That was so Pike wouldn't wander the halls beeping at people. Keeping people with disabilities locked in back rooms out of sight is a thing.
The phrasing (I don't see why you'd call it a "claim") was "modern," and my point is that plenty of private homes are deliberately designed with features that are not "modern." I mean, we have automatic sliding doors today, used in plenty of stores and office buildings and such, but you rarely see them in private homes. Modernity is not a lockstep thing; the cutting-edge stuff coexists with more traditional stuff.
You would expect a Starfleet ship or base to have a standardized design featuring the most advanced, efficient technology possible, but you would also expect that private homes would not be standardized and that many would be be intentionally designed with traditional features as an aesthetic choice. Particularly on a colony world, because as we saw in episodes like "This Side of Paradise," 23rd-century colonists often favored a simpler, more traditional life.
I'm sure @Therin of Andor has the final interpretation of what they meant by "modern." You and I have each given our own interpretations, and I'd say continuing the word battle seems unprofitable for everyone involved (especially given its off-topic trajectory). It's true that houses and starbases are not built to the same specifications, and it's true that we saw four or five doorknobby things in the Federation. I think we've got all the bases covered.
Last edited:
Which kind of base?
I'm bewildered why you'd use a word like "battle." This is just a conversation. Clarifying a point is not picking a fight.
I shouldn't have used the word "claim"; got it.
I shouldn't have used the word "battle"; got it.
I wrote claim in reference to an intended statement of fact that, in my interpretation, was not factual as stated. I wrote battle figuratively as a colorful reference to how we were continuing to bat back and forth the possible implications of the word modern. Does that help? I'm sorry these words bothered you, and I'll try to remember to be less bewildering in the future, if I can figure out how to do so.
But also I gotta say, I'm not sure whether this actually is a conversation, or whether it's an opportunity to keep being criticized about word choices like I'm in some kind of twilight zone domestic purgatory. Let's hope for the best.
I shouldn't have used the word "battle"; got it.
I wrote claim in reference to an intended statement of fact that, in my interpretation, was not factual as stated. I wrote battle figuratively as a colorful reference to how we were continuing to bat back and forth the possible implications of the word modern. Does that help? I'm sorry these words bothered you, and I'll try to remember to be less bewildering in the future, if I can figure out how to do so.
But also I gotta say, I'm not sure whether this actually is a conversation, or whether it's an opportunity to keep being criticized about word choices like I'm in some kind of twilight zone domestic purgatory. Let's hope for the best.
Expect the worst. (So the song goes.)
I didn't intend criticism. I was just offering a suggestion for why a doorknob would not be out of place in a private home when it would be out of place on a starbase. None of this is remotely personal to me, so please don't take it that way.
I was just thinking that someone would jump it to show pics of door handles in sets like in "A Piece of the Action" or "Miri", or 20th century New York or San Francisco. But I didn't recall any 23rd century doors that had handles, except Pike's room.
It's neat when fellow fans point out details that I'd never noticed or did notice but did not process in the same way.
Yeah. I was surprised at the ordinariness of this doorknob now that @Just a Bill pointed it out, but honestly with all the screaming and bodies on the floor, people were never going to notice it on television. Never in a hundred viewings:
Well, I went by your comment
when replying. I don't really consider 15 years to be considerably older."
It would be more like a 50-60 year old man and a 20 year old woman.
Of course men fantasize about beautiful young women. And young women fantasize about handsome fit young men. Sex makes the world go 'round. But in truth, few women fantasize about men 30-40 years older, and if they do, money and power is generally involved, not lust.
That's fair. I used too strong an adjective. "Significantly older," maybe?
Probably. But again, despite my poor choice of words, I was thinking more about cases with an age difference of around 15 years, give or take.
It's not only a matter of available time. Female fertility decreases rapidly. By most estimates, about two percent of women can have a child a twenty but not at twenty-five.
Ironically, maternal youth is more reproductively important for an older male, since their own reducing fertility (the clock starts later and runs slower) can compound with female subfertility.
A significant amount of human culture comes down to our ovaries being "good enough," but not very good.
(Also, in evolutionary times, males weren't likely to have been "providers" in any real sense. It's more likely that they were basically success objects in the same way that females were fertility objects, reproductively speaking.)
It's rare-ish, but I knew at least two girls who had crushes on either William Shatner (early 60s in Generations) or Patrick Stewart (early 50s). One of them originally watched TNG because of her crush on Will Wheaton, but later tuned in for Picard as much as for the stories.
I suspect that we'd hear about a lot more males with crushes on significantly older females if older women could still have children.
Last edited:
Also that Kirk wasn't actually motivated by attraction to Lenore, but was pretending interest to get close to her and investigate whether her father was Kodos. Maybe in another context, he would have been genuinely interested, but he was searching for the murderer of his friend Leighton and the perpetrator of the massacre he survived as a child, and that overrode everything else.
The Deadly Years gives me one of my favorite scenes between Janet Wallace and the rapidly aging Kirk:
) and Wallace was about 30 (actress Sarah Marshall was 34 during filming.)
Kirk thinks 26 years difference is notable. Kirk's artificial age was about 55 during the scene (the only thing not aging as fast was his toupee
) and Wallace was about 30 (actress Sarah Marshall was 34 during filming.)
Huh, having not seen this one in a long time (and not being the sharpest crayon at picking up on these kinds of things), until I saw it in writing I'm not sure if I had really noticed the implication there. Not unlike how in earlier years Uhura's "Sorry, neither" in The Naked Time sailed right over my head.
Similar threads
