Jessica's backstory from a modern day perspective

[southfork88]

I have to admit when first saw Jessica's story, I was puzzled about the negative judgment against her for being an uninhibited girl. Although this happened over thirty years ago and I was very young, it seemed unfair to me the way Jessica had been treated. I saw greater guilt in all of this in Clayton (although that was the way in the 1940s and the secret Kennedy story also teaches us something). Jessica became really crazy and seems that Clayton understood part of that tragic result is his fault. So great credit to the writers for giving interesting nuances to a very banal plot. Seeing Jessica only as a "crazy slut" was reductive not only in 2020 but already in Dallas season 1983-1984 !

 

[Willie Oleson]

It wasn't my intention to move the topic away from Dallas

I believe you, and its not a crime to go a little off-topic.

If you look through this thread you'll see I'm not making value judgements on masculine and feminine behavior; I'm describing reality

Clayton acted upon what was - not what "should" be.

But the essence of this thread is (correct me if I'm wrong) how it compares to moden-day storytelling.
Your interpretation of reality, based on your own observations, denies the possibility that anything has changed. That's a personal point of view and some forum members reacted to that.
Which kinda parallels Clayton's idea (when he protected his sister from a certain reputation based on certain rules in a particular society supported by himself) that this reality couldn't change.
I believe that he believed he did the right thing, but it also feels a bit cowardly. He could have supported his sister's decision and deal with the problem - should they arise.

That we're living in an age where simply describing the nature of reality can be seen as controversial by some people says something, but that's their problem

Or is it controversial to disagree with your description of the nature of reality?
You can't nip a discussion in the bud just by saying "it is what it is but it's not my opinion".

 

[James from London]

Duplication for the nation.

 

[James from London]

the essence of this thread is (correct me if I'm wrong) how it compares to moden-day storytelling.

Exactly.

It just makes me wonder, if Jessica's story was told today, whether if she'd be depicted as the same two-dimensional "evil psycho" archetype she was in the '80s (fun as that was).

I was interested in how Jessica's fictional story-line might be explored in a present-day context. That's all. I wasn't interested in someone's cast-iron certainty about how the world works and the natural order of things and the fundamental differences between the sexes and how anyone who disagrees isn't facing reality. The internet's full of that stuff and it tends to make my eyes glaze over. But that's just me.

 

[Alexis]

Knowing how controversial the answer to that question would be, I would have simply answered: "Should" did not enter into the matter. Clayton acted upon what was - not what "should" be.

Well that would have been all fine and dandy had we only been discussing what Clayton did. However, you shared your views on men and women based on your own observations, apparently in the real world, not on Dallas. You expressed views on all kinds of things that had nothing to do with Dallas. You expressed those views as fact, and the way of the world. So as has already been pointed out. You steered the thread a little off topic and it became about your views on male and female behaviours, attraction, and bizarrely enough a set of rules that seem to only exist to yourself.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I believe you, and its not a crime to go a little off-topic.

Thanks.

But the essence of this thread is (correct me if I'm wrong) how it compares to moden-day storytelling.
Your interpretation of reality, based on your own observations, denies the possibility that anything has changed. That's a personal point of view and some forum members reacted to that.

I probably did imply that it's impossible that anything has changed. I could have been more specific and said that there is a biological component that is not subject to change anytime soon. Human evolution has been an incredibly long process. There's also a philosophical component that is absolutely subject to change. Unlike the biological component, that varies from person to person based on their own thinking. That is the aspect subject to volition. I deliberately avoided that as it's highly controversial. Morality isn't fixed. My morality is different from yours,, which is different from the next person's and it goes on and on. Some people get very agitated if they find out that your morals are quite different from their morals.

Had I gotten into the philosophical aspect, I'd be explaining my private opinions on morality in a public forum. Then it's not private anymore. Do you see what I'm getting at? I don't know if that's such a good idea.

