Chakotay and 7 of 9, why?

[Lynx]

Was it love or just sex?
Nobody seems to be considering the "open" relationship.

Or to quote Jimi Hendrix:

"Is it love, baby
or is it confusion?"

 

[Brit]

Ok, but we can't deny the fact that MANY people in real life behave this way. Hello Mr. Tiger Woods!

If Trek is about exploring the human condition , then were shouldn't dismiss that sexual promiscuity & sexuality in general is part of it. We aren't robots, people do have carnal needs.

Trek is supposed to be our “enlightened” future. Will there be sexual Promiscuity, yes because there has always been. The real question is what will our relationships look like in that future, because there will be relationships whether Trek producers acknowledge it or not. I believe in light of what we are discovering now; those relationships will be committed rather than practicing promiscuity. I believe in that enlightened future a Picard on a “family” ship would have brought his wife and children with him. I believe that given the extraordinary circumstances of Voyager’s predicament, Kathryn Janeway would have had a committed relationship with someone on her ship, and that there would have been a lot more than just two babies born in that seven year trip.

I believe that because studies are being done that indicate people in marriages live longer. They are both mentally and physically healthier, and because of that such relationships will be encouraged rather than discouraged by the powers that be.

There is this article.

A longer life and in better health - marriage really is good for you

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592302.ece

and this one.

People are waiting longer to marry now, and living with a domestic partner outside of marriage has become more common, Schoenborn noted.

"For most negative health indicators, adults living with a partner had higher rates than married adults: they were more likely to be in fair or poor health, to have some type of limitation of activity for health reasons and to have experienced low back pain and headaches ... and serious psychological distress," Schoenborn reported.

The report found that married people were least likely to light up a smoke, at 18.8 percent, compared with 22.9 percent for all adults. The most likely to smoke were those living with an unmarried partner, 38.4 percent, and divorced and separated people, 34.7 percent.

Some 4.7 percent of adults reported they had become heavier drinkers than previously, with the lowest rate among marrieds at 3.7 percent. Again, those living with an unmarried partner had the largest share reporting more drinking, 8.2 percent, followed by the divorced and separated, 6.4 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/15/health/main661322.shtml

I think that denying relationships is just as wrong as looking for deviant ones in the Trek future. Does this mean that Kathryn and Chakotay would be a better couple than Chakotay and Seven, well no.

IMHO Kathryn and Chakotay are better suited to each other and given the time together before Seven's appearance if they were in a relationship it would have been started before she came to Voyager.

What I do believe is that most everyone on Voyager would have been in some kind of relationship with another member of the crew by the time they got home.

Brit

 

[DevilEyes]

Even Kirk's "womanizing" was exaggerated -- he onlly slept with a small number of the women he was attracted to during the TOS run. I only recall two times they showed he actually had sex with women -- Deela (puttng his boots back on) and Miramanee (she was pregnant). Most of the other times it was flirtations (Marta, Lenore Karidian), or he fell in love but it wasn't consummated (Edith Keeler, Rayna, and Elaan).

RR

And the slave girl in "Bread and Circuses" - he definitely had sex with her, which is something that he really shouldn't have done. She might have been offering herself to him, but she was clearly made to do that by her masters.

There's also "Wolf in the Fold", in which Kirk, as well as McCoy and Scotty, talk about going to the planet to look for women. This is the omly episode that actually establishes Kirk (and not just Kirk) as a "horndog".

 

[JustKate]

Even Kirk's "womanizing" was exaggerated -- he onlly slept with a small number of the women he was attracted to during the TOS run. I only recall two times they showed he actually had sex with women -- Deela (puttng his boots back on) and Miramanee (she was pregnant). Most of the other times it was flirtations (Marta, Lenore Karidian), or he fell in love but it wasn't consummated (Edith Keeler, Rayna, and Elaan).

RR

And the slave girl in "Bread and Circuses" - he definitely had sex with her, which is something that he really shouldn't have done. She might have been offering herself to him, but she was clearly made to do that by her masters.

There's also "Wolf in the Fold", in which Kirk, as well as McCoy and Scotty, talk about going to the planet to look for women. This is the omly episode that actually establishes Kirk (and not just Kirk) as a "horndog".

"Bread and Circuses" is the one I always think of. I mean, that was so so so wrong, and he did it so so so so SO casually.

I agree that Kirk didn't have random sex allllll the time, but I think those of us who consider him not all that choosy - and something of a tomcat - have a certain amount of evidence on our side, too.

And some of the relationships that you list, RNR, you say weren't consumated but we really don't know. I'm thinking of Elaan here, for one - oh and another was what's-her-name, "the Captain's woman," in the Mirror Universe episode.

