Scifi with aggressive sexuality

[The Borgified Corpse]

He could very well be running a prostitution ring. These brides weren't being delivered to the miners, yet they were already taking the Venus drug. Again, as I said, the Venus drug is illegal, which means scarcity will drive the prices up. They are taking the Venus drug with no set destination, no completed transactions, and no prospects until Mudd overhears Captain Kirk talking about the lithium miners on Rigel XII. Then he hatches the idea to sell off the women as brides to the (what be believes is) wealthy miners.

So what were they doing taking the scarce, expensive Venus drug if they didn't have any prospects up to that point?

I'm guessing that's more a plot hole done for story reasons than anything else. They couldn't have done the reveal at the end if they hadn't been taking the drug the entire time.

I was so hopeful that this series was going to lead to a whole slew of shows following its example. However, other shows copied the style, but not the substance.

That seems to happen a lot with revolutionary storytelling. That has always been Alan Moore's primary frustration with all the comic book writers who claim they were inspired by Watchmen. They mimicked the bleak, cynical style and used it to perpetuate the superhero genre when he wanted it to be the last word on how ridiculous the superhero genre would always be.

Vulcans are the most contradictory when it comes to treatment of women. A woman can captain a ship but is legally the property of her husband.

The books had some weird stuff about Vulcans too. I believe it was "The Prometheus Design" that said that the Vulcans inserted some institutional racism into the Starfleet charter. It basically said, "Humans, though no fault of their own, are inherently inferior to Vulcans. So, any Vulcan can at any time decline to serve under a Human commander." The asshole Vulcan ambassador in the book used it as an excuse to remove Kirk from command and temporarily make Spock the captain.

No, we are only telling the men who think that a woman and sex is something they have a right to that they are creepy, repugnant weirdos.

Again, you seem to be assuming that every man that asks for sex feels entitled to it. How is that the case? Do you feel entitled to every single thing that you ask someone for? Don't you ever ask someone for something that you want, not knowing whether they will say "yes" or "no," and are willing to take or leave it depending on their answer?

Now, if someone asks you for sex, you are absolutely entitled to say "no." You have the power in that situation. If, after saying "no," he tries to physically force you, that's rape, which is a crime! If he tries to intimidate you into submitting, that's called Menacing, which is also a crime (a misdemeanor, granted, but still a crime).

I'm not arguing that anyone has a right to sex. I'm arguing that everyone has a right to want sex. And if someone wants something and doesn't get it, frustration is a perfectly understandable reaction (so long as they don't try to express their frustration by committing a crime).

In season one you've got Willow pining after a clueless Xander pining after an uninterested/unavailable Buffy. Willow struggles with dating and relationships because she is weird and awkward and dorky, and guys don't look past that to see how smart and kind she is -- hey, sounds a bit like the complaints guys have about how women treat them, huh? Well, that's because this character is a great example of the fact that in real life, real women are real people who struggle just as much as men when it comes to relationships, and for a lot of the same reasons. Shocker.

I never said that some women don't experience the same thing. I apologize if you got that impression. Many of the women in my life have more in common with Willow in that respect than they do with Buffy or Cordelia. But it doesn't change the fact that there are also Buffy & Cordelia-types who don't struggle for sexual attention the way that the rest of us do. And because we still live in a society where the men are still primarily expected to initiate romantic/sexual contact, it means that the male version of the experience is usually inherently different from the female version.

Take, for example, when Xander asks Buffy to the prom in "Prophecy Girl." That is, for Xander, a huge emotional risk that he takes. He is, in essence, giving Buffy some measure of power over his emotional state. Buffy rejects him. Buffy is clearly disappointed that she had to break Xander's heart but, since she was in the position of power, it of course hurts Xander a lot more. It's a shame all around.

On the other hand, despite Willow's feelings for Xander, I can't recall an instance of her putting herself in a position of similar emotional risk with him. I can recall moments when she tried to initiate some flirting to try to generate interest on his part ("When She Was Bad" with the ice cream mostly) but no major declarations where she put everything on the line.

