Harry Kim's rape

[Refuge]

It's threads like this that make me embarrassed to be a Trek fan.

I was wondering about the comment regards future Treks addressing everything as an issue, well it didn't say that, but that is what it meant.

How awful and boring it would be if we have Star Trek in the egg shell universe. To meekly go where every politically correct know it all has been before. These are the voyages of the Star Ship 'Humorless'..

 

[Guy Gardener]

Dude, nice try but I don't think the moral applicability is sinking in with a few people here.

You know, the whole "this isn't about Harry Kim or Klingons, it's about the oh so humorous portrayal of sexual assault and the doctor's attitude" thing.

PARIS: Any progress on those starcharts?
MEGAN: I'll have them to you by fourteen hundred.
PARIS: Fourteen hundred? You told me they'd be done yesterday.
MEGAN: I'm sorry, Tom. The sensor array went offline. Seven of Nine will have it up and running this morning. Fourteen hundred, I promise.
KIM: You need some help? I'm not on duty again till tomorrow morning.
MEGAN: No, I don't want to spoil your day off.
KIM: Oh, I don't mind.
MEGAN: Thanks anyway.
JENNY: See you Lieutenant. Buster.
KIM: Bye.
PARIS: I think Jenny really likes you.
KIM: Yeah, I know.
PARIS: I thought the feeling was mutual.
KIM: How many times do I have to tell you? I like Megan, but she won't give me the time of day.
PARIS: What is the difference?
KIM: You can't be serious.
PARIS: They're the Delaney sisters, Harry. They're twins.
KIM: Are you kidding? They're nothing alike. Jenny's aggressive and sometimes annoying. But Megan, she's quiet, artistic, and she's got that cute little dimple in her right cheek.
PARIS: Jenny doesn't have the dimple?
KIM: No dimple.

Add that, to what happened with Seven, chasing after (what seemed like a) a hologram that was probably programmed not to have sex with anyone, and a one year old baby, it seems that Harry just turns his nose up at women who know what they want, if what they want its him... He's turned on by rejection.

If she really wanted him, girl had to change his bait.

 

[borgboy]

Add to that the Caretaker kidnapped him with the intent to rape him and the timeline where Kim married Tom and Kes's daughter Lynnis after he watched her grow up. As Tom's best friend he was probably her godfather and Kim always was super creepy after that.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Intent?

Likely Harry and B'Elanna were artificially inseminated with Caretaker jizz, moreso than raped personally by Caretaker, but Harry and Torres were asleep, roofied even. These too kids couldn't have been more raped than that.

Although, there isn't a rape spectrum.

It's binary.

Was Harry forced into something sexual against his will?

Or, was Ch'Rega trying to mount him, without ever asking for consent?

Remember Klingon consent = Not murdering the naked person grabbing at you.

Harry is the problem for not reporting what happened to an authority, if she was a dangerous predator, even if he himself could handle her... Meanwhile the Doctor is a computer program, which means that if Kim had been even nonsexualy assaulted, that an automatic report would have been filled out and sent to Security.

Let's say that a report was filled out by a book keeping subroutine that is barely acknowledged by the high functions of the Doctor's AI, and sent away to security... That would mean that it was Tuvok who disregarded this charge as "nonsense".

Blame Tuvok.

Considering what that woman did to his sheets, what she left in the toilet every morning (Klingons don't flush) you would think that Tuvok would rummage back though his "paperwork" and file that rape allegations just to stop Neelix banging her on top of, and underneath all of Tuvok's furniture.

 

[Voth commando1]

Trek has always viewed sexuality with a mixture of (liberal) humor and sci fi fanboy ogling-aka green women, seven of nine, t'pol, the babes of TOS, Beverly Crusher and Troi. As well as Jadzia Dax, Kira(later seasons especially), Vash(arguably), the female mutant, Q's wife, and maybe a few others.

It would be a great shame if that element was removed to appease a bunch of fourth wave feminists and rabble rousers on the internet.

As for the episode itself I haven't seen it-but it seems like the writers were treating Harry as they always did-a whipping boy without initiative or any sense of machismo.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's threads like this that make me embarrassed to be a Trek fan.

Really? No need for that. We're not doing any harm here. Just discussing cultural differences in Trek aliens.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Why would Neelix still be into Ch'Rega if she had crossed a moral line with Harry?

 

[Triskelion]

Leaving aside the petty and obvious comeback that a coyote eating a prey bird is not cannibalism I'm not watching those shows, I'm watching trek. I expect the bar set somewhat higher.



Because rape is hilarious.



Nor should it have been comedy relief.



And none of them were viewing, or offended? None of them could possibly be reading or posting in this thread?

Oh, so now anyone who disagrees with this forced thematic association must be pro-rape, is that about the gist of the next logical conclusion?

By the way, Road Runner did espouse cannibalism by these alarmist definitions encouraged in this attention-seeking, flamebait thread. Those characters were PERSONIFICATIONS. That is why they bleep-bleeped out the parts where Coyote hit the canyon floor in a cloud of dust, and sanitized it for your protection. Yet, chasing a beloved character in order to eat them is universally horrific - and anyone who got any enjoyment out of that serious issue must take great glee at the starving children of the world - and one day, perhaps, should even be taken away in pink boxcars of social symapthy and harmony.