 

[exodus]

Even Kirk's "womanizing" was exaggerated -- he onlly slept with a small number of the women he was attracted to during the TOS run. I only recall two times they showed he actually had sex with women -- Deela (puttng his boots back on) and Miramanee (she was pregnant). Most of the other times it was flirtations (Marta, Lenore Karidian), or he fell in love but it wasn't consummated (Edith Keeler, Rayna, and Elaan).

RR

And the slave girl in "Bread and Circuses" - he definitely had sex with her, which is something that he really shouldn't have done. She might have been offering herself to him, but she was clearly made to do that by her masters.

There's also "Wolf in the Fold", in which Kirk, as well as McCoy and Scotty, talk about going to the planet to look for women. This is the omly episode that actually establishes Kirk (and not just Kirk) as a "horndog".

"Bread and Circuses" is the one I always think of. I mean, that was so so so wrong, and he did it so so so so SO casually.

I agree that Kirk didn't have random sex allllll the time, but I think those of us who consider him not all that choosy - and something of a tomcat - have a certain amount of evidence on our side, too.

Starfleet is an equivalent of the "space navy". So yes, having a different women in a new port of call after being at "sea" so long with just your crewmen is common. Being "enlightened" people doesn't mean they have to be monks.

Seriously, you really expect a grown adult to stay locked up on ship for months on end with no companionship and still remain celebate when they come to a port of call? That's completely unrealistic.

 

[JustKate]

In the Navy, you are indeed trapped on a ship. But this is the Starfleet flagship, Exodus, which means that it has 400 men and women and recreational facilities and so on and so on, so it's not really very similar, lonely sailor-wise, to the Navy that you referenced. Not a bad way to be locked up, if you ask me.

Is it equally unrealistic to expect Kirk to not have sex with a slave who has no choice in the matter? Who offered herself because her master told her to?

In your perfectly legitimate interest in allowing Trek personnel the right to behave like sexual adults, you're combining two different things. Consensual sex is one thing - I may not approve of random promiscuity, but that's not to say that Kirk doesn't have a perfect right to behave that way, if he wants to. But having sex with a slave girl is another thing entirely. So so so so SO wrong. And yes, I seriously do expect our noble captain to have more control over his urges than that. So so so so SO so so wrong.

 

[exodus]

And is it equally unrealistic to expect Kirk to not have sex with a slave who has no choice in the matter? Who offered herself because her master told her to?

And besides, this isn't like the Navy - they may be locked up on a ship, but it's a ship with 400 men and women and recreational facilities and so on and so on. Not a bad way to be locked up.

And anyway, in your interest in allowing Trek personnel the right to behave like sexual adults, you're combining two different things, Exodus. Consensual sex is one thing - having sex with a slave girl is another.

In our time that would be called a Hooker, and Naval men had sex with them too.

A holodeck on a ship is equal to Bob Hope's USO service to entertain the troops. Even sex & companionship on the holodeck doesn't equal the real thing as Troi counceled Barclay on many, many times. It's pretend and one step up from masturbating to an adult movie. It's the exact reason why Troi was disgusted that Barclay was using her as a fantasy.

These are officers that put their lives on the lines every day, that's an exterme amount of stress to live with, yet they're also supposed to be monks too?

Starfleet Offiers vacation on Riza!!! It's an entire planet designed to fullfill every single fantasy, sexual or otherwise. They hand out statues to ensure you have as much sex as you want!!


........but that's so so so wrong, except in the Trek universe.

 

[JustKate]

^ A hooker? Really? A slave is just like a hooker? A hooker is exactly the same thing as a slave? Really?

And even if they are that much alike (which they really aren't, BTW), isn't there something a little wrong about a Starfleet officer exploiting someone's body for money? Somebody who has no choice in the matter?

OK, I'm getting angry now, and I know I shouldn't since I'm sure that I'm misunderstanding you, and anyway, as somebody surely is thinking right about now, it's just a TV show. But it's still wrong, so so so so wrong.

So I'm going to drop this for the time being. I'll check back in later. Hopefully everything will be clarified by then.

 

[exodus]

^ A hooker? Really? A slave is just like a hooker? A hooker is exactly the same thing as a slave? Really?

And even if they are that much alike (which they really aren't, BTW), isn't there something a little wrong about a Starfleet officer exploiting someone's body for money? Somebody who has no choice in the matter?

OK, I'm getting angry now, and I know I shouldn't since I'm sure that I'm misunderstanding you, and anyway, as somebody surely is thinking right about now, it's just a TV show. But it's still wrong, so so so so wrong.

So I'm going to drop this for the time being. I'll check back in later. Hopefully everything will be clarified by then.

Yes, a Hooker is the same as a slave. That's why they're referred to as "sex slaves" under the law. Hooker's themselves will even tell you they are "property" of their Pimps and are not allowed to do anything without there permission. Don't tell me you've never heard of this? CSNBC does documentary specials on this every month.

