me to part three.
Two weeks ago, a protester named Sophia Wilansky was badly injured, leaving her arm mangled and possibly needing amputation. According to statements by her father and other protesters, police threw a concussion grenade which hit her in the arm and exploded.
Google it if you feel like seeing for yourself. The wound has a large section of the skin on the inside of her arm gone, maybe 3"x10", with compound fractures to the radius and ulna, with a lot of accompanying soft tissue damage.
The problem with her story?
Absolutely nothing in the U.S. police forces arsenal that I know about leaves that kind of wound.
Protesters insist it was a concussion grenade (which to my knowledge, doesn't exist. At least not by that name). Assuming for the moment they mean a flashbang, that makes no sense. Flashbangs neither produce shrapnel that can cause the loss of flesh nor have the force to break bones. Flashbangs can and do cause severe burns, but there's no burns on her. No blisters, no charred flesh, no burns, charring, or melting to her clothing.
Everything else the cops use: foam, bean bags, rubber bullets, they all don't have the force to cause her wounds. They hurt and leave heavy bruises, but not compound fractures.
Morton county police claim that someone rolled metal cylinders on the ground just before an explosion, and soon after a woman was carried off by other protesters. Propane gas cylinders were recovered by cops at the scene.
Depending on how it was made, an IED using a propane tank as it's motive force could have caused both the breaks and the torn skin.
Another possibility centers around the activity for the night: several protesters were trying to remove obstacles, including dead vehicles, from the road. A tow chain that snapped under tension is very capable of making the kind of wound seen on Wilansky.
So, there you have it. Whatever maimed her, it wasn't from a police arsenal.
And I really, really hope it was a tow chain.
Because if we've gotten to the point where some people think setting IED's at a protest is a legit tactic, it's going to get real nasty real quick.
Hug your loved ones and spare a little time to listen to your enemies, folks.
0 Comments
    Picture

    Jay Peterson

    Musings on violence, storytelling, and humanity in general.

    Archives

    January 2025
    August 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    December 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    April 2012
    February 2012
    February 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    August 2010
    June 2010
    August 2008

    Categories

    All
    2nd Amendment
    Archer
    Armor
    Barbarism
    Blades
    Blanks
    Boobplate
    Book Review
    Chainmail Bikini
    Fight Scene
    Film
    Firearms
    History
    Killology
    Military
    Reality
    Safety
    Set Life
    Shakespeare
    Teacupping
    Theater
    Tucker Thayer
    USMC
    Viking
    War Stories
    Weapon Of The Week
    Workshops
    Wounds

    RSS Feed

Certa Bonum Certamen

Picture