And I also submit it is one's own assumption of having the more valid position, and that others' experiences are, ipso facto, trivial that is a particularly tenuous position. It's based on a lot of assumption. While it may service the needs of the moment in debate, it is simply irresponsible labelmaking of "right" vs "wrong" positions.

In other words - that argument is a double edged sword - you can't speak to other people's experience either and hold that up as "evidence" of ignorance on any issue. Like the episode scene in question - a forum thread is hardly the time or place for a deep psychotherapeutic, legal or ethical dissemination of one's chosen issues. Maybe it's the venue you really should take issue with. While posters are here to share, no one here needs to justify their experience to be "authorized" to hold an opinion that it is the OP, that is in fact the trivialization of such an issue - that has very little to do with the actual episode theme. You might wish to pick your battles more carefully if you would want the right issue to be taken seriously at the right time and for the right reasons.

To use the vernacular, this thread reminds me of the EMH giving a sermon in Fairhaven. (And a soulless program leading souls is not an offensive trivialization of a culture, or a constitutional religious belief in "soul")? You know, in a way, not speaking to this scene in particular could be called offensive intolerance of a much deeper matter than fleshly concerns....

Or maybe you can only say so much with 45 minutes. There's a lot that Trek glossed over. Maybe it's not the end-all-be-all of one's social authority.

 

[Guy Gardener]

That is not anyone's vernacular.

 

[Trekkin]

Trek has always viewed sexuality with a mixture of (liberal) humor and sci fi fanboy ogling-aka green women, seven of nine, t'pol, the babes of TOS, Beverly Crusher and Troi. As well as Jadzia Dax, Kira(later seasons especially), Vash(arguably), the female mutant, Q's wife, and maybe a few others.


It would be a great shame if that element was removed to appease a bunch of fourth wave feminists and rabble rousers on the internet.


As for the episode itself I haven't seen it-but it seems like the writers were treating Harry as they always did-a whipping boy without initiative or any sense of machismo.

Every Trek series has outright white washed away sexual assault. Typically for laughs

• TOS: A lot, but 'The Enemy Within' is the most noteable.
• TNG: Troi, again 'a lot.' Being forcibly impregnated against her will in The Child is probably the first time.
• DS9: Quark is frigging chased down by the wannabe Negus in 'Profit and Lace', and then there's the entirety of Sisko's birth.
• VOY: See thread.
• ENT: Trip joins the 'impregnated under false pretences' club.

That is not some low cut leotards for the sake of the audience downstairs brains. It's not shit that was excusable by the standards of their time. In most of the cases, the writers don't even seem to realise what they'd written.

But no, let's leave the self reflection to semi-ambitious science fiction. Doesnt belong in a Star Trek series.

How awful and boring it would be if we have Star Trek in the egg shell universe. To meekly go where every politically correct know it all has been before. These are the voyages of the Star Ship 'Humorless'..

Sexual assault.

haw haw.

 

[Guy Gardener]

I'm not trying to be funny but what does "low cut" mean to you?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Troi is showing her bare arms, and Beverly is completely covered up to just past her elbows (Yes, their faces are not covered either. Don't be ridiculous).

I'm just wondering about the mirrors?

You can almost see inside Troi's bottom.

 

[Trekkin]

I was thinking more of Troi's usual unitard-thing from the first season. But those clothes are also terrible, for a very different reason.

Actually, maybe I shouldn't laugh at the... metallic sheaf over thermal underwear(?) look. I used to dance. There's probably photos of me wearing worse.

 

[Refuge]

Oh, so now anyone who disagrees with this forced thematic association must be pro-rape, is that about the gist of the next logical conclusion?

By the way, Road Runner did espouse cannibalism by these alarmist definitions encouraged in this attention-seeking, flamebait thread. Those characters were PERSONIFICATIONS. That is why they bleep-bleeped out the parts where Coyote hit the canyon floor in a cloud of dust, and sanitized it for your protection. Yet, chasing a beloved character in order to eat them is universally horrific - and anyone who got any enjoyment out of that serious issue must take great glee at the starving children of the world - and one day, perhaps, should even be taken away in pink boxcars of social symapthy and harmony.

And I also submit it is one's own assumption of having the more valid position, and that others' experiences are, ipso facto, trivial that is a particularly tenuous position. It's based on a lot of assumption. While it may service the needs of the moment in debate, it is simply irresponsible labelmaking of "right" vs "wrong" positions.

In other words - that argument is a double edged sword - you can't speak to other people's experience either and hold that up as "evidence" of ignorance on any issue. Like the episode scene in question - a forum thread is hardly the time or place for a deep psychotherapeutic, legal or ethical dissemination of one's chosen issues. Maybe it's the venue you really should take issue with. While posters are here to share, no one here needs to justify their experience to be "authorized" to hold an opinion that it is the OP, that is in fact the trivialization of such an issue - that has very little to do with the actual episode theme. You might wish to pick your battles more carefully if you would want the right issue to be taken seriously at the right time and for the right reasons.

