Denobulan, Vulcan and human sexuality; bonding

[Trippy]

^ We might be back to an old argument, Trippy. I believe Angie doesn't find them particularly "intimate" or "comfortable," and doesn't believe they built the foundation of a bond ... a Vulcan bond like the type Spock built when he was a child with T'Pring and what Trek lore is based on.

You're right. It's not. Trip is human, and therefore the bond that T'Pol speaks of IS different. That's kinda the whole point.

And neither do I.

To each their own. IDIC and all that

HR, guess away if you're into it! I just get the feeling some people walk away and think: good, problem solved. I suppose it's their choice, but don't like when they treat it as "problem solved" in discussions with me on this board. It's like "interesting idea, but it's just that." I'm probably not explaining myself very well. Maybe it's more like: please don't tell me this is the solution; you think this and bully for you, but this is not *the* solution. Ya dig? I don't think you're guilty of that, by the way.

*The* solution will vary from viewer to viewer. *The* solution for me, I'm sure, isn't *the* solution for everyone...and that's ok.

 

[trj]

I agree with Captain X. I don't remember what they said about the bond in the episode where Trip resists Orions, but I'd say it is a neurochemical change that comes from long-term emotional (for lack of a better word about Vulcan attachment) and physical closeness. By physical, I mean mainly sexual, but the repeated neuropressure, especially between man and woman, is intimate physical contact too. It may not be enough, but it's part of it. The neuropressure sessions initiated intimacy at all levels.

That's pretty much my take on it too. And like I said earlier, this is expanded on in the novels (sadly, the only way ENT can carry on now) Basically, T'Pol theorizes that the bond they share is unique due to Trip's humaness, and therefore not the kind of bond that two vulcans would share.

I hope that's as clear as mud

i agee that the new books take on the bond is interresting,better than what the show gave us.which wasnt much.

 

[pookha]

to me whatever is done to vulcan children at the ceremony when they are promised to each other is different from what develops between a couple.

what is between the children dosnt seem to be much more then some type of glorified homing beacon..
something similar to what causes animals to return to a certain place to spawn.

there was zero sense of empathy , togetherness, commimetment between spock and tpring.

if anything something seemed to have developed between stonn and tpring.
and everything tpring did was centered on her being with stonn.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

HR, guess away if you're into it! I just get the feeling some people walk away and think: good, problem solved. I suppose it's their choice, but don't like when they treat it as "problem solved" in discussions with me on this board. It's like "interesting idea, but it's just that." I'm probably not explaining myself very well. Maybe it's more like: please don't tell me this is the solution; you think this and bully for you, but this is not *the* solution. Ya dig? I don't think you're guilty of that, by the way.

Thanks, I try. And I do dig. Hmm, why do I feel the urge to say "I reach," and break into a refrain of "Headin' Out To Eden"?

I think the concern here is the need to acknowledge the difference between fact and opinion.

Some posters present their opinions without signaling that they realize these are, indeed, opinions. There's a big difference between reading "Travis acted that way because he was an idiot!" and "I think Travis acted that way because he was an idiot," or "It seemed to me that..." or "When I saw the episode, I thought..." or simply "IMHO..."

Sure, we all know on an intellectual level that we're posting our personal, subjective, unique views here, and that no one else may see things the same way we do. So if we can avoid misrepresenting those opinions by inadvertently stating them as facts, we lower the risk of engendering an off-putting gut reaction by a reader who happens to disagree with us, and might feel as if they're getting something unpleasant shoved down their throat.

Now, if you're picking apart episode minutiae and pulling up factoids to back up your statement, that's different.

what tles said,,

I met my husband only once before we were joined. In time, we developed a deep connection to each other.

and tpol and trip spent a lot of time together several nights a week for a period of several months while in the expanse.
in very inimate setting were they were growing increasingly comfortable around each other.

I guess I missed these episodes........

pookha might have been referring to a line T'Pol said in "Proving Ground," when she mentions that she and Trip have three neuropressure sessions a week. The timestamp on that episode is December 2153, which means they've been doing NP for three months. And the body language and easy small talk demonstrated in the opening scene of "Similitude", three episodes previous, could be interpreted as comfortable.

So...fact + speculation. YMMV.