Contrast all that with Willow pining after Xander. She gets grumpy. She gets bitchy. But she never acts as if she is entitled to Xander's affections. She internalizes everything.

So... Willow is a saint because she doesn't overtly express her understandable frustrations? Isn't that actually a product of sexism, the notion that women have to conceal their unpleasant feelings? Why is it more noble for Willow to conceal & deflect her frustrations than it is for Xander to openly express them?

For all it's strong female characters, Buffy/Angel didn't do much to explore alternative gender roles (other than the female superhero, of course).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^That might have been sarcasm.

I was just a little sarcastic

You'll have to bear with me here...I'm a bit of a literalist, I don't do sarcasm well.

(And in other news: Water is wet. )

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I was just a little sarcastic

In all seriousness, tales of "wiving settlers" on the frontier of the American West wouldn't have had the wives-to-be provocatively sashaying down Main Street. The fact that "Mudd's Women" had such a scene is no doubt a contributing factor, with the drug angle and the shadiness of Mudd, that gives the impression of a prostitution subtext lying beneath the Western-type story.

Maybe putting in the suggestion of such a subtext was regarded as a way of updating the Western tale to make it relevant for the 1960s.

 

[Amaris]

In all seriousness, tales of "wiving settlers" on the frontier of the American West wouldn't have had the wives-to-be provocatively sashaying down Main Street. The fact that "Mudd's Women" had such a scene is no doubt a contributing factor, with the drug angle and the shadiness of Mudd, that gives the impression of a prostitution subtext lying beneath the Western-type story.

Exactly. While the words were never said, the context is just way too suggestive, at least for myself and you, to indicate that prostitution isn't on the table somewhere.

 

[BigJake]

Ok, let's try to update a little the plot of Mudd's Women.

Alternate approach: if I were really going to take a semi-serious stab at the plot of Mudd's Women without the rose-tinting....

Spoiler: The Dirty Deeds of Golby Delistaceous

1. The women (and perhaps not only women -- this being in a future setting, presumably all possible configurations of marriage as a method of social mobility are available, so some of the subjects could be male or gender-indeterminate, and the potential customers could likewise be a mixture of genders) in question would come from marginal places beyond the direct control of the Federation-or-whatever or other powers. They could be fleeing poverty, or repression, or maybe just claustrophobia: maybe they're from planetoid settlements whose entire habitable area is the size of a large mall or a small village. Maybe they represent unplanned excess population that terraforming won't be able to cope with for decades yet and the governments of their home colonies are "strongly suggesting" they find new horizons.

2. Into the breach steps a syndicate with potential markets for marriageable partners on harsh-environment worlds which grant potential human settlers the equivalent of "hazard pay" for taking up the risk. A difficult environment but a wealthy one, with room to grow. The settlers needn't be all male but would all definitely code as having what used to be defined as "masculine" virtues: self-sacrifice, aggressive risk-taking and so on. A "yang" in search of "yin" whatever the specific sexes involved. Maybe model it on something like Ursula Le Guin's rather hardscrabble society of planet O with its polyamorous sedoretu marriage system, though one wouldn't be able to go into detail about it.

3. The syndicate would be in a position to be a hugely exploitative operation and naturally would take advantage of that opportunity in order to ensure maximum profit: they're not going to invest in transporting people across interstellar distances with the chance of their changing their minds on the other end of the journey. So they're like the Zvi Migdal or the Vory v zakone, but more subtle and hi-tech in their methods, and on the trip between worlds they use subtle methods -- some form of sophisticated chemical and cybernetic brainwashing -- to condition their subjects to deeply fear rejection at the far end of their journey and to be convinced they need a "Venus treatment" or "Adonis treatment" or perhaps just "Eros treatment" in order to guarantee their desirability for their future mates. This treatment is a kind of nano-medicine that subtly enhances their physical attractiveness, confidence and poise... but it degrades without constant infusions, making them dependent not just during the journey, but after it, and ensuring everything from panic attacks to suicidal tendencies and even lethal withdrawal if the infusions are discontinued.

4. One of these operators is someone with a name to match Harcourt Fenton Mudd for sheer grandiloquence... let's call him Golby Delistaceous. He's a well-established rogue but new to being an associate of the syndicate, and he's working under the supervision of one of the syndicate's "made men." As they touch down at the point-of-sale on their journey, he discovers that the brainwashing process used by the syndicate is not infallible. During their coming out / sale party on the planet, a small group of the subjects' horror at the truth of their circumstances overwhelms their fear -- and their dependency -- and they seize an opportunity to flee out into the stark wilderness.

5. The ship of Our Heroes happens to be in orbit, resupplying on something-or-other, and the hubbub of the escape comes to their attention. They offer the colonists help with finding their lost mates, which the colonists -- who know the arrangement they're part of is suspect enough that they can't risk having it exposed -- are forced to accept while they press Golby and his ally to get a head start and find, capture and/or kill the escapees before Our Heroes can.

6. A game of cat-and-mouse ensues -- wilderness! desperate trickery and bravery! alien wildlife most vicious, and Peril Most Perilous! and all the while Our Heroes' suspicions grow -- in which a couple of the escaped subjects succumb to the Eros treatment withdrawal, and one is captured by the syndicate and re-brainwashed in time to look properly willing for the eyes of Our Heroes. Still, suspicion hangs in the air, and the race to catch the last escapee is on. Golby and his handler get there first... but when the escapee explains that they'll have to kill her rather than bring her back with them, a hidden vein of conscience surfaces in the old con man, and he deflects the ruthless syndicate man's blast. Our Heroes catch up at this point, restrain the man and expose the whole operation.

7. The aftermath finds Our Heroes treating the rest of the subjects for their forced addiction and restoring their full faculties of judgement. Some, persuaded that not all of their mates knew what they were being put through, decide to stay and marry anyway. Others choose to leave, accepting Our Heroes' offer of conveyance to a free planet where they can seek work and belonging that doesn't exploit them. Golby and the syndicate man are in Space Fetters, though Golby can look forward to relatively light treatment for turning informer against the syndicate... though he complains that he'll be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. Our Primary Hero reminds him that such is the price of crossing certain moral lines.

Something like that.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I'm arguing that everyone has a right to want sex.

Now, see, that might seem to be a harmless thing to say, but there is always an undercurrent of menace to statements like this. Exactly why do you believe you have the right to want something? Who gave you that right?

To say that you have the right to want something implies that you also believe you have the right to get it. It's an inherently possessive statement - you can't have one without the other.

The dynamics of giving and receiving sex are sensitive enough that the only rights that really matter here are the right to offer it. To believe, even casually so, that anyone has the right to WANT sex is a road that we had best not travel.

Wants are much too easy to turn into demands.

 

[BigJake]

^ Wants are much more of a fact than a right. Everybody wants shelter, food, prosperity, wealth. Likewise most people - asexuals aside - want sex, intimacy, love... but just wanting isn't enough, it's the most basic element of human society that concerns the consent of other people. If you want but refuse to do anything or change anything about yourself in order to get, it's unlikely you'll be due much sympathy.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Once the Horta take over all mining concerns for the Federation, those lithium minors are not going to be "rich" anymore.

There is no "rich" in the Federation, but this was before no money, and it was also back when lithium ran star ships, not made up fictional dilithium.

If the miners have selfrevoked their citizenship, and their mining concerns are outside the Federation, then the Federation would have to pay them currency, which is a retroactive no-prize for why they are rich and why these women chose to run from socialism to capitalism, but it also means that they are giving up their Federation citizenship.

Point is, if these "miners" from Mudds Women don't start using Horta, if they can get Horta, since Horta are people, not animals, they cannot compete with the mining operations inside the Federation, and will be poor. If the miners become poor, then their wives become poor as well.

Poor, poor, poor.

All that sacrifice, dehumanization and humiliation, all for nothing.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ You mean Horta, right? (Vorta are members of the Dominion.)

