Damar & Infidelity in the 24th Century

[Myasishchev]

And it's more like sign a bunch of papers, separate for an arbitrary amount of time, get a property settlement, often go to court dozens of times, pay a lawyer or lawyers many monies, and then you're finally divorced, and probably hate the person you originally had just stopped being in love with.

Getting married is a lot easier than getting divorced, so a contract with an option to renew would be much easier and make a significant portion of the legal profession obsole...

This must never come to pass.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Well, we do know from VOY's "Author, Author" that there are activists who believe that some holoprograms, such as the various Emergency Medical Holograms, are sentient and deserve equal rights, even as the Federation government uses them as a source of what I would call slave labor.

It's certainly fair to suggest that we we call leftist political values would to the Federation considered conservatism. But, that's kinda my point when I say "final triumph" -- the final replacement of what we today call conservatism with what we today call liberalism or progressivism.

Oh, I sincerely hope not. Consider:

You think today's conservatism is incompatable with "equal rights"? To the contrary, the protection of individual rights is an integral part of conservative thought, from John Locke on.

So then, do not assume that the "final triumph" of individual rights means some sort of "final triumph" of progressivism over conservatism. Such is a common mosconception brought about by a general ignorance of conservative philosophy.

It is worth noting that the Eugenics Movement was an integral part of the Progressive momement in the late 19th and early 20th century. This is for the simple reason that Progressivism is all about "perfecting" society through government action. Eugenics is simply extending that to human existence--the concept of "weeding out the unfit" though selective breeding, just as Progressivism seeks to "weed out" the problems of society throught the purging of certain elements of it, through regulation, taxation, etc.

 

[Rush Limborg]

My personal theory is that it's a combination of a superior, universally-available education system;

But what would cause a "universally available" system to have a high standard of quality. Even today, private education is of generally higher quality than public education--and there has yet to be a demonstration of lower quality in private education.

This is because of the principle of competition in the market: the provision of the highest possible product at the lowest possible price, for the sake of gaining the greatest possible demand, in order to make as much money as possible. Public education has no such element of competition: its funds are guaranteed, regardless of quality.

the lack of the negative effects of poverty on childhood mental development stemming from the final abolition of poverty and economic classism;

Which means...what, exactly? Socialism? Communism? If not, what is meant by "abolition of economic classism"? How is this brought about?

Remember, economic classism is not neccesarily a bad thing. Poverty is a bad thing. But, indeed, a high standard of living results in a steady decrease in the negative effects of being at the bottom of the ladder. And a ladder is for the purpose of climbing. Take away the ladder--make everthing come to the people without the need to rise on one's own effort--and you hurt society, rather than help it, because you create dependency.

the presence of a highly-effective, universally accessible mental health system;

The problem with this is basically the same problem with "universally active" education, as stated above. If this universally acessable medical system is government-provided, quality and efficiency lessens, because of the guarantee of funds and provisions. A market-based health system results, again, in competition for the provision of the highest possible quality at the lowest possible price.

and the final triumph of liberal democracy and leftist political value systems.

If by "liberal democracy", you mean what we discussed in another thread--namely, a "free society" which emphasizes individual rights--than yes, that results in the betterment of society.

But what is meant by "leftist political value systems"? I hesitate at this, because that may not be neccesarily a good thing.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Well, it's not much different from now. Sign a bunch of papers and you are married, sign a bunch of papers and you are divorced. Renewable fixed-term marriages sounds easier and simpler.

And they say romance is dead...

Romance is alive and kicking. Marriage is a contract, founded more on financial advantages and social mores than on love and passion. Both have their role in life, sure. Problems arise when you mistake one for the other.

 

[Sci]

But what is meant by "leftist political value systems"? I hesitate at this, because that may not be neccesarily a good thing.

Well, of course you do. But you asked me for what my take would be on what might have enabled people to start making better choices than they do today, and I gave it.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^Of course.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

I know that this is a harsh thing to say, but there's a part of me that almost thinks he deserves his tragedy after being so unfaithful. That's just the extreme moral high ground stance on it, though. I'm unable to simply believe he got what's coming to him. I respect and admire the character so much that I can't help but feel at least a little sorry for him when he suffers his loss regardless of his morally questionable actions.

I agree that adultery is immoral. But saying that he deserves the loss of his wife and child does not sound like "extreme moral high ground" to me. It just sounds judgmental and vengeful. I would "feel at least a little sorry" for anyone who suffered such a loss, whether I admired him/her or not.