As for whether Trip and T'Pol's bond is forming at this point, even before "Harbinger"...eh, that's up to the viewer. The show mentions the one-year-together requirement for Vulcan newlyweds more than once, though the purpose is never explained, and there is T'Les's statement about her "deep connection" forming after spending time with her husband. And I noticed that the timestamp for "Bound" (when the bond manifests) is precisely one year after "Harbinger." No, it's not a clear connect-the-dots, but it's an intriguing little collection of clues.

^ We might be back to an old argument, Trippy. I believe Angie doesn't find them particularly "intimate" or "comfortable," and doesn't believe they built the foundation of a bond ... a Vulcan bond like the type Spock built when he was a child with T'Pring and what Trek lore is based on.

Do I think the T/T bond is the same as the Spock/T'Pring bond? No way! The Spock/T'Pring child-bond is a kind of mind-meld, and melding was widely disparaged as deviant behavior in Enterprise's time. My speculation, based on these facts, is that Vulcan child-betrothal in the 22nd century has no melding element, but is simply an oral agreement between the parents.

 

[pookha]

Thanks, I try. And I do dig. Hmm, why do I feel the urge to say "I reach," and break into a refrain of "Headin' Out To Eden"?

oh please do not.
for i will haunt you if you do. boooooooo

I guess I missed these episodes........

pookha might have been referring to a line T'Pol said in "Proving Ground," when she mentions that she and Trip have three neuropressure sessions a week. The timestamp on that episode is December 2153, which means they've been doing NP for three months. And the body language and easy small talk demonstrated in the opening scene of "Similitude", three episodes previous, could be interpreted as comfortable.

So...fact + speculation. YMMV.

yep the two episodes i was thinking..
and they seemed extremely comfortable around each other by
similitude really by rajiin.

Do I think the T/T bond is the same as the Spock/T'Pring bond? No way! The Spock/T'Pring child-bond is a kind of mind-meld, and melding was widely disparaged as deviant behavior in Enterprise's time. My speculation, based on these facts, is that Vulcan child-betrothal in the 22nd century has no melding element, but is simply an oral agreement between the parents.

ahh yes good point that.
a cultutre that looked askance at melds probably just had a betrothal ceremony ... still i dont see it as i said above as the bond between mates.

 

[commodore64]

Thanks, I try. And I do dig. Hmm, why do I feel the urge to say "I reach," and break into a refrain of "Headin' Out To Eden"?

oh please do not.
for i will haunt you if you do. boooooooo

Herbert.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

 

[ria 75]

[...]the body language and easy small talk demonstrated in the opening scene of "Similitude", three episodes previous, could be interpreted as comfortable.

I don't remember "Rajiin", but that ^ scene from "Similitude" struck me. It establishes the intimacy as far as the viewer is concerned. (And I'm a viewer, not a reader. That's my basis for everything.) You're supposed to use that stuff to fill in the blanks.

commodore, sorry if it looked like I was trying to establish some kind of fanon (if I'm using that word correctly. I learned it here). Would that be wrong? If my ideas get no validation, no skin off my nose. I'm here for the debating and the socializing, not to carve our conclusions in stone. To me, it's implied that all this is idle conversation. Sure, I'm happy when the majority agrees with me. And I'm as annoyed as you when it's the other way. (I know, technically, this is not the reason why you were annoyed.)

By the way, if anybody happens to be annoyed with me and my ubiquity and my occasional know-it-all attitude (for things other than Trek) they can take it up with me. I'm a big girl. I'm saying this because I know I have a problem with a person or two (not present here) and I wouldn't dare tell them how I really feel - unless they invited me to. I'm a big fan of deflating conflicts through communication.

Headin' Out To Eden

Herbert!

Man, you gals know your TOS better than I do. (Also, it's gone into american pop culture.)
I had to look that up before the light bulb lit up above my head with a flashback.

 

[commodore64]

I don't remember "Rajiin", but that ^ scene from "Similitude" struck me. It establishes the intimacy as far as the viewer is concerned. (And I'm a viewer, not a reader. That's my basis for everything.) You're supposed to use that stuff to fill in the blanks.

commodore, sorry if it looked like I was trying to establish some kind of fanon (if I'm using that word correctly. I learned it here). Would that be wrong? If my ideas get no validation, no skin off my nose. I'm here for the debating and the socializing, not to carve our conclusions in stone. To me, it's implied that all this is idle conversation. Sure, I'm happy when the majority agrees with me. And I'm as annoyed as you when it's the other way. (I know, technically, this is not the reason why you were annoyed.)

