~~ so unpithy it hurts.
Oct. 24th, 2004 02:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaIt is incredibly odd to realize that if I were 10 years younger, I'd be shipping Draco/Ginny right now. I know this with rather high certainty. I almost yearn for my never-to-be-written grand Draco/Ginny epic, ahahaha, naturally to be unfinished (I never finished -anything- at 16).
That was random. I really was (still am...?) a ridiculous silly over-romantic doofus since before adolescence, even. Anything the least bit archetypal and grand gets my vote, in the end. If it seems likely & reasonable, I'm just going to die of boredom (though mind you, complete chaotic irrationality is boring too-- it's walking the border of possibility that's the thing). Which is probably why I'm not the best person to write a ship manifesto :D :D
The main problem with Draco/Ginny is the Draco characterization it seems to imply (though of course my Draco would still be the brat-- pairing Draco/Ginny is really about sulky brat/sunny brat). Lately I've been wondering how exactly people get the idea that Draco is (or could be) icily composed again.
It is just -so- weird to me that I can't stop questioning it. Like, I can see repressed in some ways (that is, insincere and mocking), I can see him pretending things (like with Buckbeak), and I can see him trying to be Slytherin-- and failing. But failing. He's just so bloody transparent, no matter what, isn't he? I mean... he's not transparent to -Harry- (so it does depend on who you ask), but that's because Harry's got corresponding blind-spots & issues, and he seems -determined- to interpret Draco to fit his prejudices, and, well, vice versa. That's why they're so beautiful together, blahblah.
I suppose 'fake' and 'mean' translates to 'composed' in some people... but not all, right? Sometimes that just means you're an emotionally manipulative drama queen, i.e. Draco.
It's just really weird to keep reading fics where Draco 'flowers' into this stiff-upper-lip type person. I mean, he doesn't always have to whine (in canon, either) or anything-- not about being hexed by Harry, for instance-- but then, he just lets out his frustration by making fun of his tormentors, he doesn't get all distant. If he got 'distant' as part of growing up, where would all this frustration go...? If he didn't express his anger outwardly, what would be the outlet? I mean, he couldn't become introspective (and therefore inwardly focus frustration) from stress, could he? Like, that distancing at the end of OoTP is a sign of depression, in Harry at least, but Harry was always more introverted.
I mean, it's so simple for me-- Draco takes things out on other people. He feels bad about something (Potter getting attention, say), so he tries very light sabotage, but mostly just heckles and jeers-- he expresses himself through the most basic ploys for attention. I mean, he doesn't act -sincere- or anything-- he just lets the negative emotions out by, well, bullying and taunting. A truly arrogant, dismissive person would need to actually not care about the opinions of 'those plebes'-- whereas Draco clearly does, since he tries to get their goat over and over and get them down to his level (driving Harry to violence was probably unintentional, but he must have wanted Harry to blow up).
What really frustrates me is that I see 'icy' and 'superior' described as characteristics of in character Draco, which makes me feel decidedly delusional (then again, I only agree with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sistermagpie on fanon/canon matters most of the time, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise). *sigh* But really the point of this ramble was to convince myself that I wasn't insane & that Draco wasn't sekritly giving signs of being icily composed while I wasn't looking. 'Cause sometimes the fanon plays tricks on one's mind, and one must have constant vigilance, man.
It's just. I don't think I'm a stickler for canon in terms of Draco... I just get confused about what exactly most people who write Draco (in H/D in particular) -think- of Draco and what sort of mental process leads them to the arrogant-jaded-and-icy-aristocrat archetype over and over again. Why? basically. My brain just freezes when I try to understand that leap of logic, so I guess I should stop. Though if any of you reading feel canon Draco is generally controlled and unemotional, I'd appreciate knowing why.
~~
Also, this tangent is only vaguely related to Lasair's post about `The Gift' Buffy episode.... But it got me to think about characters doing things which are 'understandable' (considering their history) but not 'right' considering some objective ideal of what people 'should' do in a given situation to satisfy the greater good (if that applies).
That is, Buffy was willing to destroy the world 'cause she couldn't bear to make her sister a sacrifice so it could continue-- she was definitely operating on a code that applied to her and only her. That is, you couldn't say that someone else 'should' have done what Buffy did, 'cause it was all tied up in her own pov (which is the definition of selfishness, I suppose).
