THE ORVILLE S1, E9: "CUPID'S DAGGER"

[Nakita Akita]

It is an opinion thing. I wrote down my impressions of the show and the series.

I am troubled by the non-consensual nature of the thing that was happening in the episode. There are topics which I feel shoud not be funny. They have a connection to my family history. Rape is not funny. My mother was raped by her brother and by her husband and my father, and was molested by a dentist. So, I have a strong negative reaction to this show right now.

What was the "rape" part?
Maybe I missed something?

 

[Nakita Akita]

What's odd is that the Union does not seem to be aware of this love pheromone that Darullo's species emits during mating season. Shouldn't the crew of the Orville have known about this issue? But even more odd is that Darullo himself never seem to care to warn anyone or take precautions. Is he ignorant of the effects on other species or is he fully aware and takes advantage of it? The latter scenario is pretty creepy because it would make him a sexual predator.

By that token, all those zillions of women who wear make up, dresses, pink tops, yellow tops, short skirts, long skirts frilly tops .............. Are sexual predators!
Lock them up!
Throw away the keys!!!!!

 

[ihno]

I think of this show more and more as kind of "muppet show" in the sense that the guest star is somehow special. I really enjoyed Rob Lowe here.

It was not the most surprising episode though, since the twist/end was quite obvious.

 

[Nakita Akita]

This episode was the kind of episodes I was expecting from the series which was why I had avoided watching it as long as I did.

You were expecting an episode like this?!
In what way?

 

[Nakita Akita]

Especially in light of the current news cycle of men using their power to commit sexual harassment and assault, I found this episode gross and unwatchable. Just about the only decent thing about the episode was the running gag about the elevator music.

I've got news for you, this may be in the "news" right now, but this is as old as men and women .

 

[Amaris]

I've got news for you, this may be in the "news" right now, but this is as old as men and women .

What is going on isn't right, and no, it isn't "as old as men and women." Power imbalance has been a tool of male domination for centuries, and it's time that patriarchal institution was crushed. That also means men who use their power and influence to force women into sexual situations, lest they lose their rights, reputations, and income. "As old as men and women" is a flippant way of brushing off that oppression as if it's something that is inevitable, when it isn't. Men can be better. They must be better.

 

[marsh8472]

You were expecting an episode like this?!
In what way?

Spaceballs type stuff. Which I didnt hate spaceballs but I wouldn't seek it out either

 

[Nakita Akita]

Really the only "offensive" thing for me in it is probably the stuff with Finn, she'd made her feelings on the matter with Yaphet very, very clear so he had no reason in the universe to believe when she showed up at his door she was genuinely wanting action. It was just convenient for him. Every other aspect of the episode is easier to cope with when it comes to "love potion" notion as it was more or less harmless in the triangle of Ed, Kelly and Blue Rob Lowe/Blue Crosby mostly because of the history there, the implications on Ed and Kelly's divorce and the comedic "irony" of Ed falling for the guy who broke-up his marriage.

The Yaphet stuff is, for me, where the episode falls apart. Maybe if we hadn't seen the doctor and Yaphet have several other encounters in the past where she's had to rebuff his advances and lewd suggestions it would've been easier to deal with if this was the first time we saw this interaction and Finn's response was similar to how was the first time we saw this (amused, flattered but not interested) then Yaphet's acceptance of it might better fit under "she was trying to be professional in sickbay and now she's off the clock and in my room she's letting her figurative hair down.) But we've seen this Finn and Yaphet interaction three or four other times now as it was kind of an uncomfortable running gag in the show that this professional woman, in her place of work, on a vessel she has to live on for however, long one of the beings who is one of her patients no matter what by default is constantly making lewd advances on her and she constantly has to turn him down.

Maybe if this particular reaction was more flattery with polite refusal due to the practical implications of them being physically incompatible it would've gone down better. But no, she gets pissed, clearly has had enough and she tells the [guy] to knock it off or she's going to report him. Then some fucked-up alien biology conspires to screw with her head and now she has memories she probably doesn't want because an essential co-worker had apparently forgotten the events of every single one of their recent interactions and fucked her. Several times.

The Perfect Mate works because no one is harmed in the events of the episode, no one has a crime committed against them people just act lustful over this woman a little bit when she's around. Here it's very different as, in the case with the doctor, she had her wishes and true desires denied and ignored.

Without the doctor/Yaphet stuff the episode would've worked better as really that's where my biggest issue is because the very idea of it makes me uncomfortable in the way all forms of rape should make people uncomfortable.

The running gag with the guy and the music in the elevator, though, was pretty funny stuff.

Mmmmmmm, here on Earth it often happens where a humanmale will keep trying to get a human female to be interested in him.
I think however, it seems that in a few years this will be unacceptable and the species may die out.
However, I digress, the males of the species often try to convince or win over the female.
Many females will reject the male virtually forever however males, possibly due to testosterone, often keep up the pursuit surely, at the minimum, occasionally ending up being successful in the pursuit.

Yaphit, to me, seemed to simply think that he was finally successful.