By the way, if anybody happens to be annoyed with me and my ubiquity and my occasional know-it-all attitude (for things other than Trek) they can take it up with me. I'm a big girl. I'm saying this because I know I have a problem with a person or two (not present here) and I wouldn't dare tell them how I really feel - unless they invited me to. I'm a big fan of deflating conflicts through communication.

No problem with you or theories, and sorry if you felt singled out. That was not my intention. I think it's wrong to pass off theories as fact, and I'm probably annoying in the crusade to point out these aren't facts ... probably because canon is important to me. I may be unique in that arena. You hit probably the core of it: fanon vs. canon. Fanon to me equals a widely held belief or generally accepted theory, and canon is on-screen evidence that is unquestionable. I think our definitions of fanon may vary, but that's okay too.

I disagree with your analysis of season 3 and the bond (and what was "seen" by the audience - mostly because I didn't "see" it), but don't think you should be impeded from analyzing, discussing or coming up with theories. Nor really should anyone else. Hopefully this board cultivates different analysis on episodes, which many times makes the board -- to me -- fun. It's unfun to me when there's no analysis or everyone thinks the same (or wants everyone to think the same).

Just to sum up, in case my opinions weren't clear, my biggest beef with the bond: it was a plot device used in season 4 that wasn't properly set up in season 3, causing issues and confusion among the audience -- so much so we have to search for theories and ideas to try and fill in the writing gaps. More over, the plot device -- in my opinion -- was rather silly since it didn't have any dramatic build up or any dramatic conclusion, nor any appeal to me; it also didn't add to the lore of Star Trek in any meaningful way, which is really a shame. As much as I love Enterprise, they botched a whole lot of stuff by just tossing things in there: the bond, T'Pol's drug addiction without resolution, no resolution to Archer's "do whatever it takes" attitude during season 3, Hoshi's brainwashing, etc. No amount -- to me -- of retrofitting will solve these issues; instead, they to me continue to draw big circles around the writing problems and probably why the show went off the air early. If this was fanfic, I think it's be acceptable, but these are professional writers. And it's disappointing, at least to me, because of all the Star Treks since TOS, I think Enterprise had the most potential. It's probably why I can say simultaneously: I love Enterprise, I hate Enterprise.

By the way, welcome to the forum!

 

[Penguin]

Don't know if this has been touched upon but didn't Trip say (in terra Prime) that he was gettiing tired (sick?) of this Bond? So it would seem that the Bond did exist between Trip and T-Pol.

Since it seems that audience has to assume that some things happened off screen. I believe that Trip and T-Pol took up a Intimate relationship after Bound.

In the two parter re Terra Prime Paxton says "Well, the Star Crossed Lovers." As far as I remember of the series Trip and T-Pol didn't run around Enterprise saying "guess what we did last night." or even give any evidence that they wre romatically involved.

Also when Trip was talking to Guard he asked Guard if he had ever talked to a Vulcan and the Guard said ""You did more than talk" So some how both Paxton and the Guard knew that Trip and T-Pol did have a Sexual encounter.

 

[ria 75]

[...]my biggest beef with the bond: it was a plot device used in season 4

Sometimes a few words weigh heavier than a whole debate.

[...]
In the two parter re Terra Prime Paxton says "Well, the Star Crossed Lovers." [...]
the Guard said ""You did more than talk" So some how both Paxton and the Guard knew that Trip and T-Pol did have a Sexual encounter.

They had informants on the Enterprise because they were paranoid about aliens having an important role in human affairs (no pun intended). The Enterprise mission being a big news item, it isn't surprising that even without spies, gossip would get around.

Apparently, the bond is a technicality. Let's stick to 'romance' and everybody will agree. Or is that also in question?? Anyway, I think the importance of that romance is mostly to be measured by the viewer's interpretation.

