The Logical Choice (Pro Archer/T'Pol)
- Thread starter commodore64
- Start date
Our relationship has evolved over the years. 
Exactly how far has it evolved?
No, no, no, no, no. Never saw any chemistry. Tried to be open minded.
Twilight seemed forced and out of synch. Sorry.
Twilight seemed forced and out of synch. Sorry.No, no, no, no, no. Never saw any chemistry. Tried to be open minded.
That's great. Too bad this is a pro-archer/t'pol thread.
I'll take the other side. The relationship as it stood is great. I like the "forbidden love" aspect as the commander should not get involved with a subordinate. More than that, in the episodes that Archer defends T'Pol it comes across much better that he is defending her out of respect that she earned rather than defending a lover.
Reminder...
This is the Archer/T'Pol appreciation thread.
If A/T'P isn't your cup of tea, kindly move along to another thread.
Also, please refrain from taking swipes at other ships in this thread. We're all about celebrating A/T'P here, not dissing anyone else.
Carry on!
This is the Archer/T'Pol appreciation thread.
If A/T'P isn't your cup of tea, kindly move along to another thread. Also, please refrain from taking swipes at other ships in this thread. We're all about celebrating A/T'P here, not dissing anyone else.
Carry on!
Meant no disrespect to Archer/T'Pol shippers. I'm sorry. I just thought "Twilight" was oddly placed. If it would have been earlier, when there were hints of an possible Archer/T'Pol relationship it would have worked for me. Since it was plopped right in the middle of the whole Tucker/T'Pol thing it seemed odd. I'll go away now. Again, sorry, meant no disrespect..........
I'm finding it difficult to interpret this reaction as well-meaning. Surely I must be mistaken. Pray, do enlighten me.
The whole "the captain must not have a relationship with a subordinate" idea has always seemed, to me, unnecessary at best and downright silly at worst. It keeps the captain at too much of a distance - makes him or her somehow less human.
The only time a Trek captain actually got to have a romantic relationship of any import was on DS9. And even then they felt they needed to bring in a new non-Starfleet, non-Bajoran militia character to fill the role of Sisko's lover.
Some of Kirk's best moments are when he has to deal with a woman he truly cares for (Edith Keeler, Carol Marcus); the same holds true for Picard (Vash, Nella Darren). It's a shame that Janeway was never given the opportunity to have someone in her life romantically.
Having Archer and T'Pol be lovers, or just "more than friends" would have been an excellent way to humanize both characters.
Besides, it would have given these scenes much more meaning....
And maybe given us an truly awesome scene, like this....
The only time a Trek captain actually got to have a romantic relationship of any import was on DS9. And even then they felt they needed to bring in a new non-Starfleet, non-Bajoran militia character to fill the role of Sisko's lover.
Some of Kirk's best moments are when he has to deal with a woman he truly cares for (Edith Keeler, Carol Marcus); the same holds true for Picard (Vash, Nella Darren). It's a shame that Janeway was never given the opportunity to have someone in her life romantically.
Having Archer and T'Pol be lovers, or just "more than friends" would have been an excellent way to humanize both characters.
Besides, it would have given these scenes much more meaning....
And maybe given us an truly awesome scene, like this....
I'm sorry, that wasn't meant for your post. I meant for several of the posts above. I found the back and forth hysterical. In particular, this one.I'm finding it difficult to interpret this reaction as well-meaning. Surely I must be mistaken. Pray, do enlighten me.
Whether it is "well meaning" or not is up to the interpretation of the reader.
It is standard practice in real life and for good reason. Allowing relationships would open the door for abuse of subordinates, trading of sexual favors for rank, emotional distress and impossible situations after a breakup. Jilted lovers of lower rank filing sexual harassment charges claiming they were coerced into the situation even if they were not. I could go on and on. This could only work in a society where a captain is seen as all powerful and above any charges, and commanding a ship in an area where ex-lovers could be transferred if they cause problems.
As much as I would've liked seeing more torrid romance from A/T, in a perfect world, I would've kept their relationship friendly, understated and flirtatious throughout the majority of the series until the last bit of the last season. If they got together early, it would've likely burned out by the time the show was over (not to mention there'd be the whole captain/subordinate controversy). For example, Cheers was always better when Sam and Diane had a simmering sexual tension between them instead of being romantically engaged with each other.
In real life I completely agree with the policy. But in Trek I just don't understand it. Isn't humanity supposed to be above such pettiness, even in ENT's time?
"...I am surprised how little improvement there has been in human evolution. Oh, there has been technical advancement, but, how little man himself has changed."
-Khan
Putting aside harassment and jilted lovers and the like, there's also the issue of favoritism. If the one I love is the best candidate for a dangerous mission, perhaps I would think twice about ordering him or her to go.
Since I'm still not sure whether you were laughing along with those posters, or laughing at them, I would advise clarity, at the very least.I'm sorry, that wasn't meant for your post. I meant for several of the posts above. I found the back and forth hysterical. In particular, this one.I'm finding it difficult to interpret this reaction as well-meaning. Surely I must be mistaken. Pray, do enlighten me.
Whether it is "well meaning" or not is up to the interpretation of the reader.
As you are leaving open the possibility that you are laughing at, I suggest you refrain from such expressions in future.
We've had a long, ugly history in this forum of different ships being at each other's throats, and we have no wish to devolve back to that sorry time, okay?
I guess that explains quite a bit
I've lost people under my command. People who were very dear to me. But never someone I've been in love with. And when I believed that you were dead, I just began to shut down. I didn't want to think or feel. I was here in my quarters, and the only thing I could focus on was my music, and how it would never again give me any joy. Then I saw you standing on the transporter pad and I knew that I could never again put your life in jeopardy.