 

[Nakita Akita]

What is going on isn't right, and no, it isn't "as old as men and women." Power imbalance has been a tool of male domination for centuries, and it's time that patriarchal institution was crushed. That also means men who use their power and influence to force women into sexual situations, lest they lose their rights, reputations, and income. "As old as men and women" is a flippant way of brushing off that oppression as if it's something that is inevitable, when it isn't. Men can be better. They must be better.

Then why can't women "be better"?
Some fat ugly 45 year old rich politician hitting it with a nubile 20 year old little hottie chick?
What is SHE after?
Does she hit it with the fat ugly 45 year old gas station attendant?
I think not.
It's a symbyotic relationship, thinking otherwise is in error.

 

[137th Gebirg]

This will end well...

 

[Nakita Akita]

I think this is the tricky aspect of a humor based show that tries to also be serious. Some issues aren't dealt with seriously and in other cases (About a Girl) the humor undercuts the serious parts.

That's not to say they shouldn't use humor, I think that is a great thing about The Orville. But, I sort of prefer the Red Dwarf approach where they don't have any pretensions about being serious in the first place, which The Orville definitely has.

You can mix comedy and drama, just look at M*A*S*H, but The Orville ain't no M*A*S*H!

MASH?
Where the men had the shower tent collapse to the ground in the middle of the base while Hot Lips was taking a shower?
That humor?
Puuuullleeeease!
That would be ever Sooooooo
Offensive now.
OMG!
And they called her "Hot Lips"!!
That's offensive too!
Lol.
Maybe think of a different exampleLOL

 

[ihno]

That also means men who use their power and influence to force women into sexual situations, lest they lose their rights, reputations, and income.

Human rights or just civil rights? And what then? Where do those people live? Another Guantanamo? I mean the "beacon of light" USA have already 25% of all prisoners worldwide in their own prisons but the appetite for incarceration is just unlimited, right?

If you would destroy the "rights, reputations, and income" of every person (not just males) in the USA, who used "force" sexually or in any other way on someone in the last 50 years (many things are from the 1970s like Dustin Hofmann's comments and that foot washing) you will have a big problem to keep up your society working. It will break down very soon.

And all that is needed is some internet story that can be true or not, and people (women I assume) get triggered to take their pitchforks and begin the good deed of destruction of "rights, reputations, and income".

Well, I guess Trump will win the next term as well.

Btw: Is it true that US-american universities suggest that their students make a written contract before sex? I read something like that a while ago on a german magazine, which is normally rather serious.

If I would have followed that, what US policies suggest for "balanced intercourse", I would have never had sex in my life. How romantic. That's not an invitation to assume that I'm a predator, I'm a normal gay man.

It wasn't The telegraph, but I just found this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/se...s-for-university-students-Would-you-sign.html
Maybe it's a joke, I still hope it is.

 

[Amaris]

Then why can't women "be better"?
Some fat ugly 45 year old rich politician hitting it with a nubile 20 year old little hottie chick?
What is SHE after?
Does she hit it with the fat ugly 45 year old gas station attendant?
I think not.
It's a symbyotic relationship, thinking otherwise is in error.

Human rights or just civil rights? And what then? Where do those people live? Another Guantanamo? I mean the "beacon of light" USA have already 25% of all prisoners worldwide in their own prisons but the appetite for incarceration is just unlimited, right?

If you would destroy the "rights, reputations, and income" of every person (not just males) in the USA, who used "force" sexually or in any other way on someone in the last 50 years (many things are from the 1970s like Dustin Hofmann's comments) you will have a big problem to keep up your society working. It will break down very soon.

And all that is needed is some internet story that can be true or not, and people (women I assume) get triggered to take their pitchforks and begin the good deed of destruction of "rights, reputations, and income".

Well, I guess Trump will win the next term as well.

Btw: Is it true that US-american universities suggest that their students make a written contract before sex? I read something like that a while ago on a german magazine, which is normally rather serious.

If I would have followed that, what US policies suggest for "balanced intercourse", I would have never had sex in my life. How romantic. That's not an invitation to assume that I'm a predator, I'm a normal gay man.

It wasn't The telegraph, but I just found this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/se...s-for-university-students-Would-you-sign.html
Maybe it's a joke, I still hope it is.

Whataboutisms are worthless, and serve no purpose other than to distract from this specific issue. Right now, women are able to come forward in a more supportive environment. They'll still be smeared, and disregarded, told they're goldiggers or just denied a voice by some, but many more are listening, and that is crucial.

If your response is something about "mens rights," or more whataboutisms, I'm not interested.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

MASH?
Where the men had the shower tent collapse to the ground in the middle of the base while Hot Lips was taking a shower?
That humor?
Puuuullleeeease!
That would be ever Sooooooo
Offensive now.
OMG!
And they called her "Hot Lips"!!
That's offensive too!
Lol.
Maybe think of a different exampleLOL

That was the movie, not the TV show.

 

[Nakita Akita]

Whataboutisms are worthless, and serve no purpose other than to distract from this specific issue. Right now, women are able to come forward in a more supportive environment. They'll still be smeared, and disregarded, told they're goldiggers or just denied a voice by some, but many more are listening, and that is crucial.

