• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Chakotay and Janeway romance

Thing is she reprogrammed Michael Sullivan to..

Make him more provocative.
Give him a more complicated personality.
More outspoken, more confident, not so reserved,
And yet Chakotay could never do this. He hid behind her being his Captain as an excuse but really he is just too wimpy. Had he challenged her more and intrigued her with being a bit of a bitch she might have found him less easy to resist. He comes across as very easy to resist even though there's an attraction, because he makes it easy.

Men, who can control what they say, are only like that with women who they do not want to sleep with, because if a man offends some woman unintentionally then he's burnt the bridge into their underpants which he had plans to dominate and occupy... So we men have to be very careful that every word we use is not going to prematurely sour any relationship.

This is why most women end up with idiots or jerks.

The men who are already secretly in love with "you" and only want the "best" for you are purposely unimpressive because they give too much of a damn to risk being left out in the cold.
 
Last edited:
Janeway had more balls than Chakotay! :p

No doubt. I did make the comment earlier on who'd be wearing the pants in the relationship.

[patrick] That's a STUPID comment.[/patrick]

But Chuckles seemed alright on being dominated. Seven or Seska weren't exactly docile for example.
And if that's his comfort zone more power to him. People only comment on this when it's the man who is seen as the one not in "pants".
 
Thing is she reprogrammed Michael Sullivan to..

Make him more provocative.
More outspoken, more confident, not so reserved,
And yet Chakotay could never do this. He hid behind her being his Captain as an excuse but really he is just too wimpy. Had he challenged her more and intrigued her with being a bit of a bitch she might have found him less easy to resist. He comes across as very easy to resist even though there's an attraction, because he makes it easy.

Men, who can control what they say, are only like that with women who they do not want to sleep with, because if a man offends some woman unintentionally then he's burnt the bridge into their underpants which he had plans to dominate and occupy... So we men have to be very careful that every word we use is not going to prematurely sour any relationship.

This is why most women end up with idiots or jerks.

The men who are already secretly in love with "you" and only want the "best" for you are purposely unimpressive because they give too much of a damn to risk being left out in the cold.

Otherwise known as, "too neurotic BZZZZ".
 
Janeway had more balls than Chakotay! :p

No doubt. I did make the comment earlier on who'd be wearing the pants in the relationship.

[patrick] That's a STUPID comment.[/patrick]

But Chuckles seemed alright on being dominated. Seven or Seska weren't exactly docile for example.
And if that's his comfort zone more power to him. People only comment on this when it's the man who is seen as the one not in "pants".

Hmm. You have a point there. Though bringing Patrick into this may be a bit much. What can you expect? We're only fifty years removed, at best, from a completely male dominated society so it's more than a bit ingrained in the common culture. We're not perfect there, but we're trying, at least?
 
She was in full period costume for her Victorian holonovel, and I'd call what she wore in Time and Again a Tunic... She wore a man's suit, or black saboteurs/fisherman's gear in... Was Janeway's character supposed to be a lesbian?

Women who wore trousers back then were burnt as witches

Who was she a lesbian with?

Was her lesbian sexlife part of her backstory or an ongoing property?

As the madame of the brothel/night club/cafe exclusivity would hamper her business model.

I saw a movie called "Bent" staring Clive Owen, a while back, it's about how in the late 30s that the Nazis emptied all the Gay Night Clubs, and sent these men who just wanted to sing, drink, get high, cross dress and fuck each other, off to concentration camps, and how unprepared they were for the culture shock of hard labour.
 
I brought Patrick into it as my attack dog so I could distance myself from calling your comment stupid :lol:

So instead of biting me yourself you unleash a dog to bite me... is that supposed to make me feel better?! :confused::p:scream:
 
It's sexist language from a bygone age Rstar.

Think about it.

"Who wears the pants" only makes sense if one half of the relationship is not allowed to, or is unexpected to wear pants, and since we all know that historically it was men that predominantly wore pants, you are in fact insisting that it is weird, odd and strange that a woman could have an upper hand in a relationship, and further more that a woman could only have the upper hand in a relationship if the man in the relationship was in some way defective and unable to control his woman like men are supposed to control their women by stopping them from ever wearing pants.
 
You're right R.Star, I have been quite unfair to Patrick. I've mocked his disability by both using him as my doberman (or corgi.. definitely corgi) and lording over him my superior grasp on what the fuck is going on. I apologize.
 
You're right R.Star, I have been quite unfair to Patrick. I've mocked his disability by both using him as my doberman (or corgi.. definitely corgi) and lording over him my superior grasp on what the fuck is going on. I apologize.

Patrick forgives you. He's a kind hearted person :) (though he insists mocking him was stupid)
 
Patrick gets what he wants by making people want to look after him.

Neither of you understand how Patrick wears the pants.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top