I don't think the writers and producers would think much of the fans if we didn't use our imagination and expected everything to be spelled out for us. It's true of every fiction. There is necessarily some room for interpretation. And that's why it's so interesting to debate those things, and why there isn't only one answer.

One of the things I like best here is to hear the contributions of those who know the shows better than I do, or noticed things I didn't. That way we can put together things that we hadn't connected and hopefully enrich our understanding or interpretation of the shows.
Not that our lives depend on it. Only our online social lives.

 

[Trippy]

Trip and T'Pol were having discussions about the nature of their relationship all over the ship!

Engineering, most often. The mess hall, the corridors, the situation room, etc. We are supposed to understand that Massro had noticed this, and reported back to Terra Prime. He also was the one to steal the dna out of sickbay for Elizabeth to be 'made'.

The 'star crossed lovers' bit was from a conversation that Trip and T'Pol were having after Home in engineering (with others visably present in the background) where Trip said (and I paraphrase) 'Romeo and Juliet stood a better chance' [of our romantic relationship working out].

Someone over heard them

 

[Penguin]

Trick or Trippy I am sure you are absolutely correct.

Since I have not seen all of the enterprise episodes (and probably never will since it seems that SciFi has stopped broadcasting Enterprise episodes.) I certainly cannot argue the point.

I do have the entire season 3 on DVd and would be intersted in what Episode that Trip said that about Romeo and Julliette.

One other thing. Trip and T-Pol "Lived" together in a way on Enterprise for one year after Mating/bonding in Harbinger.


Enjoy being corrected. I learn that way.

 

[Trippy]

Oh goodness, I don't 'correct' anyone except my students!

That scene (the Romeo and Juliet one) is in the Augments arc (Borderland, Cold Station 12 and The Augments). I'll have a look at my dvds later to see if I can pin point it (or someone with a better memory than me will know ).

 

[AVI8]

Gene Roddenberry (Great Bird of the Galaxy and reported cassanova) started the whole process that the writers and producers of the subsquent Star Trek franchises took on when Nichelle Nicholls and Bill Schatner had that famous interracial kiss which then led to a plethera of interspecies romances. It is a guess on my part but I guess that more than 15% of every episode and movies had at least a subplot of interspecies romances. I must admit I have often wondered about the physically romantic (i am trying to be nice here)abilities of characters like Odo and the rest of the shape shifters and Q (in my case the female Q).
What has always been, in my opinion, the best part is the demonstration that the future holds no false morality and we are able to conduct ourselves with our own sensabilities and not those thrust upon us by small minded people. Ok I'll get of my soapbox now.

 

[commodore64]

[...]my biggest beef with the bond: it was a plot device used in season 4

Sometimes a few words weigh heavier than a whole debate.

Not exactly sure what you mean, but ... I would say there's lots of plot devices in Star Trek, some good and some bad. I think good plot device -- for example -- was providing an avenue for Archer to save T'Pol's life in Twilight so that she returns the favor. Two characters having a bond doesn't bother me, even if I don't really care for the pairing, as long as it's been well set up and goes some place.

As for "star-crossed lovers" -- I think Trip was indicating that (like Romeo and Juliet) they were ill-fated. One doesn't typically use the term star-crossed lovers to mean: hey, we've got a great relationship. It usually means two people who can't seem to get together; the "stars" are against them. In Romeo and Juliet's case, they were also doomed.

As for the IDIC of relationships -- I'm with ya, Avi8. I think it's great to show the diversity of love. Though, I am in favor of showing love without characters needing drugs to feel it and believe the strength of the relationship should be enable equality between both parties -- something that is mutually beneficial and brings out the best in the couple. I'm not in favor of seeing two people who seem to be bad for each other (a relationship that conjures up each person's worst attributes) struggle to work it out on screen or in real life. In that case, I'm in favor of seeing on television the conflict resolved by the couple growing apart and eventually finding true love elsewhere that heals both parties.

As for the IDIC of relationships, I thought Spock and Saavik were interesting, had no objections to Crusher and Picard and though think Troi and Riker are boring didn't have problems seeing them get married in the TNG movie. I think, though, that Worf and Troi didn't really have a foundation to build on, even if they have diversity on their side. Since there has been a lot of relationship discussion, I -- for example -- enjoyed the chemistry between Archer and T'Pol and found their relationship a lot more satisfying; it didn't involve drugs or people feeling generally miserable. Instead, to me I saw people who were friends with the prospect of something more -- a relationship built on equality and caring. To me, that's the best basis for a relationship -- on-screen and off.