On another forum, if other people want to share their beliefs on philosophy and specifically, the branch of philosophy known as ethics or morality, fine. On the Dallas forum, to say this is my philosophy, this is my morality, well are people here for that? It would appear to me, they're not. I don't want to get into the business of preaching to people. Maybe others see it differently. What do you think?

Which kinda parallels Clayton's idea (when he protected his sister from a certain reputation based on certain rules in a particular society supported by himself) that this reality couldn't change.
I believe that he believed he did the right thing, but it also feels a bit cowardly. He could have supported his sister's decision and deal with the problem - should they arise.

It's awfully difficult for one man to change a whole society. Hypothetically, had Clayton said: There is nothing wrong with anything Jessica has been doing and we're going to show the whole community, or the state of Texas, their beliefs need to be changed because there is nothing scandalous about this", well...good luck with that!

His heart might be in the right place, but I think he'd be biting off more than he could chew. One might say, in this hypothetical situation: "What a brave man! He's standing by his convictions for what he believes to be right. He says there is no shame in Jessica sleeping around in an indiscriminate enough manner that the father of her baby is unknown, and he's right"!

I see the courage in that. I don't see practicality in it though. He may, over time, gradually change some people's opinions and in the meantime, Jessica is going to suffer for it by being publicly humiliated. Ideals are great, but to me that would be idealistic to believe he could bring about that kind of change that fast. I also see how other people might tell him that his beliefs are just that - his beliefs and not their beliefs. They also might try just as hard to change his beliefs as he's trying to change their beliefs!

Or is it controversial to disagree with your description of the nature of reality?
You can't nip a discussion in the bud just by saying "it is what it is but it's not my opinion".

There's a very fine line there. If I'm saying "men and women have biological differences which influence their behavior" and some people disagree, they are denying reality. If they say: "Yes, they're different, but they're not as different as you describe them to be" then sure, by all means there's room to discuss that.

It gets complex. One physicist tells another that he's disproved a law of physics. Has he? Maybe, though I'd be skeptical. Just as there are good doctors and bad doctors, there are good physicists and bad physicists. Where is the proof that he has disproved a law of physics? If he can consistently do something that demonstrates what he claims to be true is true, then it becomes accepted as fact. If not, maybe he had a theory he believed to be true, but wasn't because he had based it upon a faulty premise.

 

[Alexis]

I was interested in how Jessica's fictional story-line might be explored in a present-day context. That's all. I wasn't interested in someone's cast-iron certainty about how the world works and the natural order of things and the fundamental differences between the sexes and how anyone who disagrees isn't facing reality. The internet's full of that stuff and it tends to make my eyes glaze over. But that's just me.

Well, yes. It was a nice interesting thread that made me think about a storyline in a much more broad way. It made me think about and re-examine characters, Clayton, Jessica, and even Ellie and Jock. Then it somehow took a turn to a place of dead ends and imaginary rules, and very strange ideas were being touted as fact and universal truths. To be honest, I find it hard to discuss anything on the Dallas forums because you always know what's coming, no matter the tread or subject. It always stops being about Dallas and becomes pages of one person's set in stone views on everything. All fun evaporates.

 

[Alexis]

I don't see anything here about Dallas. You do realize this forum is for Dallas related discussion, don't you?

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Well that would have been all fine and dandy had we only been discussing what Clayton did. However, you shared your views on men and women based on your own observations, apparently in the real world, not on Dallas.

I did so that you could then take that knowledge and use it to understand the answer to your question. What you did is ask for help in understanding something, and then got contentious when you didn't like the answer. The answer wasn't my opinion. The answer I gave you is what I've learned to be true. It is based on experience. Are you going to tell me I did not experience what I experienced?

Consider this: I answered the question you had. You didn't like the answer but how many other people offered an answer? Are you happier with them because they didn't even bother trying to help?

You expressed views on all kinds of things that had nothing to do with Dallas.

I gave you knowledge about human behavior so that you would understand the answer to the following question:

Why should Jessica be punished and mistreated for behaving in the apparent same way as her brother? Why should a woman be shamed and scolded while a man should be revered and deemed more desirable?

