What do you think were the "official" rules on romantic relationships during TNG?

[Oddish]

Travis might actually have it better than Harry. Bu the lack of character development makes the audience think otherwise.

Oh, Travis has Harry beat in terms of lack of development. Say what you want about a certain smart- pilot on a later Trek series (no spoilers), at least that character is memorable. Travis never made any mistakes, but he didn't do much else, either.

Maybe if ENT had gotten the seven seasons it expected, they might have gotten around to doing something with him.

 

[Skipper]

The episode 'Lessons' seemed to indicate that there were no hard, fast rules on this. If the ship's captain is allowed to engage in a relationship with someone under his command, then there are no rules because that represents the height of fraternization.

Starfleet's rules on this would necessarily be different than those of a contemporary military service, given the length and nature of deep space missions. How different they should be is definitely a matter for discussion and debate.

If I recall in the episode everyone was a bit "Wow, a relationship with a subordinate can be problematic, what a novelty!"

I understand that if there had been a rule prohibiting such a relationship there simply would not have been the episode, but simply even the most enlightened representative of the future would have trouble ordering a loved one to go and die.

Making a rule on relationships doesn't mean not trusting human beings, it means not giving them the weight of a decision that it wouldn't be right for them to be forced to make.

 

[Jedi Marso]

If I recall in the episode everyone was a bit "Wow, a relationship with a subordinate can be problematic, what a novelty!"

I understand that if there had been a rule prohibiting such a relationship there simply would not have been the episode, but simply even the most enlightened representative of the future would have trouble ordering a loved one to go and die.

Making a rule on relationships doesn't mean not trusting human beings, it means not giving them the weight of a decision that it wouldn't be right for them to be forced to make.

No argument. If I was writing Starfleet regulations, nobody would be allowed to have a relationship within their chain of command. But it does beg the question of different species and their culture / customs. A Klingon, perhaps, might see sending a loved one into battle to die honorably as a great boon. A Vulcan might be coldly logical about it, regardless of any relationship status, and so on. Human standards can't logically be applied everywhere. Deltans aren't allowed to have intimate relationships at all.

It would be a mess, for sure.

 

[DonIago]

^Taken to its logical conclusion that becomes a problem though, especially if a ship is on a long-term mission. Do you tell the captain and first officer that they can't have a relationship with anyone on the ship at any time since everyone is in their chain of command?

 

[Skipper]

^Taken to its logical conclusion that becomes a problem though, especially if a ship is on a long-term mission. Do you tell the captain and first officer that they can't have a relationship with anyone on the ship at any time since everyone is in their chain of command?

Well, there's a big difference between "being friendly with someone" and "being in love with someone".

And in any case IRL there is a tendency in the armed forces not to keep the same people in the same place for too long and one of the reasons is precisely to prevent excessive familiarity from conditioning the judgment of those in command. It seems to me that it has been said several times here that never in the Navy could it happen that all those officers remain in the exact same duties on the same ship for seven years or more.

By the way, has Star Trek ever shown a stable couple where one is subordinate to the other? I really don't remember.

 

[Oddish]

The situation I can envision it happening in most readily is one like Voyager's, where the ship will be on its own for years with no possibility of personnel transfer. It's actually rather strange that only two of the 150 people on the ship got married and only one child was conceived during the journey (Naomi was a pre-existing pregnancy).

 

[DonIago]

^^But in TNG's original premise the ship was going to be on deep space assignment; that's exactly why it made some sense for the E-D to have family accommodations.

 

[SpockOfNine]

It was more acceptable for bosses to date and marry their employees back in the 80s & 90s. Which is why the whole Picard/Daren thing was seen as a-ok at the time.

Nowadays we, generally, recognize that power dynamics taint such relationships and make them much less acceptable.

The situation I can envision it happening in most readily is one like Voyager's, where the ship will be on its own for years with no possibility of personnel transfer. It's actually rather strange that only two of the 150 people on the ship got married and only one child was conceived during the journey (Naomi was a pre-existing pregnancy).

IMO, I think this is just another by product of the show runners not really embracing the core concept of the show. Coupling would have been FAR more common. Babies would have been all over that ship, especially once Voyager entered into its third or fourth year with no hope of ever getting home. People would have accepted their fates & started families.

 

[Oddish]

Neelix could have hung up his chef's apron and opened a daycare facility. He had his weaknesses, but he had a way with the kids.

 

[Skipper]

It was more acceptable for bosses to date and marry their employees back in the 80s & 90s. Which is why the whole Picard/Daren thing was seen as a-ok at the time.

Thank you. And in Army and similar military organisation? At least in the US women were already present there, so a relationship between a subordinate and a superior was possibile.

 

[SpockOfNine]

Looks like different branches of the military have different rules regarding this but I found this interesting article from 1991.

Under the longstanding policy of fraternization, higher-ranking officers are prohibited from having “unduly familiar personal relationships” with those of lesser rank--a tradition maintained for more than 200 years.

But apparently the rules were not heavily enforced as:

A Pentagon study, conducted in 1985, showed that 10% of all marriages within the armed forces are between officers and enlisted personnel.

Many women who wanted to join the front lines or serve aboard submarines, desired to see stricter fraternization rules so as to eliminate any issues that might arise.

The senior officer involved in such cases is more heavily fined & punished.