-- Picard to Nella Darren (TNG: "Lessons")
RE the idea that the captain must not have a relationship with a subordinate -- I'm about to make a strange comparison here, so bear with me.
I can understand why there would be rules against such a thing, for all the reasons outlined by folks upthread -- favoritism, things getting awkward if it doesn't work out, and the potential for ethical dilemmas.
That said, regardless of rules or humanity evolving past pettiness, human nature is what it is.
This is something I've been thinking quite a bit about the last week because at the Expanse, our weekly rewatch party/live chat centered around "A Night in Sickbay," so many of these questions are in the process of being explored over there.
Experts have been studying this kind of thing in terms of how it'll affect deep space exploration, too, and since it factors into the things I write, I've been looking at various things on the subject. (One I recommend, if you're curious: go to Netflix or YouTube, look up an episode of the show The Universe, titled "Sex in Space".)
The bottom line is, when you take people away from home and put them in a different community, they'll pair up. Many will do so even if they have a loved one at home. It doesn't mean all married people will have an affair under these circumstances, but it increases the likelihood that it'll happen. And -- this is where the weird comparison comes in -- I was talking about this in terms of ANIS, and the show MASH came to mind, because you had all these characters away from home, in Korea at wartime, constantly exposed to the stresses associated with their circumstances and having varying ways of dealing with it. Many of the married characters had bedwarmers, including Trapper, Frank Burns, and their first CO, Henry Blake. This is not to say that they didn't care about the nurses they were having their affairs with (though Frank was the stereotype of "I promise I'll leave my wife" but never will), and it didn't make them bad people who didn't love their wives any more. It more spoke to the human need for intimacy especially under pressure, and when feeling cut off from support systems back home.
That said, Archer is unmarried, but I thought of this comparison because Blake was the CO on the other show, and being in command of the 4077 did not preclude him from having the same basic needs as the people under him, or from reacting to the pressures he faced on a daily basis by seeking out intimacy.
So the point of my bringing this up (yes, there's a point, I promise
) is to say I think a more realistic approach would have been for Starfleet to have it against the rules, but show it happening any way, and giving us the human drama of why the rules don't work. No matter who you 'ship Jon with, we can all agree that it's unrealistic to assume he wouldn't need someone, or that it wouldn't be bad for him to refrain from acting on it.
I can understand why there would be rules against such a thing, for all the reasons outlined by folks upthread -- favoritism, things getting awkward if it doesn't work out, and the potential for ethical dilemmas.
That said, regardless of rules or humanity evolving past pettiness, human nature is what it is.
This is something I've been thinking quite a bit about the last week because at the Expanse, our weekly rewatch party/live chat centered around "A Night in Sickbay," so many of these questions are in the process of being explored over there.
Experts have been studying this kind of thing in terms of how it'll affect deep space exploration, too, and since it factors into the things I write, I've been looking at various things on the subject. (One I recommend, if you're curious: go to Netflix or YouTube, look up an episode of the show The Universe, titled "Sex in Space".)
The bottom line is, when you take people away from home and put them in a different community, they'll pair up. Many will do so even if they have a loved one at home. It doesn't mean all married people will have an affair under these circumstances, but it increases the likelihood that it'll happen. And -- this is where the weird comparison comes in -- I was talking about this in terms of ANIS, and the show MASH came to mind, because you had all these characters away from home, in Korea at wartime, constantly exposed to the stresses associated with their circumstances and having varying ways of dealing with it. Many of the married characters had bedwarmers, including Trapper, Frank Burns, and their first CO, Henry Blake. This is not to say that they didn't care about the nurses they were having their affairs with (though Frank was the stereotype of "I promise I'll leave my wife" but never will), and it didn't make them bad people who didn't love their wives any more. It more spoke to the human need for intimacy especially under pressure, and when feeling cut off from support systems back home.
That said, Archer is unmarried, but I thought of this comparison because Blake was the CO on the other show, and being in command of the 4077 did not preclude him from having the same basic needs as the people under him, or from reacting to the pressures he faced on a daily basis by seeking out intimacy.
So the point of my bringing this up (yes, there's a point, I promise
) is to say I think a more realistic approach would have been for Starfleet to have it against the rules, but show it happening any way, and giving us the human drama of why the rules don't work. No matter who you 'ship Jon with, we can all agree that it's unrealistic to assume he wouldn't need someone, or that it wouldn't be bad for him to refrain from acting on it.
I don't think it's a good comparison, and here's why.
MASH characters are military medical personal, dragged into the horrors of war, mostly drafted against their will. They deal with stress beyond our comprehension, see pain, agony and death on daily basis, so they desperately need an outlet in the form of sex and drinking and whatnot, just to remain sane.
Starfleet personnel serve by choice, it is their profession, their day job. The Expanse mission does indeed fall under "exceptional circumstances", but it does not change the fact that the NX-01 crew is made of career officers and crewmen.
When the Korean war eventually ended, the MASH personnel go their separate ways (home), and what happened in Korea stayed in Korea. But when the Xindi crisis ended, the Enterprise crew were back to "business as usual".
MASH characters are military medical personal, dragged into the horrors of war, mostly drafted against their will. They deal with stress beyond our comprehension, see pain, agony and death on daily basis, so they desperately need an outlet in the form of sex and drinking and whatnot, just to remain sane.
Starfleet personnel serve by choice, it is their profession, their day job. The Expanse mission does indeed fall under "exceptional circumstances", but it does not change the fact that the NX-01 crew is made of career officers and crewmen.
When the Korean war eventually ended, the MASH personnel go their separate ways (home), and what happened in Korea stayed in Korea. But when the Xindi crisis ended, the Enterprise crew were back to "business as usual".
