Vulcans, sex and Pon Farr
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Saavik went Pon Farr nuts in one of the old DC Comics, and in Vulcan's Heart. Both times were in sync with her mate at the time (Xon and Spock)
IIRC, Vulcan's Heart suggested that Pon Farr is rare but not unheard of amongst Romulans.
IIRC, Vulcan's Heart suggested that Pon Farr is rare but not unheard of amongst Romulans.
David Mack has had female Vulcans go into Pon Farr too. Tho in his case it was a lesbian Vulcan, so who knows?
I see no particular reason to think that Vulcans with non-heterosexual orientations would not also experience pon farr.
Which book features the lesbian Vulcan?
I always wondered how Vulcans would treat homosexuality. From a strict Vulcan standpoint, it could be seen as illogical since a same-sex pairing wouldn't result in procreation (by natural means, that is). Further complicating matters is the arranged marraiges.
I always wondered how Vulcans would treat homosexuality. From a strict Vulcan standpoint, it could be seen as illogical since a same-sex pairing wouldn't result in procreation (by natural means, that is). Further complicating matters is the arranged marraiges.
Sorry, you're the one who's misinformed here. "Blood Fever" was written by story editor Lisa Klink at a time when VGR's writing room was run by Jeri Taylor, Brannon Braga was merely a supervising producer, and the rest of the writing staff (who might've contributed ideas to the episode) included Joe Menosky and Kenneth Biller. "Bounty" was written by freelancer Hans Tobeason and co-producers Mike Sussman and Phyllis Strong from a story outline by showrunners Berman & Braga, at a time when the rest of the writing staff included John Shiban, Chris Black, David A. Goodman, and Andre Bormanis. There's only one name in common there, Braga's, (since Berman didn't regularly participate in the writing process prior to ENT) and he would've been only peripherally involved with the former script.
T'Prynn is a regular in the Vanguard series.
Except that it's illogical and factually incorrect to assume that procreation is the only function of sexuality. In a social species, sexuality functions as a social bonding mechanism, giving it a practical function independent of procreation. Physical intimacy is also a proven and potent form of stress relief. Vulcans may choose to restrain their emotions, but they do recognize the therapeutic value of physical contact, as demonstrated by their use of neuropressure therapy. And many writers including Fontana have postulated that Vulcans do engage in sexual activity for reasons other than procreation.
There's also the fact that homosexuality is a naturally evolved trait, found in species throughout nature. Therefore, the only logical conclusion that can be drawn about it is that it must serve an adaptive function from an evolutionary standpoint (or at least be a harmless consequence of some other beneficial adaptation). So it would be illogical in the extreme to dismiss it as a useless aberration or to try to eliminate it.
The whole point of the psychic link is so that they are synchronized (y'know, the whole being drawn to the same place bit?)
You may be onto something. After all, it's pretty clear that she and Stonn had been together for a while (Fontana puts the affair starting before Spock shipped out on the Enterprise under Pike; she probably started messing around while Spock was at the Academy).
Let's follow this line of reasoning a bit further. Perhaps mating outside of one's established betrothal, i.e., with someone other that the one you've been pair-bonded to, this act can have the effect of severing that link, and effectively breaking the pon farr cycle (and, again, leaving the Vulcan in question to his or her own devices to deal with the emotional logjam that'll build up without that prearranged release point).
It should also be pointed out that it's a matter of canon that not all Vulcans go the prearranged marriage route. Once you're in it, the pon farr cycle is established and the countdown is on, but what about those who don't follow the traditional path? I'd say the same as those who break with the cycle through whatever means. Essentially, you're on your own, kid.
I disagree with a lot of this. But I do agree that logically they would be absolutely fine with it. I don't think there's any logic for them to assume that something caused by evolution is beneficial, or to assume that it's bad. The Vulcans wouldn't accept either assessment without evidence, and I don't see that they'd have any reason to investigate it further either, as it's a constant.
But I see no logical reason for them to have an issue with it or try to "fix" it. Procreation isn't the only purpose to life, so I don't think they'd place such importance on one aspect of it. Logically they don't need their entire population to procreate for the survival of their species, so they wouldn't feel a need to force it. And unlike humans, they wouldn't have any of the illogical homophobic biases that humans currently do.
