Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

my problem with the "relationshippers"

521 views
Skip to first unread message

Tony R. Boies

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

You DO all have the right to express your opinions without getting blasted
about them. I have no problem with the "relationshippers", I just feel
that the concept of a male and a female character becoming romantically
involved in a TV series has been done TO DEATH, and it has been immensely
refreshing to watch a show where it is not a factor. To even hint at it is
to fall victim to a now-tiresome pattern: witness what has been going on
with "Frasier." I don't want to see the "X-Files" wind up like
"Moonlighting", which was one of the greatest shows ever on TV before its
two main characters became romantically involved. Chris Carter will get
letters and petitions to get Scully and Mulder together; I say, "If the
show ain't broke, don't fix it."

Tony R. Boies, World Funnel Ball Champion...where are you, Duchovny?

--
Tony R. Boies - The New World Champion Funnel Ball Player
Check this out!!
http://www.shentel.net/nutmusic/nutmain.html

SteffD

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

....is that they will *insist* on bringing up the same old hoary
irrelevant comparisons like 'Moonlighting' when they want to explain why
a mature adult relationship between the two protagonists can NEVER be
done on television.

The relationship between Mulder and Scully is indeed immensely
refreshing - but not because it is platonic or asexual, but because it
has the potential to be treated in a sophisticated and mature way.

But Chris Carter may not have the courage that he needs - he may be
content to play safe and refuse to allow these characters to develop.
Clearly he is afraid of losing a chunk of his audience if he is bold
enough to try for something new. He has said frequently (even if also
frequently accompanied by contradictory cryptic comments) that they
won't get together on the show - and I'm afraid it's the case that
people will tell him what they think he wants to hear, whether at
conventions or elsewhere.

He may find that he has trapped himself between the devil and the deep
blue sea, though - he has given us these wonderful characters. If he
develop them in the way which many of us find they are naturally headed,
he will lose the "anti's" to loud moaning and complaining. If he
chickens out, however, the show will become sterile - and those of us
-maybe as many as 50% of your audience, CC - who watch for the character
development and interaction will drift away, because there will be
nothing for us in the programme any more.

Which were the really successful shows this year? NOT the plain old
stories with no character development or interaction - not 'Teso' or
'Hell Money' or 'The List' or even 'The Walk' but 'Pusher', 'WetWired',
'Quagmire' and 'Revelations.'

As Kristel so eloquently expressed it - we don't want the show to be
*about* the relationship. we just want the relationship to be *in* the
show. We don't need to see it all the time, but we want to know that
it's going on behind the scenes.

Stef

--
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Stephanie/postepis.htm.........for fanfic based on 'X-Files' episodes and themes!


Parateam

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

Tony --

What you said. Where can those of us go who would rather stick pins
through our eyes than see "Mulder and Scully: An Affair To Remember"?
Where's our support group? Why don't we get to whine when we're flamed by
passionate relationshippers? Why? WHY???

Eric Johns

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

>You DO all have the right to express your opinions without getting blasted
>about them. I have no problem with the "relationshippers", I just feel
>that the concept of a male and a female character becoming romantically
>involved in a TV series has been done TO DEATH, and it has been immensely
>refreshing to watch a show where it is not a factor. To even hint at it is
>to fall victim to a now-tiresome pattern: witness what has been going on
>with "Frasier." I don't want to see the "X-Files" wind up like
>"Moonlighting", which was one of the greatest shows ever on TV before its
>two main characters became romantically involved. Chris Carter will get
>letters and petitions to get Scully and Mulder together; I say, "If the
>show ain't broke, don't fix it."

Thank you, sir, for addressing the "Moonlighting" argument and reminding me
to say something that I didn't in my original post.

First of all, a MAJOR fact that NO ONE seems to see is that the series
"Moonlighting" as about the relationship between the two characters. They
were two people with a very strong sexual chemistry that just happened to
work on a case every once in a while.

This is not what the X-Files is about, is not what the X-Files has EVER
been about, and there is absolutely nothing to support the theory that for
a relationship to develop between Mulder and Scully, the show would have to
become about the relationship, like "Moonlighting" was.

Also, allow me to add that it does not speak very highly of the creative
PTB of the X-Files that EVERYONE assumes that to develop the romantic
chemistry between Mulder and Scully, they would have to sink to the
predictable and overdone. The X-Files is NEVER predictable and overdone,
and that is the same pattern that we relationshippers would like to see
should the relationship ever happen...we want a new take on it, something
that hasn't been done before.

Lastly, I would like to say that, when we look at this from a biological
standpoint, it is actually rather implausible that Mulder and Scully
wouldn't eventually give in to their attraction for each other. Think
about it: They are two warm-blooded, heathly, attractive adults who share
a great affection (I'm sure no one, not even the most ardent
anti-relationshipper, would deny that they are affectionate--heck, not even
CC denies that) for one another. They are in close proximity to one
another HOW MUCH of their time? And they have no other emotional
commitments to prevent them from pursuing such a relationship...supposed
office place policy aside, folks, it is in their human nature that they
would be drawn to one another.

Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
list-owner, XF-Romantics

Angela Boese

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

In <4naodj$s...@dub-news-svc-4.compuserve.com>

10057...@compuserve.com (SteffD) writes:
>
>....is that they will *insist* on bringing up the same old hoary
>irrelevant comparisons like 'Moonlighting' when they want to explain
why
>a mature adult relationship between the two protagonists can NEVER be
>done on television.
>
>The relationship between Mulder and Scully is indeed immensely
>refreshing - but not because it is platonic or asexual, but because it
>has the potential to be treated in a sophisticated and mature way.
>

snip


>
>Which were the really successful shows this year? NOT the plain old
>stories with no character development or interaction - not 'Teso' or
>'Hell Money' or 'The List' or even 'The Walk' but 'Pusher',
'WetWired',
>'Quagmire' and 'Revelations.'
>
>As Kristel so eloquently expressed it - we don't want the show to be
>*about* the relationship. we just want the relationship to be *in* the
>show. We don't need to see it all the time, but we want to know that
>it's going on behind the scenes.
>
>Stef
>
>--
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Stephanie/postepis.htm.......

for fanfic based on 'X-Files' episodes and themes!
>

I agree 100%!!! I don't think that anyone wants to see Mulder try to
cook Scully a romantic dinner at home, or watch Scully stand in front
of a mirror trying on 10 different outfits for their big *date*. I
don't want to see a scene where they admit their undying love to each
other with violins and roses. This show will ALWAYS be about the
files, but I think that it would be only a natural progression for
there to be a MORE than platonic love between them.

Scully and Mulder have endured so much pain and horror together. If
it's true that they only trust each other, why shouldn't they find
solace and safety in each others arms? Scully is not, and in my
opinion, has never been Mulder's surrogate sister. They are partners,
and I think that the potential is there for them to be patners in every
sense of the word.

Angela

Parateam

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

Yep, gotta straighten this out:

<<....is that they will *insist* on bringing up the same old hoary
irrelevant comparisons like 'Moonlighting' when they want to explain why a
mature adult relationship between the two protagonists can NEVER be done
on television.>>

How is making a comparison between the doomed Moonlighting and the
potentially doomed X-Files irrelevant? If we're not allowed to show you
examples of how a relationship has screwed over a perfectly good show by
shifting and twisting the dynamics into an unrecognizable shape, then how
can we prove our point?

<<The relationship between Mulder and Scully is indeed immensely
refreshing - but not because it is platonic or asexual, but because it has
the potential to be treated in a sophisticated and mature way.>>

Why don't you start by defining relationship. Geez. I reached for the
dictionary and got the Film/TV Guide instead. Scary. American Heritage
says that a relationship is a "Connection by blood or marriage; kinship"
and a "specified state of affairs existing among people related to or
dealing with one another." Obviously, you prefer the first definition and
we the second. Thereforto an agreement.

I'll go on anyway. You claim that the relationship is refreshing not
because of what it is, but because of what it can be. So, why are you
watching the show? Are you saying that they have absolutely nothing
together because they're not boinking each other? Why would you even care
about them unless you *cared* about them already?

<<But Chris Carter may not have the courage that he needs - he may be
content to play safe and refuse to allow these characters to develop.>>

No, no, no. Chris Carter is being courageous by not selling out. Do you
people have any *idea* how hard it is to create the kind of complex
relationship that Mulder and Scully have? Have any of you actually ever
*tried* to create these types of characters before? He's not refusing to
let them develop. If he let them play house together, *then* he would be
refusing. He would stunt these characters and right now, he's got too
much integrity to do that.

<<Clearly he is afraid of losing a chunk of his audience if he is bold
enough to try for something new.>>

Something new? Come on, now. A romance between two lead characters is as
old as the hills. Why do you think he and the show are getting the
accolades they are getting? Because he's chosen a much more interesting
path.

<<If he chickens out, however, the show will become sterile - and those of
us -maybe as many as 50% of your audience, CC - who watch for the
character development and interaction will drift away, because there will
be
nothing for us in the programme any more.>>

*I* watch it for character development and interaction, so don't claim
that the relationshippers are the know-it-alls of character. The show
will become sterile if the staff is unable to come up with fresh ideas.
IMO, Mulder and Scully are not *naturally* headed for the white picket
fence.

All of this aside, it doesn't appear that we can ever agree on what a
relationship truly is, but when my fellow "anti-relationshippers" (using
your definition) are attacked, I will fight back!!

Viva la platonica!!!