As for miners in general: Even in the first season of TNG, there's references to mining companies which own entire planets, so there's another example of "sometimes there's money, sometimes there isn't".

 

[thestrangequark]

Again, you seem to be assuming that every man that asks for sex feels entitled to it. How is that the case? Do you feel entitled to every single thing that you ask someone for? Don't you ever ask someone for something that you want, not knowing whether they will say "yes" or "no," and are willing to take or leave it depending on their answer?

Um...no. I expressly said the opposite of that. I expressly said we are treating the men who behave as if they are entitled to sex as repugnant creeps (because they are). Not that we are treating all men as repugnant creeps. Moreover, we've already covered the fact that there is a difference between flirting and harassing, looking and leering, that context matters (there's a time and a place to pick a girl up) etc. But you seem to filter out anything anyone writes that doesn't support your strawmen and twist what's remaining until it does.

Now, if someone asks you for sex, you are absolutely entitled to say "no." You have the power in that situation. If, after saying "no," he tries to physically force you, that's rape, which is a crime! If he tries to intimidate you into submitting, that's called Menacing, which is also a crime (a misdemeanor, granted, but still a crime).

Do not, absolutely do not try to lecture me one what constitutes sexual harassment or sexual assault. Seriously. Fucking check yourself right here, dude, because that is absolutely sick.

I'm not arguing that anyone has a right to sex. I'm arguing that everyone has a right to want sex. And if someone wants something and doesn't get it, frustration is a perfectly understandable reaction (so long as they don't try to express their frustration by committing a crime).

Of course everyone has a right to want sex, and people may feel frustrated, or sad, or angry when they don't get it. But there is a difference between wanting something and feeling entitled to it, and that difference often manifests in how those feelings are expressed. The controlling, aggressive, manipulative, (etc. etc. I've detailed it a billion times) behavior of the Nice Guy is NOT okay. It may not be criminal, but that doesn't mean it's not shitty and gross. Which is why I'm calling it out as shitty and gross.

I never said that some women don't experience the same thing. I apologize if you got that impression. Many of the women in my life have more in common with Willow in that respect than they do with Buffy or Cordelia. But it doesn't change the fact that there are also Buffy & Cordelia-types who don't struggle for sexual attention the way that the rest of us do. And because we still live in a society where the men are still primarily expected to initiate romantic/sexual contact, it means that the male version of the experience is usually inherently different from the female version.

You said that women get more sexual attention than they know what to do with, both good and bad, and didn't have any understanding at all of why that is a negative thing. You perpetuated the myth over and over that sex is easier to get for women than men, and outright stated that men have to work hard to achieve standards of desirability and women don't (which is hilariously false). So, yeah, it was more you explicitly stating it than me getting "that impression."

Take, for example, when Xander asks Buffy to the prom in "Prophecy Girl." That is, for Xander, a huge emotional risk that he takes. He is, in essence, giving Buffy some measure of power over his emotional state. Buffy rejects him. Buffy is clearly disappointed that she had to break Xander's heart but, since she was in the position of power, it of course hurts Xander a lot more. It's a shame all around.

And then he directs his anger at her rather than the situation (toxic masculinity!), then he follows up with the scary, stalkery "I'm never going to give up," line. He also, as I already said, transfers the "blame" for Buffy not liking him onto Angel, because at this point in his character development, he is still behaving completely as a Nice Guy: he is not seeing Buffy as a person with her own agency, rather, there must be a man (an asshole) responsible for her feelings. I already explained why this was a problem. But you are, again, refusing to listen to anyone else's perspective. This is the fundamental issue you are still struggling with: Xander wasn't treating Buffy like a person with her own motivations. He was treating her like a quasi-human to whose affections he was entitled, and whose emotions, motives, and desires must be defined by another man rather than by her herself. This is the nice guy version of denying women agency. Catcalling is another version. Raping is another version.
And before you accuse me of not thinking of it from Xander's perspective, please actually freaking read what I've written about the character!

I'll even elaborate: One of the biggest facets of Xander's character is his personal struggle with his masculine identity. He tries to be "manly" in the traditional sense, but obviously that's not him. Obviously, he had some traditionally masculine traits that were a part of his character, he was brave, protective, and loyal. But it was made very clear that the struggled to fit in with the macho image society told him was important (and as I brought up before, this was probably exacerbated by his home life which is heavily alluded to as being abusive). One of the defining positive character moments for him is when he starts treating Buffy as a person, and stops pursuing her. He never quite got there, but in some ways he did learn to define masculinity for himself.

So... Willow is a saint because she doesn't overtly express her understandable frustrations?

No, not treating other people like objects you're entitled to doesn't make you a saint, just a decent person.

Isn't that actually a product of sexism, the notion that women have to conceal their unpleasant feelings? Why is it more noble for Willow to conceal & deflect her frustrations than it is for Xander to openly express them?

Ooooh oooh, you're sort of almost kind of getting it here! Yes, Willow's behavior might be part of sexist stereotypes that tell girls they can't initiate! Also, it may be just a character trait, as she was pretty meek at that point, but let's roll with it being a product of sexism:

1.You might want to reconsider that complaint you just made about how hard it is for men to initiate, huh?

2. What you're not getting is that the opposite of not feeling able to initiate is not feeling entitled to take.
Xander doesn't openly express his feelings, they are transferred into aggressive behavior -- either realistically, in the asking Buffy to the dance scene, or through the fantasy/horror metaphor in the hyena episode. That was what that episode was about: the fact that his feelings (disappointment, frustration, brokenheartedness) were manifesting in aggression (objectification, dogged -- forgive the pun-- pursuance, and unwanted affections).

For all it's strong female characters, Buffy/Angel didn't do much to explore alternative gender roles (other than the female superhero, of course).

You do realize that it wasn't a joke about Buffy being a required part of gender studies, right? It did a shit ton to explore gender roles, including alternative ones, it just appears you weren't paying attention.

 

[Guy Gardener]

^ You mean Horta, right? (Vorta are members of the Dominion.)

As for miners in general: Even in the first season of TNG, there's references to mining companies which own entire planets, so there's another example of "sometimes there's money, sometimes there isn't".

Oops.

"Is there money?" is a massive debate we have seen more than once. This episode is one of the stronger arguments for "there is money".

 

[Zaku]

Alternate approach: if I were really going to take a semi-serious stab at the plot of Mudd's Women without the rose-tinting....

Spoiler: The Dirty Deeds of Golby Delistaceous

[Snip a really good idea]

Something like that.

I really like it (I admit that I did the minimum bare to make Mudd's Women more palpable the taste of modern viewers...)

Just be sure that the plot fit in 42 minutes and put in it a LBGT relationship and let's sell the story to "Star Trek: Discovery"

^ Wants are much more of a fact than a right. Everybody wants shelter, food

In some societies you have a right to shelter and food. But those are material goods and well, you can't live without them. (By the way, The Netherlands helps its disabled citizens to have sex, but obviously this is another matter.)

At a purely abstract level you would think that a society could guarantee the right to sex in the same way to the right to education. But even where the education is free and guaranteed you have to behave well and respect your teachers. And you can't choose them.

 

[Gov Kodos]

At a purely abstract level you would think that a society could guarantee the right to sex

Your right to sex is can be handled with your own hands and some lube. There's no right to sex with anyone else.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Lube?

Wow.

Are you rich?

 

[Zaku]

Your right to sex is can be handled with your own hands and some lube. There's no right to sex with anyone else.

I was thinking about something akin to state-licensed sex operators And not anyone that want sex and can't obtain it is a creepy sex predator. There are the example of disabled people in Netherlands.

A society can guarantee a right to safe and sane sex and at the same time explain the difference between a sex operator and a willingly partner. Exactly like some European countries are doing with their immigrants that doesn't share the same values about the respect of women's rights.

And I'm not sure that just using own hands and some lube prepares you to be a good sex partner.

 

[Gov Kodos]

You got hands, use them. And before you even think of some pedantic bullshit about folks with no hands, stop. NO ONE is or should be obligated to provide sex. Ever. Anywhere. Fuck that bullshit.

 

[Zaku]

You got hands, use them. And before you even think of some pedantic bullshit about folks with no hands, stop. NO ONE is or should be obligated to provide sex. Ever. Anywhere. Fuck that bullshit.

Sorry I was talking about people obligated to provide sex? Are you serious? WTF??? Exactly where?

My mistake. Sometimes I forget that U.S. is the only nation in the western world where sex operators are hunted like dangerous criminals. And this mindset is working so well with you people.

So you gave us MRA, GamerGate, rape culture and The Borgfied Corpse.

On the other end, Netherlands has one of the lowest teen pregnancy rates in the world and

“In the U.S., adults tend to view young people as these bundles of exploding hormones. In the Netherlands, there’s a strong belief that young people can be in love and in relationships.” – Amy Schalet, an American sociologist who was raised in the Netherlands and now studies cultural attitudes towards adolescent sexuality, with a focus on these two countries. (source)

*and don't talk me about Nevada, because they are doing it WRONG.

EDIT: I just read again your post. Are you really saying that I advocate the notion that State must force people to have sex against their will?!? WHAT THE INCREDIBLE F.?!?!!?

 

[Trekkin]

Simple.

Let's say that, at a moment when you really need to get off, there is no one in the country that wants to have sex with you. Prostitutes, girlfriends, random strangers, 'State sex-regulators' etc, they all have things they'd rather be doing. Maybe they have other people to fuck. Maybe they need to wash their hair. Maybe they read this thread.

Whatever the reason, there is literally nobody who wants you.

But if you have a legally enforceable right to sex with another person, then you legally have to get some. So someone is gonna be forced (hence 'enforceable') by an authority to bone you. That is why the suggestion is repugnant to anyone who actually put some thought into what you were suggesting.

And no, introducing a 'right' has nothing to do with merely legalising prostitution. You are aware that prostitutes can (and do) turn clients down, right? Even in countries where it's legal, they aren't obligated to do anything for you.

I was thinking about something akin to state-licensed sex operators And not anyone that want sex and can't obtain it is a creepy sex predator. There are the example of disabled people in Netherlands.

A society can guarantee a right to safe and sane sex and at the same time explain the difference between a sex operator and a willingly partner. Exactly like some European countries are doing with their immigrants that doesn't share the same values about the respect of women's rights.

And I'm not sure that just using own hands and some lube prepares you to be a good sex partner.

That bit highlighted has nothing to do with a 'right to sex,' and you certainly shouldn't have to explain that there's a difference between 'State regulated sex operators' and willing partners.

Seriously, you wrote that sentence, and still can't see why people think youre advocating non-consensual sex?

 

[Zaku]

But if you have a legally enforceable right to sex with another person, then you legally have to get some. So someone is gonna be forced (hence 'enforceable') by an authority to bone you. That is why the suggestion is repugnant to anyone who actually put some thought into what you were suggesting.

And no, introducing a 'right' has nothing to do with merely legalising prostitution. You are aware that prostitutes can (and do) turn clients down, right? Even in countries where it's legal, they aren't obligated to do anything for you.

I did not say anything like that. I was referring to people who are unable to obtain sex (such as the disabled). And not some awkward creep unable to consider a woman another human being. And obviously they would do with people willing to do it.

And 'right' is not merely legalising prostitution (like you said) but creating a more sex-friendly environment, with, for example, sex education in the school or similar.

And really, perhaps I didn't really express myself well (english is not my primary language) but assuming that I was advocading sexual slavery is a little insulting.

 

[Trekkin]

And 'right' is not merely legalising prostitution (like you said) but creating a more sex-friendly environment, with, for example, sex education in the school or similar.

I know America has a bad rep in this department, but they do have sex ed in schools.

The exception would be private schools.