To use the vernacular, this thread reminds me of the EMH giving a sermon in Fairhaven. (And a soulless program leading souls is not an offensive trivialization of a culture, or a constitutional religious belief in "soul")? You know, in a way, not speaking to this scene in particular could be called offensive intolerance of a much deeper matter than fleshly concerns....

Or maybe you can only say so much with 45 minutes. There's a lot that Trek glossed over. Maybe it's not the end-all-be-all of one's social authority.

Why weren't you around when I went under in that awful thread in the Discovery forum? You make one observation and if it doesn't fit the exact formula that it's supposed to.. toast.

This thread doesn't bother me from the perspective that Harry was actually attacked. He shouldn't have been, but calling it rape is overkill.

 

[Prax]

Why would Neelix still be into Ch'Rega if she had crossed a moral line with Harry?

Because Neelix is a good friend. He put himself in harm's way to save Harry. The fact that he ended up enjoying it was incidental.

 

[Voth commando1]

I'm not trying to be funny but what does "low cut" mean to you?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Troi is showing her bare arms, and Beverly is completely covered up to just past her elbows (Yes, their faces are not covered either. Don't be ridiculous).

I'm just wondering about the mirrors?

You can almost see inside Troi's bottom.

In that very episode I recall there was a close up where Beverly's ass is shown. Oh and they were talking about Troi's lover. So there's that.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Because Neelix is a good friend. He put himself in harm's way to save Harry. The fact that he ended up enjoying it was incidental.

That is not what happened.

Neelix wanted to tap that, so he pretended to kick Kim's ass to trick her into thinking he was the sort of guy that she was into... An asskicker, which is extremely fraudulent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

 

[Spot261]

By the way, Road Runner did espouse cannibalism by these alarmist definitions encouraged in this attention-seeking, flamebait thread

Umm, still no.

What definitions would they be? Cannibalism is defined by being members of the same species. Unless you are characterising that species as "ink character" in which case the definition is yours and yours alone, no one else is using it.

Again though, this isn't road runner, it is star trek and it isn't unreasonable to expect a better handling than this.

Oh, so now anyone who disagrees with this forced thematic association must be pro-rape, is that about the gist of the next logical conclusion?

No, sexual assault is not the stuff of comedy relief. If we are going to see it portrayed in trek I'm fine with that, but I want it done well, not in the manner of a Carry On movie. This isn't a forced association, it's quite literal and key to this isn't the assault, it's the doctor's dismissal and its on screen use as a light comedy moment.

And I also submit it is one's own assumption of having the more valid position, and that others' experiences are, ipso facto, trivial that is a particularly tenuous position. It's based on a lot of assumption.

Which is a closer approximation of your own posting, not mine. You were the one claiming this was a "pet social issue" and did not chime with the views or experiences of those with a real life vested interest. Now you have about faced and are claiming the views of those who have such a vested interest are meaningless.

There is little if any assumption required to hold the position that sexual assault portrayed on screen is a highly sensitive issue and it will upset people. Nor is there any real assumption in the position that had the gender roles been
reversed we simply wouldn't be having this discussion, you wouldn't be seeing the complaint as being trivial. The difference is not the fact of of context, it is that of perceived real world applicability or lack thereof.

Any perceived credibility in your case would fall apart if and when you attempted that argument. My suspicion is you would simply not attempt to make it.

You might wish to pick your battles more carefully if you would want the right issue to be taken seriously at the right time and for the right reasons.

There is no battle, I'm simply pointing out this isn't something that is funny and that it shouldn't need pointing out. The fact of this being a discussion forum does not alter the fact that using sexual assault as the stuff of humour is tasteless.

 

[Trekkin]

Why weren't you around when I went under in that awful thread in the Discovery forum? You make one observation and if it doesn't fit the exact formula that it's supposed to.. toast.

Hmmm. Well I guess that is one way to describe:

How awful and boring it would be if we have Star Trek in the egg shell universe. To meekly go where every politically correct know it all has been before. These are the voyages of the Star Ship 'Humorless'..

It was funny until you tiresome farts turned it into an issue..

That is not what happened.

Neelix wanted to tap that, so he pretended to kick Kim's ass to trick her into thinking he was the sort of guy that she was into... An asskicker, which is extremely fraudulent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_deception

Not if Neelix really could beat up Harry. He's got to lie about his Identity, not just the manner in which he shows it off.

And no kidding: a coat rack could beat up Harry. The guy just attracts boots to his ass.

 

[Guy Gardener]

In the 90s as it aired, having grown up watching Kirk ####ing his way across the universe, TNG and Voyager were genteel wussies tip toeing on eggshells.

Often I would scream at the television "Just kiss her you soft piece of shit!!!!" In situations where it looked like two characters should be together, but not damn fast enough.

 

[Refuge]

People take themselves too seriously these days. Always ready to bore another into submission. Kirk would not last two minutes on a Star Trek today. He's too white, too male, too hetero, too ready to kiss the girl.