Crunchy Frog

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

OK, some anti-relationshippers take extreme exception to part of
this post. I really enjoyed Moonlighting. I saw it as two characters who
worked well (for characters, not for detectives) together, with snappy
retorts and a nice fast-paced dialogue. I never once saw it as
interaction between 2 people in love. Sure, there was oodles of sexual
tension, but sexual tension is a dime a dozen.

THAT'S where the similarity to the X-files exists. There is - not
all the time, not every episode, but here and there, just like in real life
- sexual tension between Mulder & Scully in the form of comments, quips, etc.
To be blunt, I think equating sexual tension with love degrades both
states. I've worked with gents with whom I've had a great 'joking'
relationship, comments that would make Mulder blush, but it was all a fun
*working* relationship. None of these guys fell in love with me, nor did
I fall in love with them. LOTS of people have "platonic sexual tension",
if I can call it that, where you tease eachother about things that other
people would find intimate. This is the nature of the relationship that I
see between Mulder & Scully. Stating that the "natural" progression of
such a relationship is romantic love seems - to me, at least - a juvenile
take on the states of human interaction.

Men and women can be friends without being in love with
each other. Men and women can be attractive people, and be friends without
being in love with each other. Men and women can be attractive people, be
friends, and have deep-seated trust for each other without being in love
with each other. Men and women can be attractive people, be friends, have
a deep-seated trust for each other, and joke about the various uses of
dessert topping WITHOUT BEING IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER.

When I watch the interactions between Mulder and Scully, I see
trust, respect, and even 'love' - the sort of love that two friends who
have been through a lot together would share. To say that a WWII vet
'loved' his comrades, people he'd been through life-or-death situations
with, would not be to suggest he had a sexual or romantic love for them.
The problem that *I* have with relationshippers is that they only seem to
be able to see the one kind of love - romantic/sexual - in a world with
an infinite variety of human relationships.

There. Enough of my contribution to the squabble. Anyway, most
anti-relationshippers don't bother to post about it beacuse, after all,
the creator of the series (hence the omnipotent God over the characters)
says it won't happen, so hey, when you have a deity on your side, you
don't need to raise a fuss.

---------------------------___________________________
Crunchy Frog @ @ / The Truth is Greater Than \
<:8 )-- /( o )\ < Ten Goats -Zogo Proverb |
^^ ^^ \___________________________/


Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to

On 14 May 1996, SteffD wrote:
> ....is that they will *insist* on bringing up the same old hoary
> irrelevant comparisons like 'Moonlighting' when they want to explain why
> a mature adult relationship between the two protagonists can NEVER be
> done on television.

They *have* a mature adult relationship.

> Clearly he is afraid of losing a chunk of his audience if he is bold

> enough to try for something new. He has said frequently (even if also

There's nothing new about having two people jump in the sack.

> chickens out, however, the show will become sterile - and those of us
> -maybe as many as 50% of your audience, CC - who watch for the character
> development and interaction will drift away, because there will be
> nothing for us in the programme any more.

Sounds like the only thing you're interested in is sex between them.
There is *much* more to being an adult than just sex. Most adults do
*not* have sex with the people they work with.

> Which were the really successful shows this year? NOT the plain old
> stories with no character development or interaction - not 'Teso' or
> 'Hell Money' or 'The List' or even 'The Walk' but 'Pusher', 'WetWired',
> 'Quagmire' and 'Revelations.'

Character development or interaction do *not* equal sex.

> *about* the relationship. we just want the relationship to be *in* the
> show. We don't need to see it all the time, but we want to know that
> it's going on behind the scenes.

We are already seeing a perfectly wonderful relationship. I'd say let it
develop naturally... and remain platonic.

Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food

duch...@pipeline.com

unread,
May 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/14/96
to


I think that the x-files is a very good show and aplaud chris for keeping
Scully and Mulder out of bed BUT I would like to see atleast one steamy
night of them together in bed. I don't watch much tv for the reason that
most of it is trash filled with murders and sex. Still I have always
thought they would be a good match--not a couple--I think they would fight
too much--but just a one night stand. That would provide tension in the
show!!(hee-hee)
duchovny

It Is Foolish To Tear One's Hair In Grief As Though Sorrow Would Be Made
Less By Baldness.--CICERO

J.D. Haas

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

Tony R. Boies (tbo...@shentel.com) wrote:
> You DO all have the right to express your opinions without getting blasted
> about them. I have no problem with the "relationshippers", I just feel
> that the concept of a male and a female character becoming romantically
> involved in a TV series has been done TO DEATH,

Actually, it hasn't been done to death. What has been done to
death is stringing the audience along forever and ever until the series
is in it's last, dying breaths. Then, in one last ploy for ratings, TPTB
finally get the characters together long after anyone cares anymore.
That's the real lesson of the oft repeated example of Moonlighting.
This also happened with Remington Steele -- NBC even dragged Pierce
Brosnan back from a James Bond movie -- the one that Timothy Dalton ended
up doing -- to make a very contrived little post mortem that finally got
the characters together. This is what I would really hate to see happen
to the XFiles.
I agree with you that the relationship that M&S currently have is
immensely refreshing for a television series. They are two intelligent
professional people who function as equals and as friends. I would hate
to see them lose any of that. And it would be totally out of character
for both of them to suddenly turn all warm and fuzzy and I would hate to
see that. But wouldn't it also be refreshing to see a romantic
relationship that is based on friendship, respect, loyalty, shared
history and love AND lust as opposed to the usual lust, lust and
lust relationships that populate TV Land. To recap what someone else has said
--We don't want the show to be about the relationship, we just want to
know it's there.


&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Wouldn't it be nice if life came with an "undo" button?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&


Champey

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

In article <tboies-1405...@eb5ppp5.shentel.net>,

tbo...@shentel.com (Tony R. Boies) writes:

>You DO all have the right to express your opinions without getting
blasted
>about them. I have no problem with the "relationshippers", I just feel
>that the concept of a male and a female character becoming romantically

>involved in a TV series has been done TO DEATH, and it has been immensely
>refreshing to watch a show where it is not a factor. To even hint at it
is
>to fall victim to a now-tiresome pattern: witness what has been going on
>with "Frasier." I don't want to see the "X-Files" wind up like
>"Moonlighting", which was one of the greatest shows ever on TV before its
>two main characters became romantically involved. Chris Carter will get
>letters and petitions to get Scully and Mulder together; I say, "If the
>show ain't broke, don't fix it."
>

>Tony R. Boies, World Funnel Ball Champion...where are you, Duchovny?
>
>--
>Tony R. Boies - The New World Champion Funnel Ball Player
>Check this out!!
>http://www.shentel.net/nutmusic/nutmain.html
>
>

Even some of us "relationshippers" (though liking to fantasize about the
possibilities) really DON'T want to see this great partnership/friendship
altered by a romantic liason. It IS possible to have an intimate
relationship with someone without having sex... and in every way (except
the obvious) and it is just as satisfying and fulfilling.

I think I identify so strongely with this pair because I have been in just
such a platonic friendship with someone of the opposite sex and I wouldn't
have traded one minute of it for a roll in the hay.

"Willing to believe in extreme possibilities. . ."

Barbara

elizabeth nordstrom

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

10057...@compuserve.com (SteffD) wrote:
>....is that they will *insist* on bringing up the same old
>hoary irrelevant comparisons like 'Moonlighting' when they
>want to explain why a mature adult relationship between the
>two protagonists can NEVER be done on television.
>
>The relationship between Mulder and Scully is indeed immensely
>refreshing - but not because it is platonic or asexual, but
>because it has the potential to be treated in a sophisticated
>and mature way.

Yes, indeed.

>But Chris Carter may not have the courage that he needs - he
>may be content to play safe and refuse to allow these

>characters to develop. Clearly he is afraid of losing a chunk

>of his audience if he is bold enough to try for something new.

>He has said frequently (even if also frequently accompanied by

>contradictory cryptic comments) that they won't get together
>on the show - and I'm afraid it's the case that people will
>tell him what they think he wants to hear, whether at
>conventions or elsewhere.

It would take some exceptionally delicate writing to pull it
off, would it not?

>He may find that he has trapped himself between the devil and
>the deep blue sea, though - he has given us these wonderful
>characters. If he develop them in the way which many of us
>find they are naturally headed, he will lose the "anti's" to

>loud moaning and complaining. If he chickens out, however, the

>show will become sterile - and those of us -maybe as many as
>50% of your audience, CC - who watch for the character
>development and interaction will drift away, because there
>will be nothing for us in the programme any more.

I know I would.

>Which were the really successful shows this year? NOT the
>plain old stories with no character development or
>interaction - not 'Teso' or 'Hell Money' or 'The List' or even
>'The Walk' but 'Pusher', 'WetWired', 'Quagmire' and
>Revelations.'
>

>As Kristel so eloquently expressed it - we don't want the show
>to be *about* the relationship. we just want the relationship

>to be *in* the show. We don't need to see it all the time, but
>we want to know that it's going on behind the scenes.
>

>Stef


Hear! Hear! You guys have said it so well. I didn't respond
to the original post about why "relationshippers" deserve to be
heard because I had nothing to add, but I was applauding in my
chair! Four more seasons with Mulder and Scully's relationship
remaining stagnant is, indeed, not something I'm looking
forward to.

At the risk of being torched, though, I'd be interested to know
the ages and/or marital status of those who are so vehemently
opposed to seeing Our Heroes' relationship move on to a higher
level. The posts I've read from the anti-relationshippers all
seem so squeamish. As if they were contemplating seeing Mom
and Dad "doing it," and the very idea was repulsive. All of
the "ewwww's" and "yuck's" at the very thought of a more
intimate relationship makes me think they have a rather
immature view of real-world partnerships/marriages. (But I
could be wrong.)