If your response is something about "mens rights," or more whataboutisms, I'm not interested.

If those women weren't interested in those men in the first place, why were they out, in secluded, half naked with them?

What did they think the guy wanted?
Monica Lewinsky under the desk in the Oval Office?
Mmmm, did she think the Predidrnt of the United States had her there for her brilliant insight into global economic theory?
They were gong to discuss the Iliad?
Yea, right.
I don't get your dismissiveness with the cutsey "whatsboutism" or what ever it's called is just being dismissive of reality.

 

[ihno]

Whataboutisms are worthless, and serve no purpose other than to distract from this specific issue. .

Ah, did you watch John Oliver or something like that.

But "Civil rights or human rights" is pretty clear very much on what you wrote.

So it's not so much a "whataboutism", the question is : "Civil rights or human rights"?
And what's next? What do you do with those people?
How many do you think there are? I guess you have onehundredthousand adult males in the USA.
Let's assume it's half of them.

What are those 50.000.000 men supposed to do, after you took away their "rights"?

Specific enough?

Right now, women are able to come forward in a more supportive environment.

It is not supportive.The "supportive situation" may be nothing but an internet-bubble. Have you noticed who your president is and why he might got elected?
And yes, there is a connection. Looking at social things in depth is not a "whataboutism".

They'll still be smeared, and disregarded, told they're goldiggers or just denied a voice by some, but many more are listening, and that is crucial.

Again, it's a rather bubbely thing.

If your response is something about "mens rights," or more whataboutisms, I'm not interested.

If you prefer: My comment was not for you, it was more about your post.
Any my concern are human and civil rights.

edit: So you know: A "whataboutism" would have been "What about the treatment of workers in North Korea?" I didn't change the topic, I asked you to elaborate in detail. My question was: How you do plan to execute what you wrote? Can you specify what you wrote? Do you plan to strip away only civil or human rights? Is that question so difficult?

 

[Amaris]

If those women weren't interested in those men in the first place, why were they out, in secluded, half naked with them?

What did they think the guy wanted?
Monica Lewinsky under the desk in the Oval Office?
Mmmm, did she think the Predidrnt of the United States had her there for her brilliant insight into global economic theory?
They were gong to discuss the Iliad?
Yea, right.
I don't get your dismissiveness with the cutsey "whatsboutism" or what ever it's called is just being dismissive of reality.

Ah, did you watch John Oliver or something like that.

But "Civil rights or human rights" is pretty clear very much on what you wrote.

So it's not so much a "whataboutism", the question is : "Civil rights or human rights"?
And what's next? What do you do with those people?
How many do you think there are? I guess you have onehundredthousand adult males in the USA.
Let's assume it's half of them.

What are those 50.000.000 men supposed to do, after you took away their "rights"?

Specific enough?




It is not supportive.The "supportive situation" may be nothing but an internet-bubble. Have you noticed who your president is and why he might got elected?
And yes, there is a connection. Looking at social things in depth is not a "whataboutism".



Again, it's a rather bubbely thing.



If you prefer: My comment was not for you, it was more about your post.
Any my concern are human and civil rights.

Womens rights are human rights. Transgender rights are human rights. Feminism is all about human rights. Standing up for people who were sexually abused, molested, coerced, and manipulated by offering them an opportunity to explain what happened without destroying their lives and careers is still human rights. Again, whataboutisms have no place in this issue.

 

[ihno]

A "whataboutism" would have been "What about the treatment of workers in North Korea?" I didn't change the topic, I asked you to elaborate in detail. My question was: How you do plan to execute what you wrote? Can you specify what you wrote? Do you plan to strip away only civil or human rights? Is that question so difficult?

And btw, as a gay man I can tell you that you're not speaking for minorties, you are using them.

 

[Amaris]

A "whataboutism" would have been "What about the treatment of workers in North Korea?" I didn't change the topic, I asked you to elaborate in detail. My question was: How you do plan to execute what you wrote? Can you specify what you wrote? Do you plan to strip away only civil or human rights? Is that question so difficult?

And btw, as a gay man I can tell you that you're not speaking for minorties, you are using them.

Your post is full of incorrect assumptions. You're going to have to go back and clean it up before I can respond to anything, as what I've said and what you've gathered are two totally different concepts.

Also, I'm pansexual, and part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Again, an incorrect assumption on your part. Clean up your post.

 

[ihno]

Your post is full of incorrect assumptions. You're going to have to go back and clean it up before I can respond to anything, as what I've said and what you've gathered are two totally different concepts.

So the question was too difficult, okay.

Also, I'm pansexual, and part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Again, an incorrect assumption on your part. Clean up your post.

Of course you take your opinion and generalize it.
I'm gay and you're not speaking for me and the gay community is diverse. It's not the Borg collective. It may be in the USA.

And for the "two totally different concepts."
Do you mean "human rights" and "civil rights"? Yes, they are not the same, that was why I asked you to elaborate in the first place.