Post-2005 Who and Innuendo

[Anthony Williams]

As an attempt to stir up some lively debate here, I ask you, the posters of PS, does NuWho go too far with innuendo?

When one thinks about it, we've had a number of quite clear innuendos. Are they unnecessary/too far? Do you wish that they wouldn't slip in these little "jokes"?

So far, we've had:

The Doctor and Rose "dancing" in The Doctor Dances
The Love & Monsters oral sex gag
The Amy/Amy/Rory threesome gag in Space/Time
The A Good Man Goes to War Human/Silurian oral sex gag
River Song.

So, my friends, I would like to ask of you - do YOU think that NuWho goes too far with the innuendo, or is it barely worse than what we've seen before, with the likes of Erato, Alpha Centuri etc. in Classic Who?

[Andrew Curnow]

Surely it started, at the very latest, with the TV Movie and its "size isn't everything" gag?

[Rob McCow]

The thing is, I reckon anyone under the age of about 12 will come up with their own explanations.

The Doctor and Rose "dancing" in The Doctor Dances

Exactly what it says. Why should it be about sex?

The Love & Monsters oral sex gag

It could also apply to kissing. Everyone on the internet seems certain that they're talking about blow jobs, but I only though about kissing!

The Amy/Amy/Rory threesome gag in Space/Time

Most kids know that adults like to share beds together.

The A Good Man Goes to War Human/Silurian oral sex gag

Again, covered by French Kissing. And probably choking to death.

River Song.

You might have a point there.

I think in context of Doctor Who it's a bit risqué, but in context of 21st Century Television it's positively prudish! Don't forget about Eastenders, TOWIE and other 'family' shows that contain a lot more innuendo than Who.

[Andrew Curnow]

Likewise I never thought of the 'Love & Monsters' line as anything other than kissing until I saw various other interpretations online!!

In general, I think Who is comparatively 'tame' and is done in such a way that anybody too young to 'get' the reference won't worry about it. Although not innuendo, I did find Moffat's scripts particularly irritating in the early days, since he seemed determined to wedge in the the Doctor's sexuality where it wasn't needed, but that's maybe an entirely different heated debate!

[Jason Thompson]

No, I don't think it goes to far, though I could live without it. But the pre-2005 Who is hardly devoid of it. Just off the top of my head, did anyone really think the line in The Wheel In Space about Jamie putting Zoe across his knee and 'larruping' her, and her 'ooh, this will be fun!' response, was entirely innocent? And of course there's the 'A young girl? I would have thought he was a bit old for that sort of thing,' from Rubeish in The Time Warrior. Lest we forget, that same story also explicitly drew attention to the fact that Sarah Jane Smith had breasts, although it stopped short of using the word.

[J.R. Southall]

There's Ace's seduction scene in The Curse of Fenric, too...

The only scene that really bothers me in new Who is the one that concludes Flesh and Stone, but as this thread is about innuendo and that scene was completely innuendo-free (it was absolutely overtly a sexual advance), then it's really not the right place to bring it up here!

That's the thing, though. Even if you did take it that the "love life of sorts" quote in Love & Monsters referred to oral sex, you'd have to have known what oral sex was in order to "get it". It can very easily be explained away in other ways (such as has been mentioned above) for those too young to know about such things. Ditto "dancing". As for River Song, although there's a fair bit of innuendo-laden dialogue between her and the Doctor, the relationship between the two is ultimately demonstrated to be one of lovers / a couple (albeit in the Doctor Who universe, it's not quite as simple a relationship as your mother and father might enjoy), so the "sex talk" between the pair of them can be excused to a certain extent as being the kind of banter your parents might indulge in; in other words, it's not as salacious as it might otherwise seem.

But like I say, the "I'm getting married to someone else tomorrow so I want to shag you now!" sentiment behind Amy's come-on to the Doctor in Flesh and Stone is pretty much inexcusable. Moffat threw it in there as the reason why the Doctor had to go and fetch Rory, when really the only excuse the Doctor needed to go and fetch Amy's fiancé was the knowledge that such a person even existed.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

As far as I interpreted it, the opening post asked if you thought all the innuendo was going a bit too far, not if you thought kids watching would understand it or not.

I don't think it ever oversteps the mark as far as being family-friendly goes, but it doesn't fit in with what my view of Doctor Who is and I could really do without any of it.

[Anthony Williams]

I don't think it ever oversteps the mark as far as being family-friendly goes, but it doesn't fit in with what my view of Doctor Who is and I could really do without any of it.

To be honest, this is sort of how I feel. I don't think it oversteps the mark, per se, but there are certain things that I have felt slightly uncomfortable with - particularly the implied threesome gag in Time/Space. And I absolutely agree with J.R. in that the one thing that I've been truly, truly uncomfortable with and felt that there was no place for in Doctor Who was that scene at the end of Flesh and Stone, but that's not innuendo.

However, I agree with those that a lot of what we see now is no worse than a lot of what we saw in Classic Who. Even overlooking the phallic/yonic design of things like Alpha Centuri or the Vervoids, there's dialogue along the lines of what many have pointed out here. The thing that actually sprung to my mind was the dialogue between the Second Doctor and Jamie at the beginning of The Two Doctors! Perfectly innocent in practice, but well open to interpretation by those with dirty minds.

And that's really how a lot of things are. We only need to look through responses to this thread to see how what some interpreted as implied oral sex, others interpreted as a reference to kissing. It goes to show that what might be interpreted by certain adults with their minds in the gutter (guilty, m'lud!) would be interpreted as something completely different by children.

[J.R. Southall]

As far as I interpreted it, the opening post asked if you thought all the innuendo was going a bit too far, not if you thought kids watching would understand it or not.

Um yes, but it's a conversation so it moves into related areas...

Besides, I would have thought the basic definition of innuendo going too far in this situation is in whether the kids can understand it.

[Terry Leptil]

There's that line in Revenge of the Cybermen: "We're still heading for the biggest bang in history."

Also, that communicator thing in The Claws of Axos has a bit of a phallic appearance to it.

[Zbigniev Hamson]

Um yes, but it's a conversation so it moves into related areas...

Besides, I would have thought the basic definition of innuendo going too far in this situation is in whether the kids can understand it.

It depends how you're looking at it I suppose. As a non-parent I couldn't care less if any kids understand the innuendo or not, to me "too far" just means something that spoils my own personal enjoyment.

Anyway, I'm not saying the discussion shouldn't encompass how kiddy-friendly it all is, just that I thought some of the replies were missing the point of the original question slightly but I may be wrong anyway etc etc.

[Terry Leptil]

I've just remembered that Erato from The Creature from the Pit also has a phallic appearance.

[duncan]

Yes, and didn't Tom blow into it?