Sybok, Burnham, and Spock (Don't worry, not another canon thread)

is there canonical evidence that Vulcans copulate at all

 

No, I don't think so.

 

KOV: We were just discussing Vulcan mating rituals. Most of my people are extremely uncomfortable talking about such things. So many inhibitions. Vulcan males are driven to mate once every seven years.

TUCKER: Seven years?

REED: Frightening.

KOV: Over the past few years, we've been developing methods to accelerate the mating cycle.

http://www.chakoteya.net/Enterprise/17.htm

 

"Driven to mate every 7 years" doesn't preclude mating at other times. Kov was probably just trolling them.

 

Assuming she's not dead by the time of TOS at least she has a probable excuse for not showing up in 'Amok Time'. She was performing Starfleet duties.

 

T'Pol and Trip.

Kor

 

Trip wasn't Vulcan, so that can't count.

 

My impression is Spock's ponfarr was unexcepted (which might be the norm), unless she was near Vulcan, even if notified she simply couldn't have made it.

The dialog say they have to mate every seven year, not that they only can mate every seven years.

 

T'Pol was a Vulcan, and she copulated.

Kor

 

There couldn't have been on-screen evidence because ratings, was it mentioned in dialogue? Which episode?

 

"Harbinger." It was the one where she disrobed in front of Trip, and we know what happened next. And then they discussed it later.

Kor

 

What else would they do?

It's not all in-vitro, you know. These aren't robots here.

 

OK, I'll say it... Burnham transitions and becomes Sybok.

 

There's a better reference from TOS itself that intimates that Vulcan CAN mate more often if they choose to (From TOS: "The Cloud Minders):
http://www.chakoteya.net/StarTrek/74.htm

 

Okay I read the transcript, "exploration of human sexuality" is the wording so copulation is strongly implied but there is no immediate evidence

 

Welll, if we want to be that strict with inferring what happened off-screen, then in "Conundrum," Riker and Ro could have just had a long and wild game of tiddlywinks for all we know... an experience that kept Riker from getting any sleep, and something that they would treasure forever.

Kor

 

Hey, I interpreted the whole canonical evidence of copulation as somewhat facetious, anyway. Is there canonical evidence of bathrooms on the Enterprise in TOS? Well, no; but that just establishes the absurdity as using canon as the thing trumping all else for deciding what actually occurs in-universe. Trip's human, but that doesn't mean Vulcans don't copulate.

 

There are a couple of Vulcan things where we'd wish for our human expectations to totally fail us. Say, it wouldn't do for Vulcans to become pregnant at all.

That is, there's no place for a placenta in the creation of Spock - if Amanda and her son shared blood, one or the other would be dead soon enough. But perhaps Vulcan "pregnancies" are uncomplicated affairs where the fetus just sort of swims inside the mother, ingesting nutrients through its mouth and getting oxygen through gills?

What we know of the Vulcan sex life is less than what they're telling, really. Any question is deflected, and volunteered "information" doesn't provide answers, either.

Perhaps the new show will tell us more. But do we even know whether Sybok was Sarek's (and/or Spock's) flesh and blood at all? Or does "half-brother" from ST:TFF just mean "step-brother", with Sarek accepting the burden of paternity in the legal rather than the biological sense?

Timo Saloniemi

 

This is why I have no faith in the writer. A human being raised by Vulcan is fascinating enough. Making he Spock's unknown sister is just name dropping (or brand maintanence) that doesn't add anything to her character or plot (unless they do the stupid transdimensional timeline nonsense)

 

I haven't seen the show, so I can't really say how "stupid" it is or if it adds anything to her character and the plot or not.