Donny's Refit Enterprise Interiors (Version 2.0)

[Christopher]

Not every creator. Many, absolutely; most, probably; all, no. Hence my reply.

Well, no; you were talking about creators who don't want to revisit their past works at all, whereas I was speaking of how creators perceive their past works when they do look back on them. So there isn't actually a contradiction there. You just interpreted "looking back" more broadly than I intended it.

Of course, context is everything: a "love instructor" could be just as (hopefully) hands-off as a sex-ed teacher in high school, or it could be very "interactive," but of course Roddenberry just drops the term in there and leaves us to decide what that means. Not that it takes much to guess what his angle was given his adolescent portrayal of sexuality elsewhere in the book.

There does not need to be anything "adolescent" about the idea of hands-on sex instruction. On the contrary, a society that had matured beyond our sexual hangups would see instruction in sex as no more disreputable than instruction in yoga or dance or tennis. It would be seen as simply another physical activity that brings people enjoyment and improves their health.

Adults do have sex, after all -- rather more often than adolescents, one would hope. It's just part of their lives. So it strikes me as paradoxical to look at the treatment of sexuality as a casual, everyday thing that can be studied and taught like any other skill and see that as somehow immature. On the contrary, I find it one of the most reasonable ideas about sexuality that Roddenberry ever put forth. There's nothing prurient about the idea of treating sex as something mainstream and unstigmatized -- just the opposite.

 

[Mudd]

Adults do have sex, after all -- rather more often than adolescents, one would hope. It's just part of their lives. So it strikes me as paradoxical to look at the treatment of sexuality as a casual, everyday thing that can be studied and taught like any other skill

And that's the essential problem right there, a basic lack of comprehension of the reasons why people have sex, for the most part, and what they expect of the experience.

I'll admit that the idea of sex as some odd vocational skill "that I can get real good at" is quite an appealing concept to a lot of males - perusing the classified ads in old issues of Hustler would make that very clear to anyone. It's probably up there on the list near worrying about dick size.

 

[Maurice]

The problem with “learning” how do love/sex is that there are no universal best practices. What one person considers a good kisser is a lousy kisser to someone else. Everyone is wired individually and navigating it means sussing each other out and figuring out what’s compatible. The main advice I’d give anyone who asked would be “try different things, pay attention to your partner and note what gets good or poor responses, and iterate on the good.” That’s a pretty simple lesson.

I’d charge y’all for the Love Instruction but there’s no money in the 23rd century.

 

[Christopher]

The problem with “learning” how do
love/sex is that there are no universal best practices.

So? The same goes for any number of human activities. Different teachers favor different styles or schools of practice, whether it's martial arts or cooking or whatever.

Everyone is wired individually and navigating it means sussing each other out and figuring out what’s compatible.

You don't seem to realize that you've just made a fantastic argument for love instructors, not against them. After all, how do you expect someone to learn that skill of sussing a partner out? If you can go to school and learn how to be a psychologist or psychiatrist, then obviously it is possible to teach someone how to listen to people and figure out what they need psychologically and emotionally.

Really, if you think about it, it's probably a mistake to assume that "love" here is merely a euphemism for "sex." That's implicitly part of it, but there are other skills that go into a loving relationship, like sensitivity, listening, cooperation -- the sorts of things people already go to relationship counselors to learn. After all, a society that's overcome its sexual stigmas enough to have such a profession would have no need to hide sex behind a euphemism if that were all it was. So presumably it's about more aspects of love than just that one.

The main advice I’d give anyone who asked would be “try different things, pay attention to your partner and note what gets good or poor responses, and iterate on the good.” That’s a pretty simple lesson.

Yeah, and "Try to hit the ball over the net with the racket" is a pretty simple tennis lesson, but it would be absurd to claim that that's all you need to acquire skill in the game. If we don't settle for trial and error in other fields, why is it so strange not to settle for trial and error in an area as important and delicate as human relationships?

 

[Mudd]

The problem with “learning” how do
love/sex is that there are no universal best practices. What one person considers a good kisser is a lousy kisser to someone else. Everyone is wired individually and navigating it means sussing each other out and figuring out what’s compatible. The main advice I’d give anyone who asked would be “try different things, pay attention to your partner and note what gets good or poor responses, and iterate on the good.” That’s a pretty simple lesson.

I’d charge y’all for the Love Instruction but there’s no money in the 23rd century.

Exactly so. I thought better of offering the one-sentence "love instructor" course in my previous post, which is "Fucking pay attention."

 

[Maurice]

Exactly so. I thought better of offering the one-sentence "love instructor" course in my previous post, which is "Fucking pay attention."

Exactly So.™ That's the point.

No two of my [# REDACTED, 5TH AMENDMENT] partners have ever quite liked the same things the same way. It all comes down to taking your partner's/partners' "temperature" throughout, which is really basic advice that applies to all kinds of social intercourse. You can't teach taste and personal chemistry other than "try stuff, take notes". You can't even add "don't be selfish" because some partners want you to be so.

Getting back on topic, Donny could label a door in the Enterprise "Love Instructor Advice 5¢" but thave the door forever locked and a sign hanging there reading "The Doctor in OUT".