Starfleet Officers exploiting someones body?
Once again: Riza: The Pleasure Planet?
Sound fimiliar?

Everything has already been clarified right within the show you've been watching all this time.

 

[JustKate]

^ Exodus...

In some places, you're talking about adults just having fun together consensually, and in others, you're talking about prostitutes and slaves. Those are two different things.

In some places you seem to be excusing this behavior - just boys being boys (or rather adults being adults), and in others, you seem to be condemning it. Those are definitely two different things.

So which of these situations are you talking about here? What is it that you're trying to say?

 

[exodus]

^ Exodus...

In some places, you're talking about adults just having fun together consensually, and in others, you're talking about prostitutes and slaves. Those are two different things.

In some places you seem to be excusing this behavior - just boys being boys (or rather adults being adults), and in others, you seem to be condemning it. Those are definitely two different things.

So which of these situations are you talking about here? What is it that you're trying to say?

I'm not sure what you're reading, I don't recall condemning anything.

I'm saying sexual promiscuity is a part of these folks lives due to the lives/jobs they do. Roddenberry based it all on life in the Navy and westerns.

 

[JustKate]

^ This isn't a condemnation?

Yes, a Hooker is the same as a slave. That's why they're referred to as "sex slaves" under the law. Hooker's themselves will even tell you they are "property" of their Pimps and are not allowed to do anything without there permission. Don't tell me you've never heard of this?

This indicates that you think this practice is fine and dandy? You tell me.

 

[exodus]

^ This isn't a condemnation?

Yes, a Hooker is the same as a slave. That's why they're referred to as "sex slaves" under the law. Hooker's themselves will even tell you they are "property" of their Pimps and are not allowed to do anything without there permission. Don't tell me you've never heard of this?

This indicates that you think this practice is fine and dandy? You tell me.

No, it indicates that I understand the nature of the beast from watching socially educational programing and understanding other aspects of the world around me.
I have in no way shown that I approve or disapprove of it, only to how it relates in the Trek universe and why such things within it are seen as acceptable.

I guess you might label it as walking in someone else shoes?

 

[JustKate]

^ I just don't really get this conversation, Exodus. I really don't. I understand the world around me just fine. But that doesn't mean I have to accept its standards as acceptable.

You and I started out with what I thought was a pretty simple disagreement about whether it was OK for Kirk (and others, of course) to have free and easy sex casual around and about the galaxy. OK, fine so far. I am perhaps more conservative in these matters than you are, but that's OK. Really. It's just a simple disagreement.

It seemed to me was that you started out trying to explain Kirk's tomcatting as nothing more than adult getting his consensual fun. Which it was...most of the time.

But when ElfEyes and I pointed out that at least one of those relationships was not consensual, was with someone who had no say, who was literally a slave, and who he bedded without the least bit of hesitation - as though having sex with someone who had no choice in the matter was the most natural thing in the world - you start talking like this ought to be considered acceptable because such things happen now. That's what it sounds like you're saying.

But they are not acceptable now - sure, they happen, but that doesn't make them right. They aren't acceptable now so why should they be acceptable in a future that's supposed to be more enlightened? I honestly and truly don't understand why you seem to find this behavior perfectly acceptable in somebody who's supposed to be a good man, a great captain, and a champion of liberty throughout the quadrant.

I can't tell if you are just trying to wind me up, or if we are simply misunderstanding each other (as has happened in the past), or if you really think that because something is "realistic" by 21th century standards, we're supposed to excuse it now and not think any less of the character.

The need for "companionship" (to use your word) does not justify exploiting people. If you need companionship, you don't buy it, and you don't take it from people who have no choice. The choice, whether it's the 21st or the 23rd or the 24th centuries, isn't between buying/compelling sex and being a "monk." It's between being a decent human being or not.

 

[exodus]

^ I just don't really get this conversation, Exodus. I really don't. I understand the world around me just fine. But that doesn't mean I have to accept its standards as acceptable.

You and I started out with what I thought was a pretty simple disagreement about whether it was OK for Kirk (and others, of course) to have free and easy sex casual around and about the galaxy. OK, fine so far. I am perhaps more conservative in these matters than you are, but that's OK. Really. It's just a simple disagreement.

It seemed to me was that you started out trying to explain Kirk's tomcatting as nothing more than adult getting his consensual fun. Which it was...most of the time.

But when ElfEyes and I pointed out that at least one of those relationships was not consensual, was with someone who had no say, who was literally a slave, and who he bedded without the least bit of hesitation - as though having sex with someone who had no choice in the matter was the most natural thing in the world - you start talking like this ought to be considered acceptable because such things happen now. That's what it sounds like you're saying.