I understand the answer quite well, so how is that even after reading what I wrote, you still don't understand the answer to your question? Jessica wasn't being "punished and mistreated." Clayton was averting a scandal that would cause Jessica humiliation, embarrassment and damage to her reputation. Clayton was helping her, based on his belief it would cause the reaction I already described. Clayton's behavior did not and would not cause a scandal! That's why he didn't require the help Jessica required.

As to why should it cause a scandal, is because most people strongly disapprove of that sort of behavior. You would have to ask them why they disapprove so strongly of it and they might or might not answer you. Judging from my experience, no answer they would give you would ever, or could ever, possibly suffice.

You expressed those views as fact, and the way of the world. So as has already been pointed out, you steered the thread a little off topic and it became about your views on male and female behaviours, attraction, and bizarrely enough a set of rules that seem to only exist to yourself.

I expressed them as fact because they are what I know to be fact.

You will notice I didn't make any value judgements in explaining any of this to you. I don't give you my private philosophical beliefs because:

1. We have never met.
2. I don't even know your real name.
3. This is a public forum and I don't have a policy of making my private life public.

 

[Alexis]

I expressed them as fact because they are what I know to be fact.

Fact is not the belief of one person. Fact is known and widely accepted truth. Something that is proven. You passed your own personal belief off as fact. You could believe you were the second coming, and that would be true to you but not fact.
There are quite a few words in your post that you don't seem to have a grasp on. You may want to look up Knowledge too.

 

[Willie Oleson]

It's awfully difficult for one man to change a whole society. Hypothetically, had Clayton said: There is nothing wrong with anything Jessica has been doing and we're going to show the whole community, or the state of Texas, their beliefs need to be changed because there is nothing scandalous about this", well...good luck with that!

There's a difference between making a change and dealing with the ramifications.
But in any case, he really didn't have to do or show anything, and yet he decided what was best for Jessica and Dusty - which may or may not have contributed to her psychological problems.
Although in this specific case I suspect that lunacy was already there, I mean, she was so over the top. And who knows, maybe it was the best thing for Dusty to not to be raised by this woman. But still, that was not the reason why Clayton did what he did. And if she was going to marry then there wouldn't be a fatherless bastard anyway.

 

[stevew]

Yeah, I get it.



There is no woman who is a star of that magnitude who would brag about about it because it would badly tarnish her reputation. It would ruin her career. Masculinity and femininity exist and they're distinctly different. Don't get mad at me if you don't like it. I didn't invent these ideas that men and women, in general, behave differently and are attracted to different things. If you look through this thread you'll see I'm not making value judgements on masculine and feminine behavior; I'm describing reality. I specifically chose not to make value judgements on those subjects. Looking at the responses here, you wouldn't know it, but it's the truth. That we're living in an age where simply describing the nature of reality can be seen as controversial by some people says something, but that's their problem. Reality exists whether they like it or not.

Dallas is fiction, yet they attempted to maintain a certain semblance to reality. It's not in the best interest of a single woman the age Jessica would have been at that time to get pregnant. That she'd be thoughtless enough to engage in behavior where that was likely to happen, so indiscriminately that the father was unknown, was embarrassing enough that they took her out of the country. I'm not saying it should or should not have been embarrassing. Again, I'm not making a value judgement; I'm describing the story. Apparently that sort of thing needs to be emphasized here. I'm not sure why that is. Ray mentioned something about how he imagined that would have caused quite a scandal and Clayton said it would have. It wasn't Ray's idea or Clayton's idea that it should be scandalous; they were simply commenting that it likely would be.

I can tell you I knew women who were alive and young in the late twenties and thirties who could have cared less about your idea or the Farlow’s idea of their reputation. They were never going to travel to West Texas either. But they still laughed about stories of men into their old age. It wasn’t until I was much older that I understood what they were chuckling about. But they were women in control of their own lives, they had their own money. I doubt they slept with 20,000 men but again women seem more interested in quality than quantity, at least by the innuendoes they dropped. There brother wasn’t pleased with their stories but then he only bragged about his love affair with one women. His reputation wasn’t harmed by such nor was theirs but their lived with people who didn’t share the Farlow’s way of thinking.

