Marriage necessitates a transfer?

[Technobuilder]

Why did Fabian & Corsi have to be separated by assignments, while Riker & Troi, and Picard & Crusher did not?

And if the answer involves "Riker and Picard are both Captains"... le sigh.

Just thought of this, so if it's already been addressed elsewhere, please let me know.

[Judith Sisko]

IIRC, Fabian and Corsi themselves decided that one should transfer off the da Vinci; it wasn't Starfleet's directive.

[Technobuilder]

So was Corsi afraid she couldn't do her job if Fabian was still around once they were married?

I really don't remember the specifics surrounding the decision or it's necessitation.

[Deranged Nasat]

Like Judith said, Starfleet didn't require them to be on different ships, it was their decision. If I recall, Corsi was uncomfortable with having her mate onboard, in case it caused a conflict of interest and made her less able to focus exclusively on performing her duty and protecting the ship. So they discussed it and agreed one would transfer; but at the same time they married, to reinforce their commitment even as they were separating physically.

(PS: I know I sound a bit weird, using "mate" for "long-term sexual companion". Sorry, but I don't like "partner" (too dry and businesslike) or "boyfriend/girlfriend" (makes me think of children play-mating). So "mate" it is.)

[Christopher]

^There's always "lover." That used to have a tawdry connotation, but I don't think it really does anymore.

[Deranged Nasat]

Christopher wrote:

---

^There's always "lover." That used to have a tawdry connotation, but I don't think it really does anymore.

It seems too flippant to me. You may be right about the general trend, but personally I can't quite shake connotations of superficiality. Not necessarily distasteful; the word "lover" seems (in my discerning opinion ) suited to pleasant liaisons and sexual discovery as much as it does uncaring emphasis on physical gratification, but it just doesn't seem right for me as a description for long-term mates.

I'm conscious that this is an odd topic for me to be getting into, so I'll just get back on track by saying that, if we see more of the SCE crew post-Destiny (someone please activate the KRAD Signal), it might be nice to see the married-on-different-ships relationship play out, as a contrast to the set up with Picard/Crusher and Riker/Troi. We've had a lot of subplots dealing with the issues facing married couples on the same ship; let's have the spotlight turn for a bit to those who maintain such relationships long-distance (which, it's often hinted, is far more common in Starfleet).

[Smellincoffee]

Christopher wrote:

---

^There's always "lover." That used to have a tawdry connotation, but I don't think it really does anymore.

It seems like a more charged word than spouse or mate. "Lover" is very...emotional.

[Sci]

"Partner."

[iguana_tonante]

I don't think "mate" is weird: in fact, I think it's perfectly fine. I do agree that "partner" sounds too much business-like, and that over a certain age "boyfriend/girlfriend" start to sound silly. I do like "lover", and it doesn't carry any meaning of being superficial or fleeting to my ear (on the other hand, I'm Italian, so take it as you wish ), but it does sound like a very emotionally-charged word.

I am getting used to let my inner geek out and use "companion" (Star Trek and Doctor Who reference in one shot!).

Plus, in Italian it is used in the same sense of "comrade", so the commie in me is quite pleased, too.

[Christopher]

"Mate" does sound awkward to me; it sounds like you're talking about lions in a nature documentary or something. I don't find "lover" superficial, because taken literally, it means someone who loves you. And yes, it's emotionally charged, but my impression is that that was the whole point -- a term for a deep, committed relationship that isn't (or isn't yet) a marriage.

[NrobbieC]

For an American mate is an awkward word, over here it's a standard thing you call people :P

[Christopher]

^Which is another reason it doesn't fit, because in British/Australian usage it just means "friend," not "committed romantic/sexual partner."

[Sci]

To me, "mate" sounds almost demeaning -- like you're talking about an animal rather than a person.

[NrobbieC]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Which is another reason it doesn't fit, because in British/Australian usage it just means "friend," not "committed romantic/sexual partner."

It's also an informal term for a complete stranger, along with boss, duck, chuck...

[Christopher]

^Yeah, but in the same sense that "buddy" or "pal" or "bro" are used as friendly forms of address to strangers.