 

[Cicero]

By the way, is there proof somewhere that Spock is straight? Or is he just asexual (for all I know). Pelt me if the answer is blatant somewhere in canon.

Spock was involved with at least two women on the original series. Zarabeth in All Our Yesterdays was one the other was on the planet with the flowers that were controlling people (I've not seen it since I was six or seven, so I've little idea of the content beyond that).

 

[Penguin]

Archer and T-Pol. I believe I have read that the writers and TPTB intended from the start of the seeries that ARcher and T-Pol were to be only good friends and that Trip and T-Pol were to provide the Romatic part of the "B" thread.

Keeping in mind that I have never seen all of the Episodes I cannot recall Archer and T-Pol ever having much more than a professional relatonship. I don't recall a close personal relationship and certianly never an intimate relationship

In the series T-Pol respected Archer and seemed to have a mild "HeroWorshiip" for him.

It seems that Archer andT-Pol adherents sieze on Twilight and TATV to show that a Archer T-Pol romance would be better than a Trip and t-Pol romance.

Of course, that is just my opinion for what it is worth. I don't mean to step on any toes or offend anyone

I have had some experience in interracial relationship as once was in one with a Black Woman.

Won't go into details except to say that it was in early 60's and it was simply too much against us so we ended it.

 

[Hopeful Romantic]

We're veering off-topic. This thread concerns the possible origins of the bond, pon farr, Vulcan and Denobulan sexuality...check the OP for details.

Let's not turn the thread into T/T vs. A/T'P. We are not going there.

For folks who want to discuss the Trip/T'Pol relationship, there is already a thread here. If you would like to discuss Archer/T'Pol, feel free to start your own thread.

 

[Nimthim]

I've always felt that for a Vulcan to become involved with a non-Vulcan, there must be an incredible impetus to overcome the emotional suppression.
There was a Voyager episode where Tuvok and Paris were trapped in a temporal anomaly where time passed very quickly. Tuvok become very attracted to the alien woman trapped with them, and through flashbacks recalled his relationship as a young man with a Terellian woman. In both cases, it was apparant that Tuvok found the woman very physically attractive - and had declared himself 'in love' with the Terellian woman, which required intense treatment with priests to develop suppression of those feelings. The premise of the episode semed to be, could Tuvok, if trapped forever, forget the deep bond with his wife - which he could not do in his Pon Farr episode - and forget the control he learned as a young man, to be enveloped in those feelings again, to be in love again. I remember the lesson the priest had made to the young Tuvok - every negative emotion he was feeling, as well as the positive ones, could be traced to love. Vulcans must suppress love, as that brings all other emotions to the surface.
So again, the question begs, what causes a Vulcan to forget that lesson and have a serious relationship with a non-Vulcan. It can't be just friendship and respect, and it most likely can't be just physical attraction. Spock was intensely attracted to Leila (the woman from his past on the spore planet), yet he suppressed those feelings again because he believed he needed to for his well-being. And Tuvok had a friendship with Janeway that was much like T'Pol and Archer, but in neither case did I ever get a sense of more than that.
What we do see in Trek with Vulcans who do have or desire relationships with non-Vulcans, the non-Vulcan is an emotionally charged individual: Sarek and Amanda, several of the women Spock found attractive, T'Pol and Trip, Tuvok as mentioned above, the Lt. on Voyager who wished to mate with B'Lanna. So is part of the overwhelming impetus for such a relationship tied to the emotional character of the non-Vulcan - some certain quality that is irresistible to a Vulcan? Would there also not have to be an element to the relationship that allows the Vulcan to retain his/her balance and stay sane?
I think about this from the premise that Vulcans are an alien species who form their relationships much differently - however much they do experience emotions, they do not express them nor act upon them. Therefore, forming such a relationship must be a study in contradictions - deep attachment to a strongly emotional being by one who must repress emotion to be sane. How does it work? Or is it simply that old cliche 'I don't why I love him/her, I just do'?