And they gotta deal with their Ponn Farr somehow. Logically if they're homosexual, they should find a same sex partner to deal with it. Since Vulcan's are not superficial beings, and can have extremely close bonds (due to their mind powers such as mind melds), the idea of that level of closeness between same sex Vulcans shouldn't be out of the ordinary anyway, I would imagine.
Which is odd, because I pretty much agree with everything you said. Except for the "caused by evolution" bit. Evolution doesn't cause things, it reacts to things. It's a process of adaptation to environmental demands. Traits which enhance reproductive success in a given environment are therefore reproduced more successfully, while traits which impede reproductive success are therefore reproduced less successfully, and the former traits win out by sheer numbers. Traits which are reproductively neutral can go either way.
The part I disagree with is the assertion that it "must serve an adaption function / consequence of another adaptive function" (unless I'm misunderstanding you). Maybe it's pointless to argue evolutionary theory, but from my understanding, the evolving of a species isn't a matter of reacting to the surroundings, but random mutations, where survival of the fittest decides which trait better suits the environment and becomes the future of the species.
Regardless, homosexuality isn't really evolutionary, as it's not a genetic trait, is it? So I'm not sure evolution really factors into it.
(excuse me if any of this is ignorant, as I'm far from an expert on the topics at hand here).
While theoretically Vulcans may be fine with homosexuality, we have to keep in mind that these are the people who attempted to supress and banish mind powers in the 22nd century (in an ill-concieved gay/AIDS analogy, no less) and who ostracize and banish those among their own species who refuse to follow Surak's teachings.
The Vulcan people seldom live up to the Vulcan ideal.
The Vulcan people seldom live up to the Vulcan ideal.
That's just a different way of saying the same thing. "Survival of the fittest" is a term Herbert Spencer coined to describe the process Darwin referred to as natural selection, and it's a phrase that's been badly coopted and misunderstood ever since. "Fittest" in this context means "best adapted to the environment a particular species occupies." Yes, mutations (and the random gene mixing that occurs in sexual reproduction) are the mechanisms that cause different traits to arise in the first place, but the process that selects among those traits, that determines which of them get passed down through the generations and which die out, is environmental selection. As I said, it's a simple and straightforward statistical process: those traits that happen to enhance the reproductive success of the individuals bearing them will therefore come to outnumber other traits, becoming more and more numerous in each successive generation until they spread throughout the entire species. An adaptive trait is a trait that improves a population's ability to survive and/or reproduce itself (since if you want to reproduce, you have to survive long enough) in its particular environment.
As I said, homosexual behavior is observed in countless different species. So it can't just be some behavioral peculiarity of human civilization or something. It's so pervasive in the animal kingdom that it's reasonable to suspect there may be something deeper going on. It may not be directly coded for by any particular genes, but the potential for it may be a side consequence of some other genetically determined trait. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, but one thing we can say with confidence is that homosexuality cannot be harmful to a species' reproductive success or the potential for it would be selected out.
I thought it was rather well-conceived analogy, one of ENT's more successful attempts at social commentary.
True, but it doesn't follow that they would automatically have the same prejudices that some human societies have had. They are an alien culture, after all. They might be intolerant of people who express their sexuality too openly, and we know from "Yesteryear" and ST'09 that they can be intolerant of Vulcan/alien interbreeding, but there's no evidence to suggest that their prejudices would include homophobia. That's not even a universal among human cultures.
If it was genetic, wouldn't it die out pretty quickly due to the general lack of reproduction? Unless it wasn't always present with the trait that causes it. Either way, I've always considered it random, rather than strictly genetic. Sort of like how a baby can either be a boy or a girl, rather than something like eye colour that is determined by DNA. I wouldn't expect it to be so common between species if it was linked too specifically with genetics. But I'll admit I'm pulling theories out of my ass here, so I won't argue something that isn't proven either way. But I do enjoy the discussion it has provided.
Not necessarily. If it's a widespread recessive trait, the recessive "gene" for homosexuality (assuming it's genetic) could always be carried by numerous heterosexuals even if only a small percentage of their offspring are ever actually homosexual.
[quote[Sort of like how a baby can either be a boy or a girl, rather than something like eye colour that is determined by DNA.[/quote]
I'm fairly certain that an individual's sex is determined genetically.