The question for me is-- why does the societally-imposed ethical system intrinsically trump an individual's sense of personal 'rightness'?
Of course, the idea of a 'greater good' as opposed to survivalism is rather basic as far an ethical system-- though most people would choose the most instinctually self-preserving option if trapped, I'm guessing. I suppose it just seems unfair to expect people whose world view doesn't match a certain model to include any given 'law'-- like, the whole world of BtVS doesn't operate upon the concept of mercy, really-- it's all about eliminating threats and doing what has to be done and 'protecting the innocent' by the innocent (girl).
That is to say, no matter if one's committing a 'good' or 'evil' act, one's acting out of the personal belief that one is justified or right on some level, even if it's an entirely emotionally-driven level. I think in a way, the whole world of BtVS conspired to produce Buffy and many of her flaws & strengths-- the Watcher Council was pretty corrupt, the vampires just kept coming and were proclaimed to have no souls, many of Buffy's patrols required split-second life-and-death decisions which were left up to her. She learned to go with what 'felt' right. She wasn't counseled in any sort of spiritual or larger system of thought-- she was basically a killing machine. So it should be no surprise that she chose selfishly when pushed to her limits-- she had no solid ethical foundation which to draw upon, therefore any 'law' (spoken by her Watcher or the viewer) would be extraneous and ultimately futile.
People kill because they think the other person 'deserves' to die (making it right) and other people condemn them for the same reason. And if one disregards one's personal code of ethics to adopt some imposed system which exist to tell its followers how to act, how does one ever -know- how to act if that system were to be threatened or even demolished by unprecedented circumstances...? If one lived one's whole life according to a 'holy' mercenary mind-set where violence and self-preservation went hand in hand, how does one know how to behave like a truly just being?
Because that's the basic precept of morality, isn't it? The idea that there are some things people -should- do (or even -be-), regardless of personal circumstance or feeling-- and that's precisely what I can't quite accept.
It reminds me of why I always thought I -had- no conventional sense of 'morality'. I only know what feels right to me, no more or less than that-- and I can't ever be sure that I'm capable of honestly prescribing behavior for others, though sometimes I think I'd be good at it because it's hard to resist thinking I -am- right in my 'hunches', even though I do my best to second-guess myself.
It's like... we have our ordinary lives, our circumstances-- and we only know what we know because we were so lucky (or unlucky). Our gut reactions aren't all drawn from circumstance, but our knowledge of ethics-- that's circumstantial, isn't it? And isn't the knowledge & awareness of 'the greater good' something that's not inborn? It seems like most politicians have no idea of it, certainly. Learning to value the -world- and not just one's own self & family (or clan)-- I would say that most of us haven't learned that, and in her behavior in privileging her sister over... everyone else Buffy was quite typically human, actually.
Man, now I know why I stay away from ethics classes. My head hurts.
~~
Btw, this is beautiful. Omg, KirkNot For President!!1 No, you don't understand, it's BEAUTIFUL. heh. cellia, this link's for you <3 *DIES OF GEEKDOM* (Omg, mating ritual!!1)
That was random. I really was (still am...?) a ridiculous silly over-romantic doofus since before adolescence, even. Anything the least bit archetypal and grand gets my vote, in the end. If it seems likely & reasonable, I'm just going to die of boredom (though mind you, complete chaotic irrationality is boring too-- it's walking the border of possibility that's the thing). Which is probably why I'm not the best person to write a ship manifesto :D :D
The main problem with Draco/Ginny is the Draco characterization it seems to imply (though of course my Draco would still be the brat-- pairing Draco/Ginny is really about sulky brat/sunny brat). Lately I've been wondering how exactly people get the idea that Draco is (or could be) icily composed again.
It is just -so- weird to me that I can't stop questioning it. Like, I can see repressed in some ways (that is, insincere and mocking), I can see him pretending things (like with Buckbeak), and I can see him trying to be Slytherin-- and failing. But failing. He's just so bloody transparent, no matter what, isn't he? I mean... he's not transparent to -Harry- (so it does depend on who you ask), but that's because Harry's got corresponding blind-spots & issues, and he seems -determined- to interpret Draco to fit his prejudices, and, well, vice versa. That's why they're so beautiful together, blahblah.