A real relationship (except very young newlyweds) does not
revolve, in most instances, around sex. (Or even romance.)
It's a big part, but not the whole. It involves caring and
support, patience and being able to overlook whole bunches of
bad habits. Mulder and Scully already exhibit a lot of this.
Why does a sexual relationship have to get in the way of their
work? And why does the show necessarily have to be about this
relationship, should it occur? It doesn't. But, as Kristel
said, we'd like it at least acknowledged occasionally.

This is not a criticism of those who oppose a romantic bond.
They have their arguments, and mostly good ones. I'm just
really curious to see if there is any correlation between
youth (and/or the lack of involvement in a long-term
relationship) and a reluctance to see Mom and Dad..er... excuse
me - Mulder and Scully get a little closer. I could very well
be way off base. (There must be a connection, though. I'll
find it!)

elizabeth


elizabeth nordstrom

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to


You DO get to whine. (See above.) And so eloquently, too!

elizabeth

SteffD

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

>> Why don't we get to whine when we're flamed by
passionate relationshippers? Why? WHY??? <<

Turn about is fair play!

You've all had it very much of your own way so far......but we're not
going away this time :-)

Stef

--
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Stephanie/postepis.htm.........for fanfic based on 'X-Files' episodes and themes!


TwoSpooky

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

10057...@compuserve.com (SteffD) wrote:
*snip*

>If he
>chickens out, however, the show will become sterile - and those of us
>-maybe as many as 50% of your audience, CC - who watch for the character
>development and interaction will drift away, because there will be
>nothing for us in the programme any more.
>
>Which were the really successful shows this year? NOT the plain old
>stories with no character development or interaction - not 'Teso' or
>'Hell Money' or 'The List' or even 'The Walk' but 'Pusher', 'WetWired',
>'Quagmire' and 'Revelations.'
*snip*

Stef, I couldn't agree more! Having "Teso" and "Hell Money" come right
after "Pusher" was just awful.

'Sterile' is an excellent word for these two episodes. Also 'wooden,'
maybe. They had less feeling -- and interesting dialogue -- than a
test pattern. If CC is deliberately trying to tone down the chemistry
between M&S, he's going to kill the show.

Without the relationship, the show is just another horror movie.
Without the horror element, the show is just another drama.
It's the *combination* of the two that makes XF such a great show --
it's the combination that makes us watch!!!

M&S's partnership needs to *evolve*, or the show's quality will
decline. And that evolution, IMHO, seems to be toward a love
relationship. Hell, like so many partners, they already *act* like
a married couple...

kennebec

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

In article <4nb432$i...@allinux2.alliance.net>, ejo...@mail.alliance.net wrote:


:
: Also, allow me to add that it does not speak very highly of the creative

: PTB of the X-Files that EVERYONE assumes that to develop the romantic
: chemistry between Mulder and Scully, they would have to sink to the
: predictable and overdone. The X-Files is NEVER predictable and overdone,
: and that is the same pattern that we relationshippers would like to see
: should the relationship ever happen...we want a new take on it, something
: that hasn't been done before.

:
Like, say, Scully gets an Aliens-style FaceHugger, which makes her really
attractive to Mulder?
AMY

M.R. Power

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

elizabeth nordstrom (enor...@earthlink.net) wrote:

: >The relationship between Mulder and Scully is indeed immensely


: >refreshing - but not because it is platonic or asexual, but
: >because it has the potential to be treated in a sophisticated
: >and mature way.

: Yes, indeed.

I agree totally!

: >He has said frequently (even if also frequently accompanied by

: >contradictory cryptic comments) that they won't get together

Not to mention all those *extremely* close publicity photos of DD and GA...

: It would take some exceptionally delicate writing to pull it
: off, would it not?

Yup, but it can be done. I volunteer!! <G>

: >loud moaning and complaining. If he chickens out, however, the

: >show will become sterile - and those of us -maybe as many as
: >50% of your audience, CC - who watch for the character
: >development and interaction will drift away, because there
: >will be nothing for us in the programme any more.

: I know I would.

Hear hear.

: forward to.

: opposed to seeing Our Heroes' relationship move on to a higher

: level. The posts I've read from the anti-relationshippers all

<snip>
: the "ewwww's" and "yuck's" at the very thought of a more

: intimate relationship makes me think they have a rather
: immature view of real-world partnerships/marriages. (But I
: could be wrong.)


I kind of got the same impression. Speaking from a bit over 4 years of
married experience, I can vouch for the fact that Mulder and Scully could
have an excepitonal intimate relationship if allowed.

: Why does a sexual relationship have to get in the way of their
: work?

No reason at all - they're both mature adults and I think they can handle
it...

:And why does the show necessarily have to be about this

: relationship, should it occur? It doesn't. But, as Kristel
: said, we'd like it at least acknowledged occasionally.

Well said.

Selfish words from a little black bird,
Blackbird
"The reward for conformity is that everyone likes you but yourself."


Sheryl Martin

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

I think the major problem that people have to deal with is the concept of two
mature adults who may not leap into bed at the first chance... sorry, the
best example I can give is "Melrose Place"... no offence meant at the fans,
honest - my mother watches it faithfully!

after all, for years the idea of a romance on television was based almost
solely on the chase and the bedroom scene, steamy and with lots of passion
for the viewers to drool over... which is great if that's all you want...

but I think that CC could definitely write a slow, steady REALISTIC romance
where the two casually court and get together eventually... come on, folks -
in real life you very rarely if ever just leap into bed on the first date -
and I'm bloody sure that Mulder and Scully would be much more shy about the
first kiss, never mind discussing the bedroom stuff...

so first we get a shy hug... maybe in a bit the first kiss... but not that
they leap into bed at the end of the first date; no matter how it might
appeal to people...
frankly, I think there's alot that could be done with a subplot of a romantic
relationship... if any good writers dare to take it on and make it work
without resorting to the typical Hollywood stereotypes of having bedroom
scenes and sweaty shower scenes...
hmm... interesting thought that...
excuse me while I go write some fanfic...
\=/,
| @___oo
/\ /\ / (___,,,}
) /^\) ^\/ _)
) /^\/ _)
) _ / / _)
/\ )/\/ || | )_)
< > / (,,) )__)
| | / \)___)\
| \____( )___) )___
\______(_________;;; __;;;
"Heart of a warrior; mind of a fool... soul of a romantic." - Jackie St.
George
"I have GOT to get a life... nah..." - Sheryl Martin, cyberwordsmith


Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

On 15 May 1996, J.D. Haas wrote:
> I agree with you that the relationship that M&S currently have is
> immensely refreshing for a television series. They are two intelligent
> professional people who function as equals and as friends. I would hate
> to see them lose any of that. And it would be totally out of character
> for both of them to suddenly turn all warm and fuzzy and I would hate to
> see that. But wouldn't it also be refreshing to see a romantic
> relationship that is based on friendship, respect, loyalty, shared
> history and love AND lust as opposed to the usual lust, lust and
> lust relationships that populate TV Land. To recap what someone else has said
> --We don't want the show to be about the relationship, we just want to
> know it's there.

I agree that such a relationship would be interesting to see... just not
with *these* characters or *this* show.

A little aside: In another one of these threads someone mentioned that
they thought those of us who don't want to see M&S get romantically
involved must be fairly young. Funny, I was thinking the same thing about
the people who equate 'mature adult relationship' with sex. :-) If there's
one thing I've learned after 10 years of marriage is that there's
*nothing* necessarily mature about sex. :-):-)

Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

On 15 May 1996, Champey wrote:
> Even some of us "relationshippers" (though liking to fantasize about the
> possibilities) really DON'T want to see this great partnership/friendship
> altered by a romantic liason. It IS possible to have an intimate

That's what fan-fic is for, after all.

> relationship with someone without having sex... and in every way (except
> the obvious) and it is just as satisfying and fulfilling.
>
> I think I identify so strongely with this pair because I have been in just
> such a platonic friendship with someone of the opposite sex and I wouldn't
> have traded one minute of it for a roll in the hay.

There are many different types of intimacy and it's nice to see this type
of intimate relationship explored.

Sandra Ballasch

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

Please spare me from amateur psychologists.

Sandra Ballasch

On 15 May 1996, elizabeth nordstrom wrote:

> At the risk of being torched, though, I'd be interested to know
> the ages and/or marital status of those who are so vehemently

> opposed to seeing Our Heroes' relationship move on to a higher
> level. The posts I've read from the anti-relationshippers all

> seem so squeamish. As if they were contemplating seeing Mom
> and Dad "doing it," and the very idea was repulsive. All of

> the "ewwww's" and "yuck's" at the very thought of a more
> intimate relationship makes me think they have a rather
> immature view of real-world partnerships/marriages. (But I
> could be wrong.)
>

> A real relationship (except very young newlyweds) does not
> revolve, in most instances, around sex. (Or even romance.)
> It's a big part, but not the whole. It involves caring and
> support, patience and being able to overlook whole bunches of
> bad habits. Mulder and Scully already exhibit a lot of this.

> Why does a sexual relationship have to get in the way of their

> work? And why does the show necessarily have to be about this

> relationship, should it occur? It doesn't. But, as Kristel
> said, we'd like it at least acknowledged occasionally.
>

Karen Green

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

Let me say first, that I believe both relationshippers and
anti-relationshippers have a perfect right to their opinions, no matter
what each thinks of the other.