 

[StarryEyed]

In my opinion, the very concept of "cheating" would be obsolete in the 24th century. It is a concept borne of insecurity and dependence on another. So what if your significant other has sex with someone else? How does this harm you, exactly?

In the 24th century, everyone's basic needs are met. Nobody is in want of food, shelter, protection, medical care, education or opportunity. There is no dependence on any one person. With that, the whole concept of "fidelity" becomes ludicrous.

While you might desire the sole companionship of a particular person in the 24th century, the lack of such would do you no harm - unless you were dysfunctional. You can connect with anyone on the planet - even beam to their doorstep!

We may still have our human weaknesses in the 24th century but we also have the means to render them inconsequential. There is no need to own another person as if they were a material possession.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^But if that is true...than what is the point of marriage in the first place?

What would be the point of the pledge to "spend your life with another" if all that's going to be cheapened by, "Oh, well, you're not fulfilling my needs right now, so I'm gonna sleep with someone else tonight"?

As The Philosopher Said, "Love is an expression of one's values--and can be nothing else."

It's not about "ownership". It's not about "insecurity".

It's about a pledge that "You are the embodiment and the expression of all that I value in life--and nothing will change that".

The act of having an affair contains with it the implication that, "You are not that embodiment and expression any longer, and therefore are not worthy of my love."

 

[StarryEyed]

^But if that is true...than what is the point of marriage in the first place?

You're right; there isn't much point. That's one of the many points of inconsistency in Star Trek. Hell, they even mention high school several times - as if so antiquated a thing is going to be a part of an education system where ten-year olds are learning calculus (TNG When the Bough Breaks)!

As to the value of love, I'm sorry but I find the present-day idea of it to be very silly. You may fall in love with person A and marry him/her and later run into person B whom you would also have fallen in love with and married if you had met him/her first but now you are forbidden for having such feelings for person B because you are already committed to person A. Silly - majorly so in the 24th century.

Do you really believe there is a single person in this world who you could connect with in such a special way and no other? There are probably dozens within a hundred miles of you who will never meet - or may meet some day. Marriage is just a matter of present-day (or past-day actually) practicality - and insecurity and the resultant need to own somebody.

 

[Myasishchev]

The first importance of marriage is to serve as a socialist, anti-competition regulatory mechanism of the mating market (at least according to Michel Houellebecq, and he makes an excellent case). This objective is less important with suitable communication technologies, the anticipated increase in transparency in said communication between potential mates, and, of course, holodecks.

The second importance is its role in reproductive fitness, specifically (for the male) to prevent cuckolding and (for the female) to guarantee a second caregiver for any offspring. This objective is less important when the state foots the bill, but may be important for stable family life and childrearing.

The third importance is the creation of an economic unit, the whole of which is more productive than the sum of its parts. Particularly important throughout history, but again of marginal importance when economic security and equality is guaranteed by the state.

The fourth importance, as Rush correctly points out, is that of the great romantic gesture, the importance of which is, of course, undiminished.

Edit: oh, it also serves a disease avoidance/sequestration function! This isn't important unless you're Harry Kim, and catch shit even 24th century robodoctors can't cure.

Since some objectives of marriage remain even on the comfortable, perhaps libertine Soviet Earth, marriage would likely remain an important institution, if not a socially crucial one.

 

[Sci]

.... I think some people are overlooking the fundamental psychological drive that most people in the world have to live with a romantic partner who is sexually exclusive to him or her. People don't get upset at infidelity because of material needs -- they get upset at infidelity because it hurts, since it violates their drive to have a sexually loyal mate. It makes them feel like they aren't loved anymore.

 

[StarryEyed]

A man enters his home and is greeted by a holo-Marina Sirtis in her prime.

Marina: Hi! So what position will it be today?

Me (or you): Actually, I'm more in the mood to boff Jerry (Ryan) today.

Marina: Okay. Would you like a blow-job to get you ready for her or should I massage your balls in the shower?

C'mon guys, things are going to work differently in a world where this is possible!

 

[Myasishchev]

.... I think some people are overlooking the fundamental psychological drive that most people in the world have to live with a romantic partner who is sexually exclusive to him or her. People don't get upset at infidelity because of material needs -- they get upset at infidelity because it hurts, since it violates their drive to have a sexually loyal mate. It makes them feel like they aren't loved anymore.

Are these not adaptations to an environment where sexual promiscuity threatens to reduce fitness?