I suppose 'fake' and 'mean' translates to 'composed' in some people... but not all, right? Sometimes that just means you're an emotionally manipulative drama queen, i.e. Draco.
It's just really weird to keep reading fics where Draco 'flowers' into this stiff-upper-lip type person. I mean, he doesn't always have to whine (in canon, either) or anything-- not about being hexed by Harry, for instance-- but then, he just lets out his frustration by making fun of his tormentors, he doesn't get all distant. If he got 'distant' as part of growing up, where would all this frustration go...? If he didn't express his anger outwardly, what would be the outlet? I mean, he couldn't become introspective (and therefore inwardly focus frustration) from stress, could he? Like, that distancing at the end of OoTP is a sign of depression, in Harry at least, but Harry was always more introverted.
I mean, it's so simple for me-- Draco takes things out on other people. He feels bad about something (Potter getting attention, say), so he tries very light sabotage, but mostly just heckles and jeers-- he expresses himself through the most basic ploys for attention. I mean, he doesn't act -sincere- or anything-- he just lets the negative emotions out by, well, bullying and taunting. A truly arrogant, dismissive person would need to actually not care about the opinions of 'those plebes'-- whereas Draco clearly does, since he tries to get their goat over and over and get them down to his level (driving Harry to violence was probably unintentional, but he must have wanted Harry to blow up).
What really frustrates me is that I see 'icy' and 'superior' described as characteristics of in character Draco, which makes me feel decidedly delusional (then again, I only agree with
sistermagpie on fanon/canon matters most of the time, so it shouldn't be much of a surprise). *sigh* But really the point of this ramble was to convince myself that I wasn't insane & that Draco wasn't sekritly giving signs of being icily composed while I wasn't looking. 'Cause sometimes the fanon plays tricks on one's mind, and one must have constant vigilance, man.It's just. I don't think I'm a stickler for canon in terms of Draco... I just get confused about what exactly most people who write Draco (in H/D in particular) -think- of Draco and what sort of mental process leads them to the arrogant-jaded-and-icy-aristocrat archetype over and over again. Why? basically. My brain just freezes when I try to understand that leap of logic, so I guess I should stop. Though if any of you reading feel canon Draco is generally controlled and unemotional, I'd appreciate knowing why.
~~
Also, this tangent is only vaguely related to Lasair's post about `The Gift' Buffy episode.... But it got me to think about characters doing things which are 'understandable' (considering their history) but not 'right' considering some objective ideal of what people 'should' do in a given situation to satisfy the greater good (if that applies).
That is, Buffy was willing to destroy the world 'cause she couldn't bear to make her sister a sacrifice so it could continue-- she was definitely operating on a code that applied to her and only her. That is, you couldn't say that someone else 'should' have done what Buffy did, 'cause it was all tied up in her own pov (which is the definition of selfishness, I suppose).
The question for me is-- why does the societally-imposed ethical system intrinsically trump an individual's sense of personal 'rightness'?
Of course, the idea of a 'greater good' as opposed to survivalism is rather basic as far an ethical system-- though most people would choose the most instinctually self-preserving option if trapped, I'm guessing. I suppose it just seems unfair to expect people whose world view doesn't match a certain model to include any given 'law'-- like, the whole world of BtVS doesn't operate upon the concept of mercy, really-- it's all about eliminating threats and doing what has to be done and 'protecting the innocent' by the innocent (girl).
That is to say, no matter if one's committing a 'good' or 'evil' act, one's acting out of the personal belief that one is justified or right on some level, even if it's an entirely emotionally-driven level. I think in a way, the whole world of BtVS conspired to produce Buffy and many of her flaws & strengths-- the Watcher Council was pretty corrupt, the vampires just kept coming and were proclaimed to have no souls, many of Buffy's patrols required split-second life-and-death decisions which were left up to her. She learned to go with what 'felt' right. She wasn't counseled in any sort of spiritual or larger system of thought-- she was basically a killing machine. So it should be no surprise that she chose selfishly when pushed to her limits-- she had no solid ethical foundation which to draw upon, therefore any 'law' (spoken by her Watcher or the viewer) would be extraneous and ultimately futile.
People kill because they think the other person 'deserves' to die (making it right) and other people condemn them for the same reason. And if one disregards one's personal code of ethics to adopt some imposed system which exist to tell its followers how to act, how does one ever -know- how to act if that system were to be threatened or even demolished by unprecedented circumstances...? If one lived one's whole life according to a 'holy' mercenary mind-set where violence and self-preservation went hand in hand, how does one know how to behave like a truly just being?
Because that's the basic precept of morality, isn't it? The idea that there are some things people -should- do (or even -be-), regardless of personal circumstance or feeling-- and that's precisely what I can't quite accept.
It reminds me of why I always thought I -had- no conventional sense of 'morality'. I only know what feels right to me, no more or less than that-- and I can't ever be sure that I'm capable of honestly prescribing behavior for others, though sometimes I think I'd be good at it because it's hard to resist thinking I -am- right in my 'hunches', even though I do my best to second-guess myself.
It's like... we have our ordinary lives, our circumstances-- and we only know what we know because we were so lucky (or unlucky). Our gut reactions aren't all drawn from circumstance, but our knowledge of ethics-- that's circumstantial, isn't it? And isn't the knowledge & awareness of 'the greater good' something that's not inborn? It seems like most politicians have no idea of it, certainly. Learning to value the -world- and not just one's own self & family (or clan)-- I would say that most of us haven't learned that, and in her behavior in privileging her sister over... everyone else Buffy was quite typically human, actually.
Man, now I know why I stay away from ethics classes. My head hurts.
~~
Btw, this is beautiful. Omg, Kirk
cellia, this link's for you <3 *DIES OF GEEKDOM* (Omg, mating ritual!!1)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 01:07 am (UTC)When will the Mudd-slinging end I ask? I just hope they don't start harping on Kirk's womanizing again: It has nothing to do with his politics unless he's seducung them into a peace treaty people!
As for all the ethical questions up there, man, I think you might actually love a philosophy survey course. Read and talk about that kind of stuff all day. I remember from mine that many of your questions are addressed by different thinkers--all with different answers o'course!
I think it was an unthinkable choice in "The Gift" and Buffy basically couldn't face it. I was a little sad, because it was the start of twisting some of the things I liked best about Buffy in the early seasons into the painful crappy limp towards death that the last seasons were. But-- at the time-- it didn't make me dislike her character.
As for the "it made Buffy human" argument... gah. I never doubted she was human before. It's also annoying to me that what is considered "humanizing" really seems to be all the worst and weakest things in us. Can't the things that make us *more* than selfish sociopaths or selfish children be "humanizing"? (Like striving for goals and trying to be our best and care for all other beings)
The question for me is-- why does the societally-imposed ethical system intrinsically trump an individual's sense of personal 'rightness'?
Foolishly, I take a stab at this question.
Because my personal sense of rightness might say that it's fine to pollute the river where the poor people live as long as it's legal, I make a load of $$ and me and my kind live an ocean away. Or maybe that it's fine to kill the guy who stole my wallet. Or that it's fine to beat my wife. Or other not nice things that seem reasonable or desirable at the time.
Not that the "societally-imposed ethical system" will always be better, but at least you'll have more than just one person who thought the system was a good idea. There's also history behind it--so people have been pondering the system and picking at it for awhile. Most people will not have the spare time to reinvent 100s of years of philosophical thought to come to the conclusion they would've come to, had they had the time and various experiences. So there's a better chance of it being a kinder mechanism for everybody.
And why it's "better": basically, I think it's because we live among other people. So our sense of rightness affects them as well. And, unless you hold that others, or subsets of 'em, are unimportant/valueless (which some people might)... well, golden rule.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-24 08:18 pm (UTC)*sigh* Yeah, I'm attracted to lots of philosophy courses, but then I take them & they require loads of actual -reading- which makes my head hurt from the procrastination & weightiness. I'm rather skittish when it comes to poring over difficult texts, ahahah. Er. *coughs* But yeah, that was all written when I was half-asleep so I realized it wasn't anything groundbreaking but blathered on as I always do regardless ^^;;;
Oooh, I *heart* you for indulging me with it, though, 'cause like... er... it's just you and SM at this point (and actually, in general 2-3 people is about the size of my pool, here)~:))
I guess I mostly meant that not in a sense of 'is it possible to judge actions objectively' but rather, how do you -know- on a more meta sense, rather than the specific sense...? Like, the people on a jihad or crusade are completely convinced they're doing the Right Thing, and so are the Communists and such-- so I guess the questions are more interesting when it's less black & white than just "kill the guy who stole your wallet", y'know?
Like, Communism, Nazism, Catholicism (*coughcoughcough*)-- all these are socially-imposed systems which are pretty delusional, right. I mean, yeah, clearly there are better odds, but even so-- there's always going to be another system (for Communists, there are Capitalists) who'll radically disagree. Like... I've never seriously seen a society that operated based on the Golden Rule. Sure, it's a great precept, but who abides by it, really? In reality, it's much more dog-eat-dog than that, and especially in Buffy's reality (I think I tried to say/mumble).
But of course I agree with you that in -practice-, it's often clear what to do whether you go by individual judgement or what's 'legal' or whatever-- that is, especially in clear-cut cases like the ones you mentioned (pollution, eye-for-an-eye, etc). But what about when it's less clear, when you have the Golden Rule break down...? How was Buffy supposed to use that rule, y'know? How are we supposed to use that rule in dealing with Communists who may or may not be Out To Get Us, etc.
I didn't really mean to make the "it made Buffy human" argument-- I meant that to judge her negatively-- that is to say, to hold an ethical superiority over her-- would be to imply that one can expect human beings to behave differently in some sort of normalized order, which I don't know if they would, I guess...?
blah blah blah...
Date: 2004-10-25 01:03 am (UTC)OMG please! I love how it's "Kirk-slash-Spock," as well. :D
I like to comment here (if, um, I ever have anything to say) 'cuz I feel like I can just say whatever. ^^
I remember philosophy course reading... ugh. yeah. Much slogging through difficult/dense texts.
Hmmm, but actually, I recommend you read some Kirkegaard. I think he's very readable and understandable and pretty words. Vague memory here, but I think he also gets points for good internal logic (ie his opinions don't actually all contradict each other) even though I disagree with some stuff. One of the things he muses on is Abraham's binding of Isaac and what differentiates a saint from a madman. (Which kinda relates to the Buffy and Dawn thing... if you squint, but also gets at the question of fanatics doing what they believe is right.)
I guess I mostly meant that not in a sense of 'is it possible to judge actions objectively' but rather, how do you -know- on a more meta sense, rather than the specific sense...?
Man, you are making me reach into my vague phil class memories. I think (ag, don't take my word on this) Kant has this idea that eventually you get down to 1st principles--like "truths that you hold to be self-evident" but that couldn't be proven. Then you rationally build from those gut truths. Like... there's no real "proof" I can give that human life is valuable, and a shark (or sociopath) would probably disagree, but if I go with that idea I can decide on the badness of murder and stuff from there.
Most of the philosophers I read agreed that humans have certain gut morals, and I agree to an uncertain extent. The hard trick is always being willing to investigate every step from your 1st principle to your conclusion, and then if all your conclusions seem to be a little wonky, reexamining your 1st principle to see if that's really what you believe.
But that's the basis for a personal moral/ethical system, which I think is a very different one from a social construct like communism, nazism... Actually, I think in it's purest theory form, communism was very golden-rule-ish--which is probably why it often fails (though I don't think russia had anything really like pure communism). It just doesn't work as a social organizational system if everybody isn't 100% sincere and has fewer fail safes for corruption etc.
It's one thing to try to be all golden-rule yourself, it's another to assume that everyone else will be. But that doesn't mean you (and your society) can't hold it up as something worth being, even if reality will always fall short and there need to be legal failsafes.
Um. what was I talking about again? *ramble ramble ramble*
How was Buffy supposed to use that rule, y'know?
Well, she could have asked herself: if this were some other girl and her sister, would I want that girl to save her sister's life if it meant the whole world (this now including me, my sis, my buds) falling into a hellpit? Like, imagine herself being one of the people she condemned to hellpit for her sis.
I think the thing this asks of someone is to stand outside themselves--the imagination at the heart of empathy and sympathy. *Of course* Buffy wants to let the whole world burn to save her sis. I'm sure if I ever have a kid I'll feel the same. But all those millions of other people whose lives'd be traded have sisters and loved ones too, and should "count" in some way.
And because that was so deep I must now balance that out with tv sharing. I just watched Shatner on Boston Legal and HE ROCKS (as does Spader). These are slick, quirky baddies that are entertaining to watch (and I root for 'em too ^^;;) Also, I saw an episode of Walker, Texas Ranger: so lame and bad, but it still made me tear up /shame.
Re: blah blah blah...
Date: 2004-10-26 12:37 am (UTC)The saint vs. madman thing sounds really interesting, ahahhah, and that's where I was going by saying, but what should -Buffy- do-- considering that she's a holy-mercenary/fanatic type of a certain sort, really. She's got her Holy Mission, right, but that kinda sets her apart from humanity, too-- she'd already made that 'unthinkable choice' and thought about the world (and killed Angel) and so on, and these barriers & morals had slowly been crumbling under the weight of her just not being about to -handle- them. Like, I guess what I mean is, she's not 'normal', and doesn't do normal 'ethical' things day-to-day-- she kills things based on her own personal judgment, no one to really answer to, man. That's got to warp one's head. Does my worldview/ethics even -apply- to her situation unfiltered...? I mean, I'm not sure.
I get what you're saying about the "gut principle"-- and in this case, Buffy's gotten rather good at trusting her gut, 'cause it's what saved the day so many times, if nothing else-- and I think in the end, that's what drove her to say she'd just choose Dawn over everyone. That was her gut, and her gut was twisted with grief and despair and desperation and such. In such a situation, where the whole world is basically acting wonky & Buffy herself is unstable, what could you really trust anymore...? If that 'gut' basic knowledge wobbles, what's left? Only the outside imposed ethical system, which Buffy never really listened to anyway, by virtue of her calling if nothing else (saint vs. madman...).
Stepping away from oneself is vital, yes, but.... Is it really always possible...? Can you say she -should- have, as if anyone could have in her place...? And if she's supposed to be 'better' than everyone else, that goes back to the "but she's not" refrain. HEHEHEH. MAN, WE'RE SO DEEP & INTIMIDATING >:D *coughs*
...SHATNER WAS ON BOSTON LEGAL??? WITH JAMES SPADER??? I... I... I can only imagine :D :D Oh god, James Spader. One of my few actor crushes. Mannnnnn, he's fine :O
Slick, quirky baddies, you say /:)
THE IDEA OF SHATNER AS SLICK/QUIRKY BADDIE MAKES ME LAUGH AND LAUGH :))
Re: blah blah blah...
Date: 2004-10-26 01:58 am (UTC)Well, yeah it's not easy. The point is not measuring if 68% of people would do the "right thing" in the same situation. The point is watching our heroine struggle with the dilema. There was a horrible choice, but with one option that was pretty clear-cut the better for humanity as a whole.
Buffy, in the context of the story, is presented to us as the hero--on a daily basis being better than most of us just be risking her life to protect people. The general flow and pov of the show presents her as hero. Flawed and human, okay, but the story makes me want to see her at least *striving* for the best thing, pain and horribleness aside. The thing that was so disappointing is that she didn't struggle with the choice. She just said "no" and went into denial mode. "sorry, little people no longer count." Perhaps realistic and human frailty etc etc, but in the context of the themes/symbols underlying the basic storytelling of the series--not very moving or interesting. Just kind of aggravating and annoying.
I can't really bring Kirkegaard's thoughts on madmen and saints into it in Buffy's defense, because I don't have that extra necessary element of faith that reaches beyond reason, that allows someone to see the difference (if it exists). I don't really know where it's place in a discussion would be anyway. "This is right and I will not budge?" A knowingly irrational 1st principle... seems more likely to be dumb than divine to me.
I think Abraham was doing a Bad Thing in the binding of Isaac. I don't have the faith necessary to think that an 11th hour random save will come. (I know faith is supposed to be wonderful and all, but it always seems like one person's faith almost always endangers *others*, and they'll also be the ones paying if that faith turns out to be untrue.)
YOU MUST WATCH BOSTON LEGAL. 10PM SUN. SHATNER AND SPADER ARE REGULAR CHARACTERS. They are so... morally challenged, not evil... amoral, but they don't pretend like they aren't and it is very amusing to see them hang out with each other and slither brilliantly around all the other people around them.