That being said, I think the "Moonlighting" analogy needs to be, ahem, put
to bed. As a relationshipper eloquently pointed out, the point of that
show was the attraction to each other. So, it's a dead issue. Likewise,
"Lois and Clark," in which everyone knew that Clark was in love with Lois
from day one. The romantic/carnal inclinations of Mulder and Scully have
never been a central issue in The X-Files.

Still, I find myself siding with the anti-relationshippers. I don't think
that Chris Carter is a coward for not exploring, or depicting emotional
growth. I think that both Mulder and Scully have shown enormous emotional
growth in their relationship, and it has to do with their trust for, and
relaince on, each other. Why people think that this implies a necessary
route towards romantic involvement mystifies me. If they were both men,
or both women, would there be the same calls for their trust and
attachment to turn to love? If the answer is no, then I think it means
that there is not an inevitable progression from shared experience, trust,
and affection to passion and love. What if one of them were married?
Would that also mean that their growing trust and affection had to turn to
romance?

There's also the possibility that, attractive as we all find them, they're
just not each other's type!

Chris Carter has said he wanted to shake up the conventional stereotypes
by making the woman the skeptic and the man the believer. I like to think
he further wanted to shake up convention by showing a mature, strong and
committed friendship between two people of the opposite sex. I remember
being horribly angry at the ending of "When HArry Met Sally..." - after
trying, as I thought, to show that men and women CAN be friends without
sex getting in the way, it succumbed to its own desire for conventional
romance. I want to believe - that men and women can be friends just as
men and men or women and women are friends. I want to believe that it
doesn't all come down to being "abducted by our rampaging hormones."

My name is Karen, and I'm an anti-relationshipper.


Karen

Karen Green

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Crunchy Frog wrote:

> Men and women can be friends without being in love with
> each other. Men and women can be attractive people, and be friends without
> being in love with each other. Men and women can be attractive people, be
> friends, and have deep-seated trust for each other without being in love
> with each other. Men and women can be attractive people, be friends, have
> a deep-seated trust for each other, and joke about the various uses of
> dessert topping WITHOUT BEING IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER.

Bless you, Crunchy Frog!

Karen


SteffD

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

In article <4nbbji$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com >, From para...@aol.com
(Parateam), the following was written:

> All of this aside, it doesn't appear that we can ever agree on what a
> relationship truly is, but when my fellow "anti-relationshippers"
> (using your definition) are attacked, I will fight back!!

We were constantly attacked and that's why we left....but now *we're
ba-ack*....and we're not going to be frightened off this time however
loudly you (not you personally) all shout :-)

I know the definition of a relationship - I looked it up in my Oxford
English Dictionary! But we are talking about a specific type of
relationship here, as I stated in my original post - not a platonic
asexual relationship. That is not what CC has created in this show. If
that was what he intended to create, then he has signally failed if 50%
of his audience don't agree that's what he's achieved!

You can't prove a point by making poor analogies - which is what
'Moonlighting' is. And it has been hashed over many times before.

Likely we'll never agree, and as I said before, at the end of the show's
run, half the audience will be dissatisfied. I just hope it's your half
and not mine ;-) But who knows?

SteffD

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

In article <4nbohh$3...@paraguay.it.earthlink .net>, From elizabeth
nordstrom <enor...@earthlink.net>, the following was written:

> This is not a criticism of those who oppose a romantic bond.
> They have their arguments, and mostly good ones. I'm just
> really curious to see if there is any correlation between
> youth (and/or the lack of involvement in a long-term
> relationship) and a reluctance to see Mom and Dad..er... excuse
> me - Mulder and Scully get a little closer. I could very well
> be way off base. (There must be a connection, though. I'll
> find it!)


Very interesting point, Elizabeth. Who knows whether it's valid - but
I'm a 'relationshipper' (tho' I hate the term!) and I've been married
for 13 years. So that would seem to support what you say!

Parateam

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

Just to be mean.....

Chris Carter won't do it!! Hahahahahaha....... ;-)

Hey, how dare you guys give us a name? Anti-relationshipper is not only a
mouthful, but implies something that we're not. We need a name, AR's
everywhere. Put on your thinking caps...

SteffD

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

Julia Kosatka wrote:-

>> I'd say let it
develop naturally... and remain platonic. <<

...oXymoron, I'm afraid!

I think it's a shame that people won't take the trouble to read what's
actually being suggested. 'Jumping in the sack' is *not* what we want
them to do. But then, if people wouldn't read it the first time then
they probably won't read it this time either, so I'm not going to bother
to repeat it.

>> Sounds like the only thing you're interested in is sex between them.

There is *much* more to being an adult than just sex. Most adults do
*not* have sex with the people they work with. <<

I'll just say that the ones who appear to be obsessed with SEX are the
anti-relationshippers!

Parateam

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

As surprised and thrilled as I am at the support *against* a different
type of relationship (yay! we can overcome!), I have just *got* to
respond to this:

<<At the risk of being torched, though, I'd be interested to know the ages
and/or marital status of those who are so vehemently opposed to seeing
Our Heroes' relationship move on to a higher level. The posts I've read
from the anti-relationshippers all seem so squeamish. As if they were
contemplating seeing Mom and Dad "doing it," and the very idea was
repulsive.>>

Hmmm. Intriguing. *I* wondered at the ages and/or marital status of
those who are vehemently opposed to the mature, adult relationship Mulder
and Scully actually have *now*. It seems to me that those of you who have
decided that the relationship is *stagnating* don't have the dramatic
chops to be able to appreciate it.

The reason our posts are *squeamish* (your word, not mine!!) is because of
the sick feeling we all feel in the pit of our stomach at the idea of the
relationship being cheapened by sex. Oooh, flamethrower alert!!!
<ducking>

<<All of the "ewwww's" and "yuck's" at the very thought of a more intimate

relationship makes me think they ha/marriages. (But I could be wrong.)>>

Explain why our view of the world is immature because we value the
relationship the way it is. This just doesn't make any sense, and I truly
resent you psychoanalyzing ME.

<<A real relationship (except very young newlyweds) does not revolve, in
most instances, around sex. (Or even romance.) It's a big part, but not
the whole. It involves caring and support, patience and being able to
overlook whole bunches of bad habits. Mulder and Scully already exhibit a
lot of this.>>

Yes, they do, but what you're saying is that the caring, emotional, MATURE
relationship carries no value without sex. What you have just said begs
the question, and what follows confuses me even more:

<<Why does a sexual relationship have to get in the way of their work?
And why does the show necessarily have to be about this relationship,
should it occur? It doesn't. But, as Kristel said, we'd like it at least
acknowledged occasionally.>>

So, you're looking for personal satisfaction, right? You're living
vicariously through the potential of a sexual relationship between two TV
characters because of what is lacking in your lives? Ah, psychoanalyzing
doesn't look so good now, does it?

Again, a point I've tried to make ad nauseum, if you claim that the show
won't be about the *new* relationship and that sexual intimacy won't ruin
the show because it won't be a big part of it, THEN WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT
TO YOU?? Please explain that, because I just don't get it. Really. I
want to know!!

<<This is not a criticism of those who oppose a romantic bond.>>

Mmm, beg to differ on that.

<<They have their arguments, and mostly good ones.>>

Wow, thanks! We were hoping to get some positive reinforcement from
relationshippers! ;-)

<<I'm just really curious to see if there is any correlation between
youth (and/or the lack of involvement in a long-term relationship) and a
reluctance to see Mom and Dad..er... excuse me - Mulder and Scully get a
little closer. I could very well be way off base. (There must be a
connection, though. I'll find it!)>>

Yeah, I see it the other way. I've always thought that youth played a
large part in the adamant way you refuse to look upon the relationship THE
WAY IT IS as mature. I *do not* see Mulder and Scully as Mom and Dad, and
the implication that I and others who follow this golden path are *too
young* ('cause I bet I'm not!) to respect a sexual relationship between
these characters is ludicrous.

I'll tell you this, though: I'm a writer (I live in LA. You have to be
one in order to get a drivers license) and I find it much more interesting
to write characters like Mulder and Scully THE WAY THEY ARE. I *do* think
sex will cheapen what they have.

Again, VIVA LA PLATONICA!!

Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

On 15 May 1996, SteffD wrote:
> I know the definition of a relationship - I looked it up in my Oxford
> English Dictionary! But we are talking about a specific type of
> relationship here, as I stated in my original post - not a platonic
> asexual relationship. That is not what CC has created in this show. If
> that was what he intended to create, then he has signally failed if 50%
> of his audience don't agree that's what he's achieved!

Using that logic, it looks like he failed to create a pre-sexual
relationship if 50% don't agree that's what he's achieved.

> You can't prove a point by making poor analogies - which is what
> 'Moonlighting' is. And it has been hashed over many times before.

Just because it's been pointed out before, doesn't change the fact.

JimKing

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

In article <4nd8sp$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com (Parateam)
writes:

>Hey, how dare you guys give us a name? Anti-relationshipper is not only
a
>mouthful, but implies something that we're not. We need a name, AR's
>everywhere. Put on your thinking caps...
>

How about "Celibacists" or "Abstinencers"? ;-)

~ Jim, who hates the "Moonlighting" argument because it proves nothing.

JimKing

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

In article <4naodj$s...@dub-news-svc-4.compuserve.com>,
10057...@compuserve.com (SteffD) writes:

>The relationship between Mulder and Scully is indeed immensely
>refreshing - but not because it is platonic or asexual, but because it
>has the potential to be treated in a sophisticated and mature way.
>
>

Thanks for your thoughtful post on the "relationship." I've always
thought it's funny that the "relationshippers" seem to be totally focused
on the sexual part of the relationship, believing sex is the only area
left to explore, and they assume that it could only be handled (or
mishandled) just llike everything else on TV (the "Moonlighting"
argument).