I’m not mad at you for stating there’s a difference between two different things. If you say there is a difference between hot and cold I don’t think anyone would take issue. It’s not the difference between the two, it’s your statements about reputation and desirability and such as if you are the authority of such reality the same as Clayton spoke.

Women most certainly have bragged about their conquests. Elizabeth Taylor was known for such but there was a discretion society forced on her that it didn’t force on Gene Simmons. People are in fact attracted to different things now and then and throughout history. Not all men have the same attractions and not all women do either. The offense is your black and white statements of authority you don’t seem to recognize. I’m not angry but amused.

Jessica’s father’s and brother’s embarrassment where just that, theirs. Today, as the post was getting at, putting it in a modern context, is noticeably different, but certainly there are men who still would find such embarrassing. My point is she was entitled to her behavior and her child even in the time in which it occurred. Women at that time did enjoy sex and men and when they had the power to control their own lives didn’t have to be shipped off and have their children stolen. Mae West had no problem with asking men to “come up and see her” and Katherine the Great was rumored to enjoy all sorts of men. The issue isn’t morality but the power to live one’s own life. Jessica was unfortunate to live in a place such wasn’t possible. Among the “jet set” or “cafe society” or “international elite” or what ever you want to call them (the group I took it Lady Mumford ended up with), women have had far more power over their lives and for over a hundred years have been far more accepted for living as “wild” of a life as men. Still you feel empowered to define reality for everyone - sort of the very issue, problem Jessica had with her brother. Embarrassing was their problem, not the reality of the situation. So maybe as has been stated in this post, it wasn’t her mental state that lead to the wild behavior but the treatment of her behavior which lead to a troubled mental state.

 

[stevew]

It wasn't my intention to move the topic away from Dallas. I thought what I was writing still related to Dallas because I came across a question from a reader who seemed to genuinely be confused as to why Jessica would be treated one way and Clayton treated another in their specific circumstances. The question I was asked is:



Knowing how controversial the answer to that question would be, I would have simply answered: "Should" did not enter into the matter. Clayton acted upon what was - not what "should" be.

Clayton went beyond just protecting his sister. He could have taken her to Europe and left her with her son. He went beyond just dealing with the reality of west Texas late 50’s to adding to what happened to her for doing the same thing he was going.

 

[stevew]

It wasn't my intention to move the topic away from Dallas. I thought what I was writing still related to Dallas because I came across a question from a reader who seemed to genuinely be confused as to why Jessica would be treated one way and Clayton treated another in their specific circumstances. The question I was asked is:



Knowing how controversial the answer to that question would be, I would have simply answered: "Should" did not enter into the matter. Clayton acted upon what was - not what "should" be.

Clayton went beyond just protecting his sister. He could have taken her to Europe and left her with her son. He went beyond just dealing with the reality of west Texas late 50’s to adding to what happened to her for doing the same thing he was going.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

He went beyond just dealing with the reality of west Texas late 50’s to adding to what happened to her for doing the same thing he was going.

Really? Clayton was also risking getting pregnant? Maybe you were doing better with the red Xs after all.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I can tell you I knew women who were alive and young in the late twenties and thirties who could have cared less about your idea or the Farlow’s idea of their reputation. They were never going to travel to West Texas either. But they still laughed about stories of men into their old age. It wasn’t until I was much older that I understood what they were chuckling about.

They were very masculine women. That's not the norm. In general, men are attracted to feminine women and women are attracted to masculine men. Does the fact that masculinity and femininity exist bother you? If you could, would you do away with both masculinity and femininity? Do you see them as negatives?

The issue isn’t morality but the power to live one’s own life.

There is no link between sexual behavior and morality?