But they are not acceptable now - sure, they happen, but that doesn't make them right. They aren't acceptable now so why should they be acceptable in a future that's supposed to be more enlightened? I honestly and truly don't understand why you seem to find this behavior perfectly acceptable in somebody who's supposed to be a good man, a great captain, and a champion of liberty throughout the quadrant.

I can't tell if you are just trying to wind me up, or if we are simply misunderstanding each other (as has happened in the past), or if you really think that because something is "realistic" by 21th century standards, we're supposed to excuse it now and not think any less of the character.

The need for "companionship" (to use your word) does not justify exploiting people. If you need companionship, you don't buy it, and you don't take it from people who have no choice. The choice, whether it's the 21st or the 23rd or the 24th centuries, isn't between buying/compelling sex and being a "monk." It's between being a decent human being or not.

Because in the 24th century Trek universe it is acceptable, just like Riza, a Federation controlled planet of hedoistic pleasure is acceptable. Just like Seven's catsuit is acceptable. Just like Bashir & Leeta have sex with other people before actually breaking up is acceptable. Just like Neelix having sex with a Klingon in Tuvok's quarters was accepted. They're telling you it is right in front of your face that sexual freedom is normal in their universe, they tolerate it & sometimes engage in it. I didn't make it up, you yourself pointed out it's been that way since TOS. You choose not to accept it because your wrestling with your own morals about it, instead of serperating your own beliefs from what is just a TV show. The foundations of society aren't going to crumble because Kirk has sex with a hooker.

 

[JustKate]

Because in the 24th century Trek universe it is acceptable, just like Riza, a Federation controlled planet of hedoistic pleasure is acceptable. Just like Seven's catsuit is acceptable. Just like Bashir & Leeta have sex with other people before actually breaking up is acceptable. Just like Neelix having sex with a Klingon in Tuvok's quarters was accepted. They're telling you it is right in front of your face that sexual freedom is normal in their universe, they tolerate it & sometimes engage in it. I didn't make it up, you yourself pointed out it's been that way since TOS. You choose not to accept it because your wrestling with your own morals about it, instead of serperating your own beliefs from what is just a TV show. The foundations of society aren't going to crumble because Kirk has sex with a hooker.

And you don't see any difference in "hedonstic pleasure" and having sex with a slave, with somebody who can't say no?

That's not sexual freedom, Exodus. It's slavery. What sexual freedom did that slave girl have, exactly?

 

[exodus]

Because in the 24th century Trek universe it is acceptable, just like Riza, a Federation controlled planet of hedoistic pleasure is acceptable. Just like Seven's catsuit is acceptable. Just like Bashir & Leeta have sex with other people before actually breaking up is acceptable. Just like Neelix having sex with a Klingon in Tuvok's quarters was accepted. They're telling you it is right in front of your face that sexual freedom is normal in their universe, they tolerate it & sometimes engage in it. I didn't make it up, you yourself pointed out it's been that way since TOS. You choose not to accept it because your wrestling with your own morals about it, instead of serperating your own beliefs from what is just a TV show. The foundations of society aren't going to crumble because Kirk has sex with a hooker.

And you don't see any difference in "hedonstic pleasure" and having sex with a slave, with somebody who can't say no?

That's not sexual freedom, Exodus. It's slavery. What sexual freedom did that slave girl have, exactly?

I see it as a TV show and if those involved write this universe to be this way, then I sit back and enjoy the story for what it is. A fictional character having sex with a fictional hooker does not have any lasting emotional effects on me in anyway.

 

[JustKate]

How nice for you.

Edit: Wait a minute - that's not true. You have just said something that isn't true. I've seen you complain about injustices on Voyager before. Lots of times.

What makes this time different, I wonder? You don't have to answer that, of course, but I do wonder.

 

[exodus]

How nice for you.

Edit: Wait a minute - that's not true. You have just said something that isn't true. I've seen you complain about injustices on Voyager before. Lots of times.

What makes this time different, I wonder? You don't have to answer that, of course, but I do wonder.

Darlin', I really don't know what in the heck your going on about. You're talking like this stuff is real and what happens on the show affects society in some way. Then you get upset with me because I said it's fiction and doesn't affect me.


Seriously, what the hell?
It's Star Trek, this shit is supposed to be for entertainment.

 

[JustKate]

Darlin', I really don't know what in the heck your going on about. You're talking like this stuff is real and what happens on the show affects society in some way.

Oh, really? This from a guy who has gone on at some length about the terrible things that Voyager did to the indigenous peoples of North America?

If you can get indignant about that - which I don't blame you for in the least because it was wrong - please don't dismiss my concerns (about another extremely important issue, BTW) in that offhand way. I don't believe I've ever done that to you.

And please don't call me "darlin'." It's OK if we're joking around but when we're having a protracted disagreement, it comes across as kind of patronizing, frankly. I'm sure that wasn't your intention.