It's a shame that Chris Carter is so "scared off" on this issue because he
just might be the one who could really make the relationship interesting.
Maybe he'll surprise us...just like he constantly surprises us every week.

~ Jim

SteffD

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

In article
<Pine.A32.3.91.960515103544.79862 A-10...@red.weeg.uiowa.edu>, From
Sandra Ballasch <ball...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>, the following was
written:

> Please spare me from amateur psychologists.
>


And people who quote a very long chunk of someone else's post without
anything constructive to add.

Margaret Young

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

Crunchy Frog (awa...@sfu.ca) wrote:
:
:
: THAT'S where the similarity to the X-files exists. There is - not
: all the time, not every episode, but here and there, just like in real life
: - sexual tension between Mulder & Scully in the form of comments, quips, etc.
: To be blunt, I think equating sexual tension with love degrades both
: states. I've worked with gents with whom I've had a great 'joking'
: relationship, comments that would make Mulder blush, but it was all a fun
: *working* relationship. None of these guys fell in love with me, nor did
: I fall in love with them. LOTS of people have "platonic sexual tension",
: if I can call it that, where you tease eachother about things that other

It's hardly platonic--it's submerged and difused through the joking.

: people would find intimate. This is the nature of the relationship that I
: see between Mulder & Scully. Stating that the "natural" progression of
: such a relationship is romantic love seems - to me, at least - a juvenile
: take on the states of human interaction.

But it is the "natural" progression. When we joke to address yet
diffuse the tension, it's because we know what the "natural" progression
is, but, for any number of reasons, not going to act upon it.

Mulder and Scully are repeatedly placed in situations where they are
isolated and have only each other to trust. This naturally creates
intimacy. They are both highly attractive (this being t.v.), they
seem to have a rapport with one another. And the scriptwriters
and actors do imbue the relationship with sexual tension. Furthermore,
neither seems to have any other relationships.

So, of course, a sexual relationship between them would be "natural."
Whether it makes good dramatic sense is another story. Scriptwriters
seem to have little idea how to make a working romantic relationship
interesting (a reflection of the emotional dysfunctionality in
Hollywood?). On the other hand, too actively avoiding a romantic
relationship can appear forced and contrived.

In other words, the problem with a romantic relationship between
the two isn't a question of what happens in real live, but what
works best in a television show. Right now, they both give
the appearance of being extremely repressed.


margaret
:
: Men and women can be friends without being in love with

: each other. Men and women can be attractive people, and be friends without
: being in love with each other. Men and women can be attractive people, be
: friends, and have deep-seated trust for each other without being in love
: with each other. Men and women can be attractive people, be friends, have
: a deep-seated trust for each other, and joke about the various uses of
: dessert topping WITHOUT BEING IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER.

:
: When I watch the interactions between Mulder and Scully, I see
: trust, respect, and even 'love' - the sort of love that two friends who
: have been through a lot together would share. To say that a WWII vet
: 'loved' his comrades, people he'd been through life-or-death situations
: with, would not be to suggest he had a sexual or romantic love for them.
: The problem that *I* have with relationshippers is that they only seem to
: be able to see the one kind of love - romantic/sexual - in a world with
: an infinite variety of human relationships.
:
: There. Enough of my contribution to the squabble. Anyway, most
: anti-relationshippers don't bother to post about it beacuse, after all,
: the creator of the series (hence the omnipotent God over the characters)
: says it won't happen, so hey, when you have a deity on your side, you
: don't need to raise a fuss.
:
: ---------------------------___________________________
: Crunchy Frog @ @ / The Truth is Greater Than \
: <:8 )-- /( o )\ < Ten Goats -Zogo Proverb |
: ^^ ^^ \___________________________/
:

Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

On 16 May 1996, Eric Johns wrote:
> >>Hey, how dare you guys give us a name? Anti-relationshipper is not only
> >a
> >>mouthful, but implies something that we're not. We need a name, AR's
> >>everywhere. Put on your thinking caps...
> >>
> Oh, puh-lease? Must we descend into the petty. No one was labelling
> anyone. By the term anti-relationshipper, I meant that you are AGAINST the
> relationship...Is that not true?
>
> It was not a name, but a referrence to your POV on the subject...Must
> people be SO argumentative that they will attempt to turn any nit-picky
> point into a flame?

I *think* he was joking... but I could be wrong.

Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

On 15 May 1996, SteffD wrote:
> Julia Kosatka wrote:-
>
> >> I'd say let it
> develop naturally... and remain platonic. <<
>
> ...oXymoron, I'm afraid!

Not at all. Adding a romantic/sexual aspect to the relationship would be
stretching it way past the point of any credibility.

> I think it's a shame that people won't take the trouble to read what's
> actually being suggested. 'Jumping in the sack' is *not* what we want
> them to do. But then, if people wouldn't read it the first time then
> they probably won't read it this time either, so I'm not going to bother
> to repeat it.

Actually, any number of people have said they'd at least like to see a
one night stand between them. Perhaps *you* don't want that (more power
to you) but many many of your relationshipper cohorts *have* stated that.

> >> Sounds like the only thing you're interested in is sex between them.
>
> There is *much* more to being an adult than just sex. Most adults do
> *not* have sex with the people they work with. <<
>
> I'll just say that the ones who appear to be obsessed with SEX are the
> anti-relationshippers!

You've lost me here. The relationshippers are the ones who brought up the
desire to see a sexual/romantic relationship develop between S&M. The
rest of us *like* their current relationship and don't want to see such a
fundamental change. We'd rather see it continue to grow and develop in
the direction it's already going.

C Hooper

unread,
May 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/15/96
to

i really have to wonder what kind of people are on these newsgroups, i
loged on because i really like the show and thought i would find some
interesting conversation. but all i've run into is this talk about
mulder and scully hooking up, nude photos of GA, and talk of DD porno
stuff. really, get of this perverse thing you guys are on. i watch the
shows for the stories, i think they are really unique. mulder and scully
have a wonderful relationship and i don't want to see the show RUINED!!!
maybe i'll try back latter to see if you guys grow up.


Eric Johns

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

>There's also the possibility that, attractive as we all find them, they're
>just not each other's type!
>

You see, this is where we relationshippers see something that other's
don't. Personally, I find them to be the very epitome of the "opposites
attract" theory. That's is part of what draws us relationshippers in. But
you are right in saying that both POVs are valid, and just because I want
my POV to be recognized, does not mean I am trying to invalidate another's.
Which is mystifies me abotu the post asking "what about the anti-shippers"
who have been flamed by the relationshippers...?"

Who's flaming?

Kristel
kjo...@mail2.alliance.net

Eric Johns

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

>>Hey, how dare you guys give us a name? Anti-relationshipper is not only
>a
>>mouthful, but implies something that we're not. We need a name, AR's
>>everywhere. Put on your thinking caps...
>>
Oh, puh-lease? Must we descend into the petty. No one was labelling
anyone. By the term anti-relationshipper, I meant that you are AGAINST the
relationship...Is that not true?

It was not a name, but a referrence to your POV on the subject...Must
people be SO argumentative that they will attempt to turn any nit-picky
point into a flame?

Kristel
kjo...@mail2.alliance.net


Eric Johns

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

>Not at all. Adding a romantic/sexual aspect to the relationship would be
>stretching it way past the point of any credibility.
>

Why? Is it so incredible that these two could fall in love?

>> I think it's a shame that people won't take the trouble to read what's
>> actually being suggested. 'Jumping in the sack' is *not* what we want
>> them to do. But then, if people wouldn't read it the first time then
>> they probably won't read it this time either, so I'm not going to bother
>> to repeat it.
>
>Actually, any number of people have said they'd at least like to see a
>one night stand between them. Perhaps *you* don't want that (more power
>to you) but many many of your relationshipper cohorts *have* stated that.
>

No, most of the relationshippers want a deep, abiding romance between the
two. We are of the firm opinion that Mulder and Scully's relationship is
about much more than sex...the sex would be only one manifestation of their
bond...these two are soul mates...they share an intimacy that transcends
friendship, and even sex. What we are looking for is a combination of all
of the above. But our main point of interest is the spiritual bond between
them...we just think that it is human nature that this should manifest
itself as a romantic affiliation, since there is also an abiding physical
attraction...how could there not be?

Kristel

Join the X-Files Relationshippers Mailing list!

To subscribe, send e-mail to majo...@chaos.taylored.com with the
contents:

"subscribe xf-romantics" or "subscribe xf-romantics-digest"

Hope to see you there!


kennebec

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

Beat! BEAT! Beat! Thrash! Thrash!
pound!
POUND!
WHAMMO!

there, has it been beaten into the ground now????

AMY

elizabeth nordstrom

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

Sandra Ballasch <ball...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote:
>
>Please spare me from amateur psychologists.
>
>Sandra Ballasch
>
>On 15 May 1996, elizabeth nordstrom wrote:
<snipped>


How do you know I'm an amateur?

elizabeth


Crunchy Frog

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to


Now I've heard bloody everything.


On 15 May 1996, elizabeth nordstrom wrote:
>

> At the risk of being torched, though, I'd be interested to know
> the ages and/or marital status of those who are so vehemently
> opposed to seeing Our Heroes' relationship move on to a higher
> level. The posts I've read from the anti-relationshippers all
> seem so squeamish. As if they were contemplating seeing Mom

> and Dad "doing it," and the very idea was repulsive. All of

> the "ewwww's" and "yuck's" at the very thought of a more

> intimate relationship makes me think they have a rather

> immature view of real-world partnerships/marriages. (But I
> could be wrong.)