If it were just an issue over power to live one's life, you'd find at least a couple examples of female stars the magnitude of Wilt Chamberlin or Gene Simmons that brag about the number of men they've done. There are plenty of major female stars that have all the money they'll ever need to not be self-sufficient but still you won't find one willing to sacrifice her reputation by saying she's had sex with thousands of men. The don't want to ruin their careers. Most male stars don't publicly brag about the number of women they've had either, but they could if they wanted to and it wouldn't ruin their careers. These people know that what is generally considered acceptable behavior for one sex does not necessarily hold true for the other sex. They understand how the world works

Take money out of the equation and it's the same. In high school nobody has a career. Still, it works out that guys brag about having had lots of girls and girls don't brag about having had lots of guys. Girls don't want an image of having been around a lot because that's perceived as distinctly negative by both the guys and the other girls. That's not opinion; it's self-evident.

If you're interested in knowing why these things don't change a whole lot very quickly and you don't want to take anyone's word for it unless that's their field of expertise, read some books on evolutionary biology. I don't know of any offhand, but I do know that evolutionary biologists research the reasons for why the differences in male and female sexual behavior and the different standards regarding them developed. Evolution is a very slow process. Biologically, we haven't evolved much in the last 70 or 80 years.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

There's a difference between making a change and dealing with the ramifications.
But in any case, he really didn't have to do or show anything, and yet he decided what was best for Jessica and Dusty - which may or may not have contributed to her psychological problems.
Although in this specific case I suspect that lunacy was already there, I mean, she was so over the top. And who knows, maybe it was the best thing for Dusty to not to be raised by this woman. But still, that was not the reason why Clayton did what he did. And if she was going to marry then there wouldn't be a fatherless bastard anyway.

Did you notice how none of the characters say anything negative about how Clayton decided to handle the situation? It wasn't controversial at all. They didn't even show a character who didn't like Clayton who was critical of his decision.

If it were modern day storytelling, then depending in who the writer is, it might change, but as long as they're trying to maintain some semblance to reality, the only big change I see as being likely is maybe Jessica would get an abortion, depending on her values and those of her parents. Different people have different ideas about whether abortion is justifiable, or under which conditions it's justifiable. It's always seen as bad to some degree. Even today, it's never seen as something to be proud of.

Being a work of fiction, they could do whatever they want, but I don't realistically see any writer having Clayton being so proud of Jessica's behavior he decides to throw a party for her, inviting all their friends to attend and congratulate Jessica on her pregnancy.

 

[James from London]

Did you notice how none of the characters say anything negative about how Clayton decided to handle the situation? It wasn't controversial at all. They didn't even show a character who didn't like Clayton who was critical of his decision.

If it were modern day storytelling, then depending in who the writer is, it might change, but as long as they're trying to maintain some semblance to reality, the only big change I see as being likely is maybe Jessica would get an abortion, depending on her values and those of her parents. Different people have different ideas about whether abortion is justifiable, or under which conditions it's justifiable. It's always seen as bad to some degree. Even today, it's never seen as something to be proud of.

Being a work of fiction, they could do whatever they want, but I don't realistically see any writer having Clayton being so proud of Jessica's behavior he decides to throw a party for her, inviting all their friends to attend and congratulate Jessica on her pregnancy.

You just don't get the point of the thread. I'm not sure why, it's not complicated, but you don't - or you won't. It doesn't really matter which. My original post was really just me thinking aloud. It really doesn't warrant three pages of turgid debate. If you hadn't written post after post saying "NO, NO, NO" to every idea and insisting "I KNOW BEST" and, intentionally or not, making it all about you, this discussion might have had some room to breathe. Maybe it would have just petered out naturally after half a page, who knows? And that would have been fine. As I say, it's not that "important" a thread. But at least I could now come back and add a few more thoughts - and that's all they are, thoughts, ideas, observations, not self-important declarations of HOW THINGS SHOULD BE - without having to anticipate a load more "NO, NO, NO" and "I, I, I" posts, which again completely miss the point. Maybe I'll try again in a few weeks if I still can remember what I was going to say! (It's nothing earth-shattering anyway).