 

[Mudd]

Honestly, Roddenberry just plain liked the notion of someone having the profession of teaching a woman to fuck - his ideas about sex were flat-out male pornographic fantasy,

 

[Christopher]

You can't teach taste and personal chemistry other than "try stuff, take notes".

See, you're making the mistake of assuming it's about teaching one single thing. No. It's about teaching how to choose the thing. It's a level up from that.

"Try stuff, take notes" is, of course, valid. But it's something you can do far better if you have a broad theoretical grounding in what it is you're trying and how it works on a general level, so that you understand why things work or don't work. And of course having a wide-ranging knowledge of the available options gives you more ideas of what to try.

I can only assume you never took a Human Sexuality course in college. I did, and I was amazed at how many layers of complexity there were to the topic that most people never think about, that I never knew were even part of the subject until I learned about them. This is one of the most complex and deep-rooted aspects of human psychology and behavior. Frankly, I find it not only ignorant but irresponsible to dismiss it as something you can only learn by crude trial and error. That's like saying the only way to learn to drive is to hop in a car by yourself and just try stuff out on the open road.

 

[Mudd]

College credits are not a substitute for experience.

 

[Maurice]

See, you're making the mistake of assuming it's about teaching one single thing. No. It's about teaching how to choose the thing. It's a level up from that.

"Try stuff, take notes" is, of course, valid. But it's something you can do far better if you have a broad theoretical grounding in what it is you're trying and how it works on a general level, so that you understand why things work or don't work. And of course having a wide-ranging knowledge of the available options gives you more ideas of what to try.

I can only assume you never took a Human Sexuality course in college. I did, and I was amazed at how many layers of complexity there were to the topic that most people never think about, that I never knew were even part of the subject until I learned about them. This is one of the most complex and deep-rooted aspects of human psychology and behavior. Frankly, I find it not only ignorant but irresponsible to dismiss it as something you can only learn by crude trial and error. That's like saying the only way to learn to drive is to hop in a car by yourself and just try stuff out on the open road.

^^^
Dennis, just as you predicted! LOL

@Christopher. If you're seriously going to characterize such a mild opinion as I have stated as "ignorant and irresponsible" then there is zero point in engaging with you. You might try dialing that stuff back if you want to have a friendly conversation with me (speaking for no one else).

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Honestly, Roddenberry just plain liked the notion of someone having the profession of teaching a woman to fuck - his ideas about sex were flat-out male pornographic fantasy,

YUP. If anyone thinks otherwise, take a look at "Pretty Maids All in a Row" sometime.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

I can only assume you never took a Human Sexuality course in college. I did, and I was amazed at how many layers of complexity there were to the topic that most people never think about, that I never knew were even part of the subject until I learned about them. This is one of the most complex and deep-rooted aspects of human psychology and behavior. Frankly, I find it not only ignorant but irresponsible to dismiss it as something you can only learn by crude trial and error. That's like saying the only way to learn to drive is to hop in a car by yourself and just try stuff out on the open road.

I hold a degree in journalism. But my course work didn't fully prepare me for the practical application. I learned to be the damn good, award-winning reporter I am through field experience.

Same with Human Sexuality. I took a course on it in college, but practical, hands-on experience is what made me the damn fine lover I am today.

There's only so much you can learn in the sterile and safe environment of academia.

 

[Maurice]

YUP. If anyone thinks otherwise, take a look at "Pretty Maids All in a Row" sometime.

Or read his script for Tarzan... Four words, "The Hall of Women". (@Harvey )

I hold a degree in journalism. But my course work didn't fully prepare me for the practical application. I learned to be the damn good, award-winning reporter I am through field experience.

Same with Human Sexuality. I took a course on it in college, but practical, hands-on experience is what made me the damn fine lover I am today.

There's only so much you can learn in the sterile and safe environment of academia.

"Field experience," the best Love Instructor.

 

[Harvey]

Or read his script for Tarzan... Four words, "The Hall of Women". (@Harvey )

My advice...don’t! Bad, bad, bad screenwriting.

Plus, @Maurice and I will start reading it on Twitter soon so you don’t have to.

 

[Maurice]

My advice...don’t! Bad, bad, bad screenwriting.

Plus, @Maurice and I will start reading it on Twitter soon so you don’t have to.

Tarzan Tuesdays. You might need a drink.

 

[Firebird]

My advice...don’t! Bad, bad, bad screenwriting.

Plus, @Maurice and I will start reading it on Twitter soon so you don’t have to.

You two are the real MVPs.

 

[Christopher]

Same with Human Sexuality. I took a course on it in college, but practical, hands-on experience is what made me the damn fine lover I am today.

But that proves that it's not an either-or choice -- that having the academic option does not preclude or harm the other approach. So there's no reason to argue that the academic approach is somehow wrong or should not exist.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

But that proves that it's not an either-or choice -- that having the academic option does not preclude or harm the other approach. So there's no reason to argue that the academic approach is somehow wrong or should not exist.

Me thinks you missed the cornerstone of my argument, which is stated in my last sentence in my post you quoted:

There's only so much you can learn in the sterile and safe environment of academia.

 

[Nightowl1701]

Much more of this, and we're going to have to move this thread to either Trek Literature or General Discussion.

 

[Ryan Thomas Riddle]

Much more of this, and we're going to have to move this thread to either Trek Literature or General Discussion.

Indeed! Now let's discuss more of Donny's amazing work.