Now let me get this straight: People who can see two adults
having a non-sexual, mutually respecting relationship, are immature,
while people who can see the *only natural result* of such a relationship
being sex, are mature.

Uh-huh.

OK, while we're playing pop psychologist, let's try turning a
similar K-mart Freudian lens on the relationshippers:

We could be kind, and say that several relationshippers have some
sort of "matchmaker complex", in which the relationshipper is in a happy,
loving relationship, and wants everybody to experiance such a healthy,
positive experience, leading them to try to pair up people who aren't
necessarily compatible sexually or romantically.

OR, we could say they're all sexually frustrated and want to live
out a vicarious affair with Mulder <or DD> through the a romance between
him and Scully (using the admittedly unfair strerotype of all
relationshippers being female).

Neither of these is the case in the majority of
relationshippers' lives. But it's amazing what one can do with a little
conjecture, isn't it? Just by suggesting these (admittedly ludicrous - at
least the 2nd one is) theories, I'm sure I'll get tonnes of flames from
people who read them and sent off a scathing reply without finishing
reading the rest of the post.

> A real relationship (except very young newlyweds) does not
> revolve, in most instances, around sex. (Or even romance.)

I agree. Most such relationships are called (pause for a big
breath) "PLATONIIC". Which is how the "anti-relationshippers" see M &
S (We're working on a new name, because we say M & S DO have a wonderful,
non-sexual, non-romantic, relationship. We say the "r" word does not
preclude a non-sexual friendship).

> It's a big part, but not the whole. It involves caring and
> support, patience and being able to overlook whole bunches of
> bad habits. Mulder and Scully already exhibit a lot of this.

Exactly. Now this is where the two factions (not 'for lack of a
better word'; there IS no better word for it than 'factions', IMHO)
differ. WE are familliar with *non-sexual friendships* where we give
other people support, caring, and overlook bad/annoying habits. Are you
suggesting that your friends are all perfect and only your mate requires
these things? If that's true, then it doesn't sound like you have formed
very deep friendships with anyone beyond your spouse/SO.

But I doubt this is the case. Instead, you may feel that the
same 'friend' relationships you have with someone of the same sex are
unworkable with someone of the opposite sex. If so, all I can say is I
think that you're limiting yourself and missing out on some great
friendships.

> Why does a sexual relationship have to get in the way of their
> work?

Why does it have to be the end result of a male-female
friendship?

And why does the show necessarily have to be about this
> relationship, should it occur? It doesn't. But, as Kristel
> said, we'd like it at least acknowledged occasionally.

WHY? If, Carter forbid, such a thing should happen, why do you
have to know about it? Why do you have to see it? Is it some deep-seated
voyerism that only TV, the electric peepshow, brings out in people? I
have relationshipper friends who simply say that M & S are happily
practicing their Kama Sutra in the back-ground, and that since it never
has to do with the plot of the show (which is principally, despite how
much I like character development, the investigation of paranormal or
bizarre cases), we never see it. They're content to sit back and believe
they are right (while, as they well know, I'm content to sit back and
believe they're nuts... but that's another story.. :)... why do you
*have* to see it onscreen, despite the fact that it may have no place in
the plot of the episode?

> This is not a criticism of those who oppose a romantic bond.

> They have their arguments, and mostly good ones. I'm just

Now wait a minute... you basically say that platonicists are
frigid, oedipus/electra complex ridden, emotional infants, but it's not
meant as a criticism?!?!?! I'd hate to see how you 'flame' people.

> really curious to see if there is any correlation between
> youth (and/or the lack of involvement in a long-term
> relationship) and a reluctance to see Mom and Dad..er... excuse

That may be a key to our differing viewpoints: you may see M & S
as surrogate parents, who you want to 'keep together'... we tend (not
all, but many) to see it as more of a brother-sister relationship, hence
the repulsion of a sexual relationship between them. Now back to pop
psychology: could we say that most relationshippers are from so-called
'broken homes', where Mom & Dad *didn't* have a healthy sexual
relationship, and so they are longing for such a one between their
surrogate TV parents? We could, but it would be just as insulting and
unrelated to reality as your own suggestion.

While I cannot speak for fellow platonicists, I can quite clearly
state that I came from a family where my parents have a wonderful, caring
relationship in all respects. The thought that they had sex was never a
concept to raise repulsion; it was a natural fact of their relationship.
The romantic spark that my parents are lucky enough to have between them,
I do *not* see in the relationship between Mulder and Scully.

> me - Mulder and Scully get a little closer. I could very well
> be way off base. (There must be a connection, though. I'll
> find it!)
>

> elizabeth


One last note, that we've been ignoring: an observation that the
"natural result" of the experiences between Mulder and Scully is that
they fall in love and have a romantic/sexual relationship. That a man and
a woman working side by side under such conditions will 'naturally' turn
to each other for more than friendship.

Now that sounds familiar... hmm, where have I heard that before?
Let's see... oh my gosh, isn't that EXACTLY the rhetoric that used to be
used as justification for keeping women out of positions in law
enforcement, the military, the judicial system, etc? That a man and a
woman cannot work together in a stressful situation without their
hormones and fuzzy warm tender feelings overtaking them? Remember, it was
believed that women would 'distract' the men in such jobs, and they be
more concerned with each others' safety than with their jobs.

Unless you say that a Mulder & Scully in a sexual relationship
would still be able to put a civilian's safety ahead of each others'.
However, I can't see relationshippers being very happy if such a
situation arose on an episode.

Isn't it nice to be living in an enlightened age where such a
view of partnerships under stressful conditions has been discarded, where
people realize that men and women can be - gasp - FRIENDS just as easily
as they could be lovers?


So cool she's apparently frigid, and wondering if she can plug her toaster
into her electra complex without blowing her neurotic fuses,
Crunchy Frog

GravesPA2

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

<<I'll tell you this, though: I'm a writer (I live in LA. You have to be
one in order to get a drivers license) and I find it much more interesting
to write characters like Mulder and Scully THE WAY THEY ARE. I *do* think
sex will cheapen what they have.>>

Why would sex, which is a natural expression of love, cheapen a
relationship, if that relationship is based on love as relationshippers
believe it is? Platonic love is not automatically nobler or more valuable
than romantic love.

I, too am a writer. (It's not required by law, just by my inner drive
<g>). And I find it far more challenging to write about a mature, loving
and fulfilling relationship between a man and a woman who have the ability
to "have it all" than to let it remain in a constant state of unfulfilled
longing. You don't see the longing, therefore you don't desire a romantic
relationship between Mulder and Scully. I DO see the longing, therefore
I'm all for a more romantic, fulfilling relationship.

So we disagree. Is that a reason for all of the enmity that's arisen over
this subject? I think we can ALL agree that the mature thing to do in
this case is live and let live.

Paula G.

Crunchy Frog

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

On 15 May 1996, JimKing wrote:
> In article <4nd8sp$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com (Parateam)
> writes:

> >Hey, how dare you guys give us a name? Anti-relationshipper is not only
> a
> >mouthful, but implies something that we're not. We need a name, AR's
> >everywhere. Put on your thinking caps...
>

> How about "Celibacists" or "Abstinencers"? ;-)

No, that won't work. I'm not in any way opposed to Mulder or
Scully having sexual relationships... it's just that it wouldn't make any
sense to me for them to have such a relationship with each other.

In fact, I *really* would like to see poor Scully have a bit of
fun herself... after all, Skinner got to, Mulder got to, we're assuming
Bambi got to... but as GA put it, "Never in the history of Dana has Dana
scored." This is assuming, of course, that such a relationship would have
some bearing on the case or phenomena that is being investigated.
Otherwise, it would really have no reason for being shown.

Mary Aileen Buss

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

Eric Johns wrote:
>
> >>Hey, how dare you guys give us a name? Anti-relationshipper is not only
> >a
> >>mouthful, but implies something that we're not. We need a name, AR's
> >>everywhere. Put on your thinking caps...
> >>
> Oh, puh-lease? Must we descend into the petty. No one was labelling
> anyone. By the term anti-relationshipper, I meant that you are AGAINST the
> relationship...Is that not true?
>
> It was not a name, but a referrence to your POV on the subject...Must
> people be SO argumentative that they will attempt to turn any nit-picky
> point into a flame?
>
> Kristel
> kjo...@mail2.alliance.netThe trouble with "anti-relationshipper" as a label is that Scully and
Mulder clearly DO have a relationship, we're all just arguing about what
kind. "Anti-sexual-relationshipper" now THERE'S a mouthful! For
simplicity's sake, shall we just stick with "relationshipper" and
"non-relationshipper" (more neutral than "anti-")?

--Mary Aileen (hoping that we can all peaceably agree to disagree)

SteffD

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

In article <4ndlo4$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com >, From jim...@aol.com
(JimKing), the following was written:

> Jim, who hates the "Moonlighting" argument because it proves nothing.

Jim,

On that at least we can agree :-)

Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

On 16 May 1996, GravesPA2 wrote:
> <<I'll tell you this, though: I'm a writer (I live in LA. You have to be
> one in order to get a drivers license) and I find it much more interesting
> to write characters like Mulder and Scully THE WAY THEY ARE. I *do* think
> sex will cheapen what they have.>>
>
> Why would sex, which is a natural expression of love, cheapen a
> relationship, if that relationship is based on love as relationshippers
> believe it is? Platonic love is not automatically nobler or more valuable
> than romantic love.

