Trek Lit: Adult only?

[Vance]

I'm not saying that they weren't sexually attracted to one another, Trent. I'm saying that Edith's personality would have required a ring first... Unlike a lot of people who 'talk the talk', Edith was a real vituous woman (amazingly so), as well as visionary, that's what made her unique... and seriously flawed for the times about to come.

Again, that was part of the entire point of the original episode.

 

[Steve Roby]

It'd be nice if the Ignore List function removed any sign of certain posts, so I wouldn't be tempted to click on that little View Post link. Having done so, though...

What you wrote, plain and clear, was that an unmarried woman who has sex is a whore.

No, that's not what I said. That's what you want me to have said, so it would be easier for you to dismiss a point of view on this work that you apparently disagree with.

Sometimes, when everyone reads something I've written in a way I didn't intend, it occurs to me that maybe I didn't say what I thought I was saying, or at the very least I wasn't communicating very clearly. It's possible you didn't think you were saying what everyone's reacting negatively to. But you did say it.

I'm saying that Edith's personality would have required a ring first... Unlike a lot of people who 'talk the talk', Edith was a real vituous woman (amazingly so)

You're doing it again. You're seeing this through some kind of religious filter that other people aren't looking through. Premarital sex does not make someone a bad person. For that matter, you haven't addressed Kirk's part in this. Is he not virtuous, or is it only an issue for women?

 

[David R. George III]

The point made was 'the sexual mores of the time were very liberal, so of course she was fucking Jim Kirk'. It was a clear logical fallacy, just as saying 'every woman in the 1930s was a whore' would be.

That wasn't the point that was made. You said, "Given her stature and status in the 1930s, it's extremely unlikely that she would have a night of passion." You were the first person to bring up the issue of the era, and your statement seemed to imply that because of the time when "The City on the Edge of Forever" took place, it was unthinkable for a woman to have sex out of wedlock. I simply pointed out that 1930 was in an era perhaps not quite as puritanical as you think.

Unlike a lot of people who 'talk the talk', Edith was a real vituous woman....

From which I infer that you think not having sex out of wedlock is a virtue, and that having sex out of wedlock is not a virtue. Well, that's one opinion.

 

[Vance]

You're doing it again. You're seeing this through some kind of religious filter that other people aren't looking through. Premarital sex does not make someone a bad person. For that matter, you haven't addressed Kirk's part in this. Is he not virtuous, or is it only an issue for women?

No, Kirk was a slut. Sexually, he was far from virtuous. From what we know in Kirk's case, though, his 'conquests' were a bit more born from tragedy and an internal lonliness than a real inability to keep his zipper up. "Two lonely men, what a performance we must have given," really summed up his issues quite well. Hell, we deal with this aspect of Kirk all the way through Generations.

But sex alone does not define an entire character. We're all flawed in some way, after all, if you want to look at this as a flaw (which, in the theme of the episode and the two time periods we're talking about, assureedly IS). The flaw we're given for Edith is that she's so good in nearly all respects, she's naieve to the point where Hitler uses her to conquer (and apparently destroy) the world.

 

[Vance]

From which I infer that you think not having sex out of wedlock is a virtue, and that having sex out of wedlock is not a virtue. Well, that's one opinion.

From the standpoint of the episode, who wrote it, who aired it, and the time frame it was released in, yes, and from the character's point of view, sex out of wedlock was a bad thing. Remember, even Kirk wasn't really allowed to have sex in most episodes, with only hints of it occuring on three occaisions.

 

[Trent Roman]

Unlike a lot of people who 'talk the talk', Edith was a real vituous woman (amazingly so)

And there you have it: you're defining virtue on the basis of lack of sexual activity, or at least pre-marital sexual activity--the converse being, of course, that women (men as well, I hope?) who fail such artificial standards are lacking in virtue. This is why your argument has no credibility: you claim it's based in the character, but it's actually in the ideological baggage you bring to the episode and project onto the character. Others, approaching the episode from their own perspectives and prejudices (or lack thereof), see her in different regards.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[David R. George III]

From the standpoint of the episode, who wrote it, who aired it, and the time frame it was released in, yes, and from the character's point of view, sex out of wedlock was a bad thing.

This is an opinion, stated as a fact. My opinion is different. Like most behaviors, sex--in or out of wedlock--can be a good or bad thing, depending on the individuals involved. I wrote the physical relationship between Kirk and Keeler as a good thing, contributing to their emotional intimacy. Unless somebody thinks sex out of wedlock is necessarily a bad thing, I'm not sure why a mature, healthy relationship that included sex would be viewed as a negative. I didn't write the consummation of Kirk and Keeler's relationship as a bad thing, but as something positive.