Today, according to this document from SOCOM:

OPNAVINST 5370.2B (the preferred rule): Prohibits unduly familiar relationships between officer and enlisted personnel that do not respect the differences in grade or rank (nearly identical language as U.S. NAVY REGULATIONS 1165). It is also a General Order and punishable under Article 92, UCMJ. Relationships covered by this Instruction include unduly familiar relationships between officers and enlisted as well as among officers and enlisted whenever the relationship does not respect the differences in grade or rank. Two different tests are applied, depending on rank of those involved:

One Step Test: Relationship between officer and enlisted: If the relationship is found to be unduly familiar then it is fraternization. Such a relationship is presumed to be prejudicial to good order and discipline. This also applies to relationships between Chief Petty Officers and junior enlisted (E1-E6) within the same command and some specific positional relationships, e.g., recruiter and recruit, instructor and student.

Two Step Test: In relationships between officers or between enlisted personnel fraternization requires an unduly familiar relationship and it must be prejudicial to good order and discipline or service discrediting (there is no presumption that it is prejudicial or service discrediting). Examples of relationships that may be prejudicial to good order and discipline include: Dating, shared living accommodations, sexual relations, commercial solicitations, private business partnerships, gambling and borrowing money.

It looks like the rules are much stricter and more clearly defined. Especially as it comes to the nature of fraternization, which need not specifically be intimate relationships. Interestingly, it also does not require the issue of fraternization to be in a direct leader-subordinate relationship or even within the same branch of the military.

So things seemed more lax in the 80's and 90's but have slowly been tightened up since then.

 

[Oddish]

Just because two people of disparate rank marry, doesn't mean any rules were violated. Lieutenant Commander Spuds, a submarine's weapons officer, might marry Petty Officer Beano, who's a nurse in a hospital on base. The two are not in the same chain of command.

 

[SpockOfNine]

Just because two people of disparate rank marry, doesn't mean any rules were violated. Lieutenant Commander Spuds, a submarine's weapons officer, might marry Petty Officer Beano, who's a nurse in a hospital on base. The two are not in the same chain of command.

At least for United States Special Operations Command, that does not matter. It is still fraternizing.

Miscellaneous: The Instruction does not require a direct senior-subordinate supervisory relationship. A subsequent marriage does not excuse or mitigate any illegal conduct. The Instruction is gender neutral.

Relationships with other service personnel: Navy personnel are subject to these rules regardless of the other person’s service affiliation or service rules.

For starfleet, we simply do not have enough examples to say how they treat this issue but given Tripp & T'Pol, Riker & Troi, Troi & Worf, Picard & Daren, Worf & J. Dax, Bashir & E. Dax, Paris & Torres, etc. I think it is safe to say Starfleet is much more loosey goosey with Fraternization.

 

[Skipper]

For starfleet, we simply do not have enough examples to say how they treat this issue but given Tripp & T'Pol, Riker & Troi, Troi & Worf, Picard & Daren, Worf & J. Dax, Bashir & E. Dax, Paris & Torres, etc. I think it is safe to say Starfleet is much more loosey goosey with Fraternization.

Thank you. At least in your examples these aren't people in the same chain of command.

But then there is Picard who had a relationship with a subordinate. How this could be ok even in a fictional organization is beyond me.

 

[DonIago]

If the E-D had been sent on a deep space, years-long assignment as was the original premise for the show, was Picard just supposed to remain uninvolved with anyone for years? I don't think that's a very realistic expectation.

 

[Skipper]

If the E-D had been sent on a deep space, years-long assignment as was the original premise for the show, was Picard just supposed to remain uninvolved with anyone for years? I don't think that's a very realistic expectation.

There were a lot of civilians on board. Or he could establish a relationship with a person from another spaceship or a starbase. When he chose to become a captain he knew there were sacrifices to be made. Instead, he preferred to have a person leave his ship when he realized that a relationship was not manageable.

 

[DonIago]

If that's a reference to "Lessons", then in that instance neither of them were willing to resign their commission, and it was Nella who said she would request a transfer, not Picard raising the issue.

As captain of the ship, I'd argue that civilians would also be under his chain of command.

Again, if the original premise had been adhered to, then it might have been months or years before Picard would see someone who was on another spaceship or starbase.

 

[Oddish]

Again, if the original premise had been adhered to, then it might have been months or years before Picard would see someone who was on another spaceship or starbase.

I'm rather glad it wasn't. For a ship that was hauling civilians, families, and children, the Enterprise's actual mission made more sense.

 

[DonIago]

^Ineresting, in my experience people tend to say that with the E-D's actual mission as presented, having civilians aboard makes less sense.

 

[Skipper]

If that's a reference to "Lessons", then in that instance neither of them were willing to resign their commission, and it was Nella who said she would request a transfer, not Picard raising the issue.

As captain of the ship, I'd argue that civilians would also be under his chain of command.

Again, if the original premise had been adhered to, then it might have been months or years before Picard would see someone who was on another spaceship or starbase.

It's interesting that we never saw how civilian life was on the enterprise. I don't know how many civilians were on the Enterprise, but even if they were few hundreds, we are talking about the size of a little town. I believe there was some form of self-government, because I don't think that Picard decided himself, I don't know, how many classes there were in the primary school or whatever.