That's what I'm trying to explain. We know for a fact that homosexual behavior is observed in countless species throughout nature. Therefore, it must be wrong to assume that its existence is incompatible with reproductive success. Either it directly enhances reproductive success in some way (for instance, by encouraging same-sex pair-bonding so that individuals of the same sex will have an incentive to protect each other or each other's offspring, thus enhancing the survival odds of all members of the group), or it is an indirect, accidental consequence of some other trait that enhances reproductive success (for instance, it's been suggested that there might be a gene that enhances heterosexual reproductive success when an individual has a single copy of it, but which happens to promote homosexual attraction if an individual has two copies of it, a process called over-dominance). Here's more information:
http://xpresso.in/2010/12/14/homosexuality-models-of-evolution/
http://io9.com/5420937/charting-the-possible-evolution-of-same+sex-liaisons
That doesn't make any sense. Of course being a boy or girl is determined by DNA. The Y chromosome contains the gene that causes male attributes to develop; in its absence, female attributes develop. Whether a baby is male or female is a function of whether the sperm cell that fertilizes the ovum contains a Y or an X chromosome. It's a very straightforward example of a genetically determined trait.
And every human trait is at least somewhat genetic. Genes aren't destiny, but they are the building blocks, the raw materials we have to work with. Often, whether a trait manifests will be a function of hormones, diet, stress, and other environmental factors. Still, the potential for that trait is present in the genes; it doesn't just magically arise out of nowhere. Genes are just the base code, and how or whether they actually express themselves is a function of many factors. But they're still a part of the process. So you can't draw an absolute divide between genetic causes and non-genetic causes.
If the purpose (one of) behind pon farr isn't just for a couple to engage in sex, but for that sex to result in a pregnancy, then it makes sense for the female to be experiencing pon farr too, not just the male. The way I see it, the female would begin her pon farr cycle when she entered the Vulcan equivalent of estrous, she would then "send" a signal to the bonded male triggering his pon farr to begin.
It wouldn't make any sense to arrive prior to the bride being ready, or at all if she were deceased. In historic times the groom would simply walk across the village or come in from the fields. But in ancient times, before bonding, the bride might have broadcasted her "readiness" to every male for hundreds of kilometers. All of whom would have come running. Part of the idea behind the arranged marriage of children would be a form of "crowd control." Because T'Pring was sending a signal solely to Spock, the signal could cross considerable distances, similar to Spock feeling the deaths of the Vulcans aboard the starship Intrepid . It's possible that Spock and T'Pring, since being bonded as children, have had a constant low-level contact.
The Vanguard series, starting in book one, as well as in David Mack's mirror universe novel The Sorrows of Empire.
Ok, I accept that (as I said, I'm no expert). I guess I just don't believe that it's assumedly the cause of some calculated advancement. Just because it happens doesn't mean it's necessarily beneficial, although clearly it's persistence and abundance would suggest it's not detrimental, so maybe that's an irrelevant point anyway. Either way I don't think of evolution as that smart. Platypus. 'Nuff said.
I'm not saying it is. I'm not "assuming" a damn thing. I'm merely describing how evolution works: that if a trait -- ANY TRAIT, not specifically this one -- is as pervasive as this and is not selected against by evolution, then it must EITHER be beneficial in some way OR be a side effect of SOMETHING ELSE that is beneficial. There is no singular "assumption" being made in that statement, because it encompasses a range of possibilities.
And I didn't say "advancement." This is one of the many pervasive misconceptions people have about evolution, that it's some mystical force driving life toward a more "advanced" level. That's total bull. Evolution is merely the process by which a population adapts to its particular environment and survival needs.
And I sure as hell did not say "calculated." That's an even huger misconception, that there's some kind of will or foresight behind evolution. Evolution does not calculate. Evolution is a result, not a cause. Evolution, the process of species change, is caused by random mutations and the environmental pressures that select some of them over others.
So there's no calculation involved. Only environmental selection. If one thing works better in practice than another, then you don't need any planning or foresight to decide which one is better; you just try them both and one of them wins. If a raccoon knocks two rocks down a hill and the round one rolls all the way down while the angular one quickly settles, that doesn't mean the raccoon had the intelligence to deduce the principle of the wheel. It just means that two different things randomly happened to interact with an environment and one of them simply worked better than the other. It was selected by its interaction with its environment, not by any conscious process. Same with evolution. No calculation, no planning, simply results. Traits don't survive because someone or something decides in advance that they should; they survive simply because they survive.
So when we say a trait is beneficial, that's not an opinion offered in advance -- it's an observation after the fact. We know it's beneficial because it already worked. How do we know? Because the species is still here and it still has that trait. Simple as that.
Similar threads