No, but there *is* no romantic love between them. The love they share
(and I suspect the characters wouldn't voluntarily admit to loving each
other) is that of *friends* and partners. It's just as valid as romantic
love, just different. The existance of one doesn't necessiate the
existance of the other.

> to "have it all" than to let it remain in a constant state of unfulfilled
> longing. You don't see the longing, therefore you don't desire a romantic
> relationship between Mulder and Scully. I DO see the longing, therefore
> I'm all for a more romantic, fulfilling relationship.

Nope, I see no longing either. I see a deep and intimate friendship.
Make the actors the same sex and see if you'd still see the seeds of
romantic love.

> So we disagree. Is that a reason for all of the enmity that's arisen over
> this subject? I think we can ALL agree that the mature thing to do in
> this case is live and let live.

Good idea.

X-PHILE

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

Eric Johns (ejo...@mail.alliance.net) wrote:

: >>Hey, how dare you guys give us a name? Anti-relationshipper is not only
: >a
: >>mouthful, but implies something that we're not. We need a name, AR's
: >>everywhere. Put on your thinking caps...
: >>
: Oh, puh-lease? Must we descend into the petty. No one was labelling
: anyone. By the term anti-relationshipper, I meant that you are AGAINST the
: relationship...Is that not true?
: It was not a name, but a referrence to your POV on the subject...Must
: people be SO argumentative that they will attempt to turn any nit-picky
: point into a flame?

Relax! **HE WAS JOKING!!** (by which I mean that he was being funny while
bringing up a valid issue)

He *does* have a good point. I am NOT against M and S's relationship.
What a silly suggestion! Without their relationship, there would be no show.
(It's pretty hard to work with someone you don't talk too, isn't it?)
How can I be an anti-relationshipper when I watch the show *for* their
relationship? Without it, the show would not be worth my time. Where
else on TV can you see a relationship even remotely as mature and complex
as Mulder and Scully's?
Well, I won't repeat what others have said far more succinctly (Kudos
to Crunchy!). Suffice it to say:

I am not an anti-relationshipper,
I am a anti-ROMANCER!

And another thing, I thought the point of all this posting on M & S
romance was to have fun, clarify our respective positions, and learn to
respect each other's ingenuity if nothing else. Let's not turn this
into a hate fest, ok?


Crista Danae Shoop -linguist, x-phile, book addict, hopeful romantic-
"No debe importarnos tanto lo "Love is not love which alters when it
que uno quiera decir como lo alteration finds, or bends with the
que diga sin querer." remover to remove."
-San Manuel Bueno -Shakespeare

SteffD

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960515234818.29737 A-100000@fraser>, From
Crunchy Frog <awa...@sfu.ca>, the following was written:

> . WE are familliar with *non-sexual friendships* where we give
> other people support, caring, and overlook bad/annoying habits. Are
> you suggesting that your friends are all perfect and only your mate
> requires these things? If that's true, then it doesn't sound like you
> have formed very deep friendships with anyone beyond your spouse/SO.

Long, condescending posts containing comments like the above which are
not only ludicrous but deliberately insulting do your cause little
favours.

One of the things that is most patronizing about the above, and many
similar comments, is the implication from the antifaction that only
*they* are mature, sophisticated etc enough to appreciate the concept of
platonic love, and that because we don't think that the relationship in
*this* show demonstrates that concept we are somehow suggesting that
platonic love itself is impossible. This is patently absurd and no-one
has ever suggested that.

Why isn't it possible to discuss this without being flamed by the
antifaction? Can they *really* be so insecure in their beliefs that they
can't accept there might be 'extreme possibilities' in this case.

Most of us like a relatively quiet life, which was why many of us ceased
posting on this topic before. But I think that was a tactical mistake,
and *this* time we're not going away even if it means having to suffer
being flamed and insulted. We have just as much right as the antifaction
to express what we believe.

Bart Gerardi

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

ejo...@mail.alliance.net (Eric Johns) wrote:
>

Bart Gerardi

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

atb...@ix.netcom.com(Angela Boese) wrote:

>I agree 100%!!! I don't think that anyone wants to see Mulder try to
>cook Scully a romantic dinner at home, or watch Scully stand in front
>of a mirror trying on 10 different outfits for their big *date*.

This scene could be really funny though. If it were worked in a
non-romantic way (like they are going to the FBI ball together, or
something...)

>I don't want to see a scene where they admit their undying love to each
>other with violins and roses. This show will ALWAYS be about the
>files, but I think that it would be only a natural progression for
>there to be a MORE than platonic love between them.

I don't think there is any basis for a non-platonic relationship,
constant proximity with someone doesn't make you love them.

>Scully and Mulder have endured so much pain and horror together. If
>it's true that they only trust each other, why shouldn't they find
>solace and safety in each others arms? Scully is not, and in my
>opinion, has never been Mulder's surrogate sister. They are partners,
>and I think that the potential is there for them to be patners in every
>sense of the word.

Because the trust that you are referring to is a intellectual/physical
trust, not an emotional trust. Remember, Scully goes crying to her
mother every time something goes wrong, and Fox just does nothing. I am
not opposed to them having a relationship, I just don't think there is a
logical argument for it yet. It could be developed, but it can't just
happen with all that's gone so far...


Bart

--


========================================================================
Bart Gerardi All these views are mine...
Digital Equipment Corp.
Systems
Gera...@wmodev.enet.dec.com Trustno1
========================================================================

Serotonin Pete

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

> them...we just think that it is human nature that this should manifest
> itself as a romantic affiliation, since there is also an abiding physical
> attraction...how could there not be?

I remember watching the very first episode of the X-Files. The first
thing I was was a black screen which said something to the effect "The
following is based on a true story." Despite this inauspicious beginning,
it actually wasn't a half bad show, and by the third episode I was hooked.

But those days were scary. After episodes like "The Jersey Devil,"
whether this show would be on again was often more suspenseful than the
show itself. It was always being pre-empted by double episodes of Brisco
County Junior and the like. Like "Kindred" people today, we had no forum
of our own so we would post on Star Trek groups encouraging people to
watch it.

But those were good times too. Even though everyone thought you were
wierd if you liked the X-files, there was a strange satisfaction in
knowing you were one of the few paranoid enough to appreciate it. It was
unique in that it followed its own standards. Any other show would have
caved in and put Scully and Mulder in bed for a brief, temporary gain in
the ratings. But not X-files.

Indeed, because of it's standards to be different and well as excellent,
it survived, and eventually thrived. While I like the episodes better now
(there were some real turkeys first season that made Teso dos Bichos look
like a gem), it's popularity has taken something away from the X-files.
We are no longer a small cadre of fans who risk flaming and ridicule to
support a good, but struggling show. We now have a bunch of Melrose Place
rejects who want this show to be like every other peice of shit on TV.

I will always like X-Files, no matter what, even if Fox executives take
over the show and have Mulder and Scully sleeping with a new person/alien
each week. But I'm frightened for the show. I really am. But so far
Chris Carter shows no signs of giving in so there is hope.

<<< Serotonin Pete >>>

Parateam

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

<<OK. This is getting a trifle old, but here we go *again* :

Um...sorry to waste your time! <G!>

<<The point being made by those of us in favor of a more defined
relationship between them is simply this: in some
cases, it *does* lead to romantic and/or sexual relationship, and in this
particular case, it seems clearly to be heading in that direction.>>

Define "defined" (er, joke!). But seriously, it seems clearly to be
heading in that direction *to you*, and I wondered if you could elaborate
on *why*, because *I* feel that they already have a defined relationship.
Do you see romance as the ultimate definer (made-up word alert)?

<<All we look for is a more consistent acknowledgement
of what they mean to one another. We've gotten it periodically, and then
there are times when it's non-existent. This, to some extent, is par for
the course in any relationship.>>

Okay, I know you go on to say that this is TV and anything's possible, but
doesn't it make their relationship less realistic if we have to approach
it in the guise of "this is just a TV show"?

<<I don't think anyone is denying that the relationship is mature. We
simply want to see a bit more of it.>>

Thed my cake.

<<And if absolutely nothing else, does this have to be so venomous?>>

Hmm...didn't think it was! We're discussing, right? Venom spews both
ways, unfortunately. This stuff doesn't piss me off at all! I rather
like discussing it. But if nobody else wants to then we shouldn't,
because it would be boring discussing the pro's and con's of a
relationship with myself. Although, come to think of it, at least I'd
always agree with myself.

<<We're simply making our voice heard as people that would support and
enjoy the idea of Mulder and Scully having a romantic relationship of some
kind.>>

And we're countering that with *our* opinions. Hence, the Discussion
(which *does* deserve to be capitalized now, don't you think??).

This post was meant to be mostly flippant, not mean!!

Jennifer Ann Whitton

unread,
May 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/16/96
to

> Thanks for your thoughtful post on the "relationship." I've always
> thought it's funny that the "relationshippers" seem to be totally focused
> on the sexual part of the relationship, believing sex is the only area
> left to explore, and they assume that it could only be handled (or
> mishandled) just llike everything else on TV (the "Moonlighting"
> argument).

Know what's weird? I consider myself a relationshipper (who doesn't want
anything to happen *on* the show, except for lots and lots of UST...I like
fanfic...) and I can't figure something out. It seems to me that the people
who keep bringing up sex are the so-called anti-relationshipers. I keep
hearing "shippers" say relationship, in my mind implying feelings and
intimacy. not necessarily physical so much as emotional and spiritual.
(sounds cheesy..I know. :p) And non-shippers assume that means sex.
<shrug> Am I mssing something?