That said, humans likely do have a significant propensity toward monogamy--even if they also tend to prefer monogamy for their partners instead of their partnership.

How deep this propensity really goes is hard to say. Human promiscuity studies are in their infancy and are, and for the foreseeable future will be, clouded by a subject who is often willing and incentivized to obfuscate, lie, and underreport (or overreport, as the case may be).

Also, I would say the propensity is more toward serial monogamy than truly exclusive monogamy.

 

[TerokNor]

I think it was not common or truly accepted on Cardassia to betrail your wife or husband, but that especially in the high positions it might have been quite normal, that when the man, was too busy to go see his own wife, he might have had a mistress.
For Damar I thik it simply was a way to relax and trying to forget his troubles. When Dukat came in and disturbed Damar and the lady, he seemd not very surprized by finding Damar with a lady and he surly knew that Damar was married. So it might have been just a it like it is with a lot humans in our real world. Cardassians have a lot todays humans qualities anyway, more then the federation humans seems to have in the Star Trek world.

TerokNor

 

[SmoothieX]

^Uh...not like Dukat ever had a pleasure woman hanging around.

 

[TerokNor]

By the way.... one also has to think about, that often it is both parties, that are at fault... so, even its not said in the episodes, but it did stand somewhere in the scenes, that Damar said his wife was difficult and selfish....so maybe he just did not get the love, the understanding and the security he needed from her, especially in his situation. And he also slept in the Headquarter and not at home, so he surly was lonely. Wasn´t he allowed to, you think?
Even it is wrong to let yourself be comforted in a romantic way by others when you are married, I think there are circumstances were it can be forgiven. Also he was under the influence of alkohol, not that this is an exuse, but he also had reasons why he numbed himself with alkohol.
And if he did just a bit kissing and cuddling or more we don´t know. I mean in the scene were Weyoun wakes him up he is still in his uniform...so if he would have went as far as one can went, he surly would not be clothed anymore, would he?
(Of course the reason for that could also be that people might have complained if theres to much flesh to see in Star Trek...or thats to expensive to transform the actors whole body into a Cardassian ).

TerokNor

 

[DevilEyes]

(Of course the reason for that could also be that people might have complained if theres to much flesh to see in Star Trek...or thats to expensive to transform the actors whole body into a Cardassian ).

TerokNor

I suspect the latter is the reason. Imagine how long it would take to apply the makeup (and would be more expensive as well)! Which is probably why we never saw a naked Cardassian.

Remember when Worf and Ezri wake up after having had sex, but they have their clothes on? Of course it was silly - what, they actually decided to get dressed after having sex and then they went to sleep? One of the show's producers said that it was just too complicated thinking what a Klingon looks like naked. I doubt that it's that complicated thinking about it, but applying the makeup sure would be!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Damar said his wife was difficult and selfish....

No, he didn't.

so maybe he just did not get the love, the understanding and the security he needed from her, especially in his situation. And he also slept in the Headquarter and not at home, so he surly was lonely. Wasn´t he allowed to, you think?

That's irrelevant. I don't care what his wife may have been like, cheating is never 'allowed' or justified.

 

[TerokNor]

It certainly would have been interessting to see more alien anatomy...
and I don´t mean by that seeing them totally naked, as Star Trek should
still be suitable for teens.

Damar did say something about his wife in the script,
if that is a correct script, even it got changed when
filming the scene.
Here:

Her mind still on Odo, Kira goes to the replicator
and at first doesn't notice the stunned look on
Damar's face or that Garak is regarding him with a
sympathetic expression. She works the Replicator
and then picks up on the vibe.

KIRA

What's wrong?

GARAK
One of our listening posts picked
up a message that... the Dominion
has succeeded in locating Damar's
family.

DAMAR
They're dead.

There's nothing to say and Kira doesn't try. Damar
is still trying to sort through his reaction.

DAMAR
My wife and I... she was a
difficult woman. Selfish.
Stubborn. But she wasn't part of
this rebellion. The Dominion knew
that... the Founder knew that...
Weyoun knew that. To kill her...
and my son...

(beat)
The... casual brutality of it.
The... waste of life.

DEEP SPACE NINE: "Tacking into... " - REV. 03/22/99 - ACT THREE 32-33




Reasons are irrelevant when it comes to cheating?
Well, that is your opinion. Mine differs.
I certainly would also not like it, if someone would cheat
on me and I would not cheat on someone, but their are certain
reasons and situation where I would understand the why and
I would forgive it.


TerokNor