 

[William Leisner]

What you wrote, plain and clear, was that an unmarried woman who has sex is a whore.

No, that's not what I said. That's what you want me to have said, so it would be easier for you to dismiss a point of view on this work that you apparently disagree with.

Yes, that's right. I wanted you to call every woman to have sex out of wedlock a whore, because my life revolves around what some dude on the internet I've never met says. Yep, you got my number, all right.

And if TCOTEOF or Crucible made any kind of statement about "every single woman," or even a majority of women, rather than one particular woman, this might be a relevant point.

The point made was 'the sexual mores of the time were very liberal, so of course she was fucking Jim Kirk'. [/quote]

Which, of course, is not an argument you're inventing to make it easier to dismiss a point of view you disagree with...

 

[William Leisner]

From which I infer that you think not having sex out of wedlock is a virtue, and that having sex out of wedlock is not a virtue. Well, that's one opinion.

From the standpoint of the episode, who wrote it, who aired it, and the time frame it was released in, yes, and from the character's point of view, sex out of wedlock was a bad thing. (emphasis mine)

Uh, Vance? The timeframe the episode was released in was 1967. How old are you, that you're sitting there saying that the practice of "free love" would be seen as a terrible, terrible thing to viewers during the middle of the Sexual Revolution?

And we won't even get into what Gene Roddenberry was doing in his personal life while this ep was being written and shot.

 

[Vance]

Oh, bullshit. You wrote it because a moderately explicit sex scene would sell a few books and the publishers requested it. I know better. I got the same memo. Okay, let's ditch the preteniousness right out the window, 'cause it ain't selling here.

If you're going to pretend for a moment that 'sex before marriage' was acceptable in society in any of the time periods we're talking about, then I'm going to call you either hopelessly or willfully ignorant, or a blatant liar. The fact that there are entire period pieces on this subject, illustrates just how insanely and utterly wrong you are.

You missed the entire point of the episode, the entire point of the character, the entire point of the relationship, etc. You don't have to take my word for it, since the originally author is on record about it, quite vocally. In fact, it's pretty damn hard to shut him up forty years after the fact.

You blew it. You did. You screwed up the story. You pointedly didn't understand what the episode was even about. When confronted by several people who pointed that out, you attack their supposed sexual immaturity by saying "I saw this sexual scene as a positive!" When, in fact, the whole point of the episode was that this was forlorn love. It couldn't be consumated.

So now, since we disagree with the character's outlook, because you want to emote your sexual mores onto her, rather than actually use hers, you're saying that I'm the one who's screwed up. No, that would be you, the author, who was completely and utterly unable to get into a character that you would otherwise consider alien.

 

[Vance]

Uh, Vance? The timeframe the episode was released in was 1967. How old are you, that you're sitting there saying that the practice of "free love" would be seen as out of character to viewers during the middle of the Sexual Revolvution?

You do realize that the 'sexual revolution' was by a minority of people at that time, right? And "free love" was considered a part of the counter-culture? Are you really that historically idiotic? It didn't take hold until the late 1970s and even then most of society only accepted it for laughs and the fallacy of it all (hence all the sit-coms of that era).

And we won't even get into what Gene Roddenberry was doing in his personal life while this ep was being written and shot.

Roddenberry was a dedicated mysogynist. You really want to hold him up as an example of moral superiority for your 'cause'?

 

[LightningStorm]

Oh, bullshit. You wrote it because a moderately explicit sex scene would sell a few books and the publishers requested it. I know better. I got the same memo. Okay, let's ditch the preteniousness right out the window, 'cause it ain't selling here.

If you're going to pretend for a moment that 'sex before marriage' was acceptable in society in any of the time periods we're talking about, then I'm going to call you either hopelessly or willfully ignorant, or a blatant liar. The fact that there are entire period pieces on this subject, illustrates just how insanely and utterly wrong you are.

You missed the entire point of the episode, the entire point of the character, the entire point of the relationship, etc. You don't have to take my word for it, since the originally author is on record about it, quite vocally. In fact, it's pretty damn hard to shut him up forty years after the fact.

You blew it. You did. You screwed up the story. You pointedly didn't understand what the episode was even about. When confronted by several people who pointed that out, you attack their supposed sexual immaturity by saying "I saw this sexual scene as a positive!" When, in fact, the whole point of the episode was that this was forlorn love. It couldn't be consumated.

So now, since we disagree with the character's outlook, because you want to emote your sexual mores onto her, rather than actually use hers, you're saying that I'm the one who's screwed up. No, that would be you, the author, who was completely and utterly unable to get into a character that you would otherwise consider alien.

And this post has officially gone too far. You get a warning for flaming. Specifically for the bolded parts.

And this thread is done.