All fun evaporates.

Exactly.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

You just don't get the point of the thread. I'm not sure why, it's not complicated, but you don't - or you won't. It doesn't really matter which. My original post was really just me thinking aloud.

It seems to me that the situation is you're not pleased that everyone doesn't agree with the way you describe the story. It's so far from an accurate depiction of what we saw happen that you must have anticipated some comments to that effect. Here's the first paragraph of your opening post:

There's a lot of talk about Jessica being "wild" when she was growing up. This seems to amount to her going to lots of parties and kissing lots of boys. Maybe "wild" isn't so far from "high-spirited". Nevertheless, Clayton speaks gravely of needing to "protect her from herself." He also describes her disapprovingly as "a dreamer. Texas just wasn’t big enough for her. She had her head full of a lot of crazy notions, travelling all over and meeting all kinds of people." What could be more natural than to dream, to want to see the world? It's notable that Garrison Southworth and Jason Ewing also had a desire to travel but, as men, were referred to as natural-born wanderers rather than as "crazy." (Admittedly, both are also perceived as cowards for "running away.")

If she'd just been going to parties and kissing boys when she was still growing up, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant would she? Apparently "wild" means being so indiscriminate that Clayton said he didn't think Jessica knew who the father was.

If you want to speculate on what a modern approach to telling the story would be, don't you think it would be helpful to first understand the original story? When you blatantly change the way a story went, it shouldn't come as a big surprise when people say so.

If I were to describe Gary's story as being a guy whose parents were furious with him after finding out that one night he drank a couple beers and then disowned him after he kissed a 15 year girl, I would expect people point out the inaccuracies in that description.

 

[Alexis]

It seems to me that the situation is you're not pleased that everyone doesn't agree with the way you describe the story. It's so far from an accurate depiction of what we saw happen that you must have anticipated some comments to that effect. Here's the first paragraph of your opening post:




If she'd just been going to parties and kissing boys when she was still growing up, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant would she? Apparently "wild" means being so indiscriminate that Clayton said he didn't think Jessica knew who the father was.

If you want to speculate on what a modern approach to telling the story would be, don't you think it would be helpful to first understand the original story? When you blatantly change the way a story went, it shouldn't come as a big surprise when people say so.

If I were to describe Gary's story as being a guy whose parents were furious with him after finding out that one night he drank a couple beers and then disowned him after he kissed a 15 year girl, I would expect people point out the inaccuracies in that description.

You still don't get it. You railroaded the thread into not being about Dallas and Lady Jessica's backstory and how it would be seen or done from a modern day perspective. You instead decided to use the thread to rant off your own personal beliefs on just about everything but Dallas. Unfounded beliefs, might I add.
You changed the tone and course of the thread with this post,

"That's because that's not applicable to men. Are you suggesting he'd be ashamed of being a stud? That's the male persona - it attracts women to men. Always has, always will. That's reality. Political correctness is the denial of reality. What attracts women to men is not the same thing that attracts men to women, thank God! Opposites attract. It's the way of the world. If it weren't, human beings would have gone extinct a long time ago. Male and female behavior each ensure the survival of the human race in their own distinct ways"

That is your own personal opinion and it doesn't pertain to Dallas and the said storyline at all. It says all kinds of things about you, but not about Dallas! It's also a very broad and basic and black and white opinion and you forcefully dumped it into the thread. You are no longer taking about Dallas here, but informing the rest of us seemingly uneducated forum members how the world works. Nobody asked for your socio-political views, the thread wasn't about that. Every thread on the Dallas forum gets hijacked and turned into a platform for you to rail off your views on what's right and what's wrong. Conversation is smothered and it all ends up being about you and how loudly you can get your point across. When you are challenged you shift blame on to others as you clearly did in this thread. You cant seem to discuss Dallas objectively as a piece of fiction, a television show. It's always personal, as if you are a Ewing, only your opinions are even more bizarre than even the most fantastical and cartoonish ones of JR and any other Dallas character.