Jen
je...@gladstone.uoregon.edu


Eric Johns

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

>But those were good times too. Even though everyone thought you were
>wierd if you liked the X-files, there was a strange satisfaction in
>knowing you were one of the few paranoid enough to appreciate it. It was
>unique in that it followed its own standards. Any other show would have
>caved in and put Scully and Mulder in bed for a brief, temporary gain in
>the ratings. But not X-files.
>
>Indeed, because of it's standards to be different and well as excellent,
>it survived, and eventually thrived. While I like the episodes better now
>(there were some real turkeys first season that made Teso dos Bichos look
>like a gem), it's popularity has taken something away from the X-files.
>We are no longer a small cadre of fans who risk flaming and ridicule to
>support a good, but struggling show. We now have a bunch of Melrose Place
>rejects who want this show to be like every other peice of shit on TV.
>
>I will always like X-Files, no matter what, even if Fox executives take
>over the show and have Mulder and Scully sleeping with a new person/alien
>each week. But I'm frightened for the show. I really am. But so far
>Chris Carter shows no signs of giving in so there is hope.

It comes to my attention that there is a great deal of misunderstanding as
to what exactly it is that we "relationshippers" want in the show. To say
that we want Mulder and Scully to simply fall into bed together like would
happen on any other show on TV is unfair, and patently untrue...One of the
reasons we 'shippers have kept to ourselves for so long is because every
time we dare to bring our opinions forth, we get words that we never spoke
shoved into our mouths and then we get flamed for them...

Allow me to clarify.

There is not a single person I have come accross, the the xf-romantics list
or elsewhere, that can truly fall into the classification "relationshipper"
who wants to see Mulder and Scully indulge in cheap sex. They are about SO
much more than that. Sure, the fanfic abounds with it, but I have already
mentioned, emphatically, that what we want is NOT necessarily what is
depicted in the fanfic, so please do not make those comparisons.

Allow me, here and now, to dispell the idea that to us, "relationship" =
"sex". While, yes, sex would be an inherent part of what we wish to see
between Mulder and Scully, we are looking for something more
all-encompassing. Let's face it...on TV, cheap affairs are a dime a
dozen...The appeal of the X-Files is that it DOES dare to be different...so
why this insistence that the only way to avoid falling into the ratings
trap that comsummating a relationship rife with romantic tension creates is
to avoid romance all together? Why not handle the romance in a way that no
one handles romance? Why not create a relationship that would blow
people's minds?

The attraction that we 'shippers see as existing between Mulder and Scully
exists on all levels--the intellectual (most of Mulder's flirty lines
happen when Scully is at her brainiest...,) the emotional, and yes, the
physical. We wish to see their relationship reflect all of this--the
abiding respect, the fact that in their quest their lives and souls have
become inextricably bound together, the attraction, the trust, the
affection--we wish to see all this commingled in a manner of relationship
that surpasses any seen on television these days. We do not want the
standard TV fling, rife with lust and angst afterwards...we want what those
other shows barely manage to scratch the surface of.

We see hints of this bonding process in the show as it exists now, and we
are greatly encouraged by the promise that there will be a "deepening" of
Mulder and Scully's partnership. We are not even asking for immediate
gratification in this matter--we are enjoying the UST too much, and we hope
that it will continue to grow and develop. But we do feel that eventually,
there will come a time when the relationship must move to that next level,
that it must develop into a romance based on the love and trust and
admiration and attraction that we see between them and have seen all along.
We feel that this evolution of the relationship by necessity must, as one
of its lesser points, include sex, simply because there comes a point in
such a bonding where there is nowhere left to go but to dedicate your
entire being, heart, mind, body, and soul, to the desires and welfare of
your counterpart.

This dedication does NOT, contrary to any rumor that WILL EVER exist, have
to preclude the quest that set all this in motion in the first place...they
would not take their attention from the quest to dote on one another. If
anything, they would be even more drive on the quest. Remember, they want
the same thing...to take the relationship to that level would only enforce
that desire, because then, they would want it not only for themselves, but
for each other.

It is the manifestation of this bond, of utter trust and dedication, which
we wish to see reflected in the show. But I cannot emphasize strongly
enough that we do not wish to be inundated with it on the show. None of us
wants the "Mulder and Scully Romance Hour." No one has ever stated such a
thing, and it is the rankest, most arrogant form of presumtion to imply
that we have! We DO NOT wish for the relationship to consume the show. We
mrely want the occasional glimpse of it, because there is a brand of purity
in such dedication and committment and devotion that would contrast
wonderfully and add the tiniest light of hope to a show where the miracles
of nature and science are continually twisted and tainted by the
mechinations of man and monster. After all, in a loving relationship, and
yes, we TRULY believe that Mulder and Scully are deeply in love, what more
pure expression of trust and devotion is there than making love?

If, somehow, we 'shippers seem to place an emphasis on the physical side of
the Mulder/Scully relationship, it is because it is easier to grasp onto
the obvious than to take the time to go into an in-depth explanation as to
what we see and what we would like to see. However, I know that there is
not a single person on the xf-romantics mailing list who has equated a
Mulder/Scully one night stand with the relationship that we wish to see.
Whoever said such a thing I do not think could be called a relationshipper
in any form of the word. There is so much more to it than sex, but in a
sex-centered society, I guess that is all most people want to see...

I hope that this will clarify the relationshipper POV and put an end to the
petty bickering as to what constitutes a relationship.

Kristel
kjo...@mail2.alliance.net

Join the X-Files Relationshippers Mailing List!

to subscribe, send e-mail to majo...@chaos.taylored.com

TwoSpooky

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

Dare I say...this is why relationshippers started staying away
from the newsgroup in the first place? There's a rather large mailing
list full of people -- xf-romantics -- afraid to come over here and
discuss their favorite tv show for fear of being insulted and flamed!
And that's exactly what's happening right now. I guess this does prove
that X-Files fandom is a big thing, since it seems to have its own
unique brand of the petty crap that goes along with every bonafide
fandom... *sigh*

Come on, guys. I can debate the question of whether or not M&S should/
could/would ever fall in love (and yes, I am a relationshipper -- if we
must put stickers on our foreheads) all night long. But what's been
insinuated here is that wanting and/or *seeing* the development of a
romantic relationship between M&S means that one is immature and
somehow emotionally stunted. That's not only not nice, it's not true,
either.

Sure, men and women can be close friends without being in love with
each other. I don't think any of us ever denied that. It's just that
those of us who like the idea of a M&S romantic relationship don't see
that here. I know *I* see a developing relationship which, though
it is platonic now, *need* not always remain so. (And I think there is
a difference between being platonic in a physical sense and being
platonic in an emotional sense...)

Also, there comes a point at which the line between loving and being
"in love" does blur. There's no question that M&S *love* each other.
Whether they are, or ever could be, "in love" is a separate question.
But, as I said, the line does blur... and what is being "in love," if
not deep trust + deep affection + (yes)sexual tension? Seems to me
that they've got all three.

JMHO...

Parateam

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

<<Oh, puh-lease? Must we descend into the petty. No one was labelling
anyone. By the term anti-relationshipper, I meant that you are AGAINST
the
relationship...Is that not true?>>

GEEZ!!!!!!!! This is my problem with relationshippers. They can't take a
joke! I was being glib!! SORRY! It won't happen again!! Geez...

And I am *not* against *a* relationship! I happen to think that the one
they have now is just fine.

Parateam

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

<<One of the things that is most patronizing about the above, and many
similar comments, is the implication from the antifaction that only
*they* are mature, sophisticated etc enough to appreciate the concept of
platonic love, and that because we don't think that the relationship in
*this* show demonstrates that concept we are somehow suggesting that
platonic love itself is impossible. This is patently absurd and no-one has
ever suggested that.>>

Okay, hold the phone here. The whole reason that the *idea* of who was
more *mature* about the relationship or lack thereof came from a
Relationshipper who wondered if us anti's were immature because we
couldn't see the possibilities for a romantic relationship. So -- you
guys started it.

Oh, and why are we now the *anti-faction*? Really, we're trying to get
away from being anti anything. ;-)

Parateam

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

Crunchy Frog writes oh so eloquently:

<<Isn't it nice to be living in an enlightened age where such a view of
partnerships under stressful conditions has been discarded, where people
realize that men and women can be - gasp - FRIENDS just as easily as they
could be lovers?>>

I'd snip the whole post, but you've all gone there already. <G>

To me, logic does not dictate that two partners will inevitably fall into
a romantic relationship. I find that argument to be weak, unfounded and
completely unsubstantiated.

Paula G writes:

<<Why would sex, which is a natural expression of love, cheapen a
relationship, if that relationship is based on love as relationshippers
believe it is? Platonic love is not automatically nobler or more valuable
than romantic love.>>

And romantic love is not automatically nobler or more valuable than
platonic love. I don't think that sex is the end-all to a relationship,
romantic or otherwise. Can respect be considered a natural expression of
love? And you say platonic love later in the above paragraph, but you
deny us anti's the idea that there is any love there at all. Just
wondering, what is your definition of platonic love?

<<And I find it far more challenging to write about a mature, loving and

fulfilling relationship between a man and a woman who have the ability to


"have it all" than to let it remain in a constant state of unfulfilled
longing.>>

I find it challenging to write about a mature, loving and fulfilling
relationship between a man and a woman, too. I just don't like the
inevitability of sex. I don't feel that a "mature relationship" always
ends at sex. I find it to be a cheap cop-out in movies, like the woman
ending up being a prize for the hero.

Before you flame me, I know that you all believe that sex will deepen
their relationship (we can agree that they have one, no?). I have seen
little evidence to support that conclusion. We agree to disagