This post contains series spoilers for Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt. Check out the series on DVD, upcoming Blu-Ray, or Funimation's streaming service.
Panty and Stocking with Garterbelt is known for flaunting its vulgarity and sexuality like a peacock attempting to woo a mate, but as a fan of the show I've noticed very little discussion about the role that romantic love plays in the show. In a series where one character keeps a sex diary making note of her conquests in the bedroom, it might seem silly to go looking for something as boring and typical and, well, mushy as heart-fluttering romance. However, it's there, buried beneath all the body fluids and filth, and its presence in show that seems to contrary to its goals is a curiosity, to say the least.
It should be news to no one that we, as humans living with other humans in the big dysfunctional family called "society," place value on human behavior, oftentimes in arbitrary ways. Sure, murder robs its victim of free will and a right-to-life, so that's right out, but there are other behaviors that don't really hurt anyone but which we've at some point deemed to be detrimental to our culture in some way. The type of consensual activities in which Panty engages throughout the series are acts which bother a lot of people; there are legions of concern trolls out there who, under the auspices of looking out for women's health, like to proclaim (loudly, frequently, and without being asked) that women engaging in sex with multiple partners is a Really Bad Thing™. Sex, they explain, is something to be enjoyed within the confines of marriage only, and primarily as a means of having TEH BAYBEEZ.
That's, of course, an extreme example, but even many of us who are quite a bit less uptight about life in general still rank "love" higher up our value system than "sex," which itself is probably a bit higher than "sex without any investment in the other person." A lifetime's worth of romantic stories, tales of love strengthened by adversity, media inundated with improbable romantic comedies... these things, stirred together with whatever bits of moral flavoring remain from our upbringing, have helped to establish a pecking order of what we consider "proper" behavior.
I say all this because this anime, as one might expect, puts a twist on what we might expect of a "romantic" story, allowing us to examine the inherent value in the type of love relationship that we may not otherwise question. The obvious example of this and what drove me to explore it as a topic was the Stocking-centric episode, "Ghost: The Phantom of Daten City." In this episode, Panty and Stocking are out looking for ghosts to hunt, but the conversation inevitably turns to the types of men the sisters like. Panty can't seem to get a handle on Stocking's "type," but Stocking hones in on a probable candidate on her own. The "man" she discovers is actually a ghost, and a foul-mouthed, slovenly one at that. To Panty's horror, Stocking is smitten with him and the two begin to date. Panty, believing that she knows what's best for Stocking, tries to convince her that her romance goes against the natural order of things - after all, angels are supposed to hunt ghosts, not fraternize with them. Eventually Stocking and the ghost make plans to elope, and Panty's last ditch effort to stop them falls flat. In the end, the ghost dematerializes; comprised of the
regrets of men who never fell in love, finally falling in love is his defeat.
The episode is a strangely somber one for this show, and the undercurrent of hostility between the sisters here begins to seem less like a rivalry and more like the formation of a substantial rift; I personally consider it the point during which the characters begin to fundamentally differ on what their Earthly purpose is. While their conflict seems on the surface to be about whether the man to whom Stocking has chosen to devote herself is worth her time, on a broader level my impression is that this represents the clash between two very different life philosophies, with Stocking getting her first real taste of the type of relationship that we tend to hold in higher regard and Panty holding firm to her "sex is life" outlook.
With this show, though, it's never quite that simple. This episode introduces a lot of muddy half-formed ideas that could be construed as criticisms against one way of thinking or the other. Take the ghost, for example. Garterbelt explains that the ghost was "born from the lingering regrets of men who had never tasted the bitter sweetness of love." In essence, not experiencing romantic love creates enough of a negative sentiment to bring forth a monster. Yet love, in this case, is almost entirely presented as a punishment; Stocking follows the object of her affection around like a puppy, makes food for him, endures his verbal abuse, and then watches as he fades away to nothing. Love, as it unfolds here, is also almost exclusively about experiencing loss - the loss of one's self, the loss of one's dignity, and, in the end, the loss of the other person.
The episode plays off the idea of "love at first sight" by twisting it to become a factor in the inherent impermanence of Stocking's relationship with the ghost. For all that we value long-lasting relationships, we certainly romanticize the idea that two people's eyes could meet across a crowded room and they could fall instantly in love with one-another without one knowing one solitary thing about the other. When Stocking first lays eyes on the ghost, she exclaims that she "feels like [she] was born to meet this man," as the protagonists of romantic stories often do. As it turns out, that in itself was part of the manipulative power of the ghost; Stocking was, literally, born to meet and fall in love with the ghost, because the ghost can only be defeated by an angel, and only after fulfilling the conditions of its imprisonment on Earth. It was not a matter of profound chemistry, nor a matter of perfect timing. It was merely a the result of an angel's duty and a ghost's nature.
Those with a less cynical outlook than I might argue that it's Stocking's love for the ghost that allows her to see past his bad attitude, weird looks, and propensity to fart all the time to something more genuine that Panty, an outsider to the relationship, isn't privileged to see and cannot understand. This could certainly be the case; people who aren't interested in love are probably not going to understand what all the fuss is about. The question is, though, why does lacking interest in falling in love often seem to invalidate one's existence in the eyes of people who hold love in high
regard?
I once got into an argument with someone on twitter (I know, I know) who stated that people who never have children (or have only pets) can never comprehend the sort of love a parent feels towards one's child. Taken literally, that's a true statement; I will never have children, so I have no idea one way or the other whether the love I would feel towards my hypothetical child would be of a different nature and intensity than the love I feel towards my husband or two cats. The implied meaning of the statement, however, was that the love between parent and child is of a higher value/more worthy than the love between a pet parent and their pet, so people like me who refer to themselves as their pets' "mom" need to check themselves. For the record, anyone who says something like this to me can go screw themselves and cease passing value judgments on the choices I've made in my life.
Stocking, in her anger at Panty's well-meaning (but intrusive and patronizing) attempts to stop her from seeing the ghost, states that Panty wouldn't understand what she's going through because Panty's never fallen in love. As with my example, the statement is technically true, but there's the embedded meaning that Panty's concern is entirely invalid simply because her life choices haven't included the type of relationship Stocking now seems to hold in high regard. The "news flash" here is that, in a way, this all goes back to slut-shaming; "good girls" fall and love and are faithful to one person, while "bad girls" just have sex. The "bad girls," by nature of their behavior, invalidate themselves in the eyes of those who are following society's "rules." Panty might be concern trolling a bit - both sisters seem capable enough of making their own choices and enduring the consequences of those choices, so Stocking doesn't need Panty to babysit - but it's her personal lovemaking habits which are held up as reason to discount her viewpoint. In this situation, there are several value judgments being passed on the lives of the characters by other characters, and the outcome is fundamentally negative.
In spite of the fact that the bulk of the sexual situations in this series are of the "free love" variety, I think it would be difficult to argue that the series makes a definitive statement about this as a superior manner of sexual interaction. My personal interpretation, though, is that this episode in particular does demonstrate that there are positive and negative aspects to almost any sort of relationship. The greater the extent of our feelings, the greater our pain may potentially be, but the less emotional involvement we have, the more it may feel as if we're just idling away our time. It's a choice that many people make in their lifetime, and only the people making that choice know what will provide them with the most satisfaction. So quit passing value judgments on other people's sex lives, damn it!
Next time, I want to finally dive into the role of "rules" (or "Rrrrruuuurrrruuuu") in this series. Stay Tuned!


"When Stocking first lays eyes on the ghost, she exclaims that she "feels like [she] was born to meet this man," as the protagonists of romantic stories often do. As it turns out, that in itself was part of the manipulative power of the ghost; Stocking was, literally, born to meet and fall in love with the ghost, because the ghost can only be defeated by an angel, and only after fulfilling the conditions of its imprisonment on Earth."
Finally, someone else who realizes it wasn't meant to foreshadow the out-of-nowhere troll ending.
My take on all this is a little different. It's not that buried under all those poop and fart jokes is a heart of gold, so to speak; it's that those kinds of things are thrown in there as a kind of aw-shucks sop to the audience, an escape hatch for the creators to say "See? We're not total cynics."
It's a strategy I've seen before, and it amounts less to a strategy than to a formula which other shows have done just as often, with even less material.
(I know you and I will probably forever disagree on the merits of this show, but I did want to point out why I feel this way.)
I'm not under any illusion that the creators of this series meant any part of it to be highbrow, empowering, feminist or what-have-you. Really the only word I've heard on the matter is that they intended the show to mimic the vulgarity of American animation, and the jury's still out on that one. This might sound blunt, but I don't really care what the original creators intended, in this or almost any other case. If I were looking for anime which I thought had a purposeful feminist message, I'd be able to come up with three or four of them maybe.
It's my opinion that, once creators release their creation to the consumer wilderness, it's no longer their place to decide when and how the audience will perceive it. In the case of Panty and Stocking, I happen to think that the creators tripped and stumbled into something that I interpret and perceive as very empowering. I feel the same way about Madoka Magica and Rideback and plenty of other anime that I like for its treatment of women's stories.
*Shrug* that's just where I come from. Ever since I was very young, I've somehow been drawn to the corner of fandom in which media is enhanced via reinterpretation and transformative works (I've actively done the fan-art fan-fic thing in the past, though I don't really have time anymore). I know that that sort of stuff rubs some people the wrong way, but growing up and being made to watch and read TV/Movies and literature in which people like me (women) and people like some of my friends (People of Color and other marginalized groups) are very underrepresented as fully-fleshed people and issues that pertain to my life are left unexamined for the most part has really compelled me to play "find the feminism" in works which many might not think to look for it.
It's probably one of the reasons that I've been able to keep enjoying the anime fandom for such a long time, because let's face it; each new season it seems as if there are more and more shows which are not just low-brow, but actively insulting to fans like me *sigh*
Somehow, I still love anime, though.
"I happen to think that the creators tripped and stumbled into something that I interpret and perceive as very empowering."
I get that, and I also get why you want to do that -- it's not a bad thing in itself. I'm just always a little surprised at how much you're able to read into a show that seems actively designed to not be interpreted, for lack of a better way to put it. But never let anyone tell *you* what's worth taking seriously, because you may make discoveries that never occurred to others.
I keep thinking of the questions put to the GAINAX folks about the Christian symbolism and Kabbalistic references in "Evangelion," and the sum total of the their comment was that they put them in there because they thought they looked and sounded neat. But then again, maybe they thought those things looked and sounded neat for reasons which they weren't articulating directly in the course of an interview, but which they had embedded in the story itself.
Anime has the same 90/10 rule as most any other medium, and I find myself enjoying immensely the stuff in the 10% for reasons that don't map easily to the same reasons I enjoy the top 10% of stuff in other media. "P&S" wasn't in that 10% for me, but you make a good case for why it would be in someone else's. I was going to say "Aren't you overthinking this?" but then I realized, isn't "overthinking" it the exact fun of it that I myself enjoy, just in different places?
"Madoka" and "Rideback", though, are terrific pieces of work.
"...but then I realized, isn't "overthinking" it the exact fun of it that I myself enjoy, just in different places?"
I agree. With communication, you have theories of intentionalism versus purposivism and whatnot, but I don't think that is as applicable to the media of art and entertainment. In general communication, you generally intend to convey a particular message, or intend to lie about it (you can probably see I'm an intentionalist). In art and entertainment, the message you get is the message you derive, and derivation takes degrees of effort given the particular source.
It's why you'll hear so many people go to a movie wanting "something mindless" because they don't want to expend mental contortions deriving their entertainment. I found Inception to be dull despite how much hype I'd heard, but perhaps I couldn't be bothered to delve any further into the implications of the story and technology based on my mood. Or perhaps I'd already done so, and no longer found it interesting. Doesn't matter, my interpretation was already complete, and I got what I got from the movie.
Art and entertainment are meant to provoke a response. I don't think they should be beholden to the author's original meaning, necessarily, because art and entertainment can hopefully evolve based on an interpretive audience. Communication, on the other hand, should be constrained to the author's original intent. Otherwise I believe you have lost meaning, and therefore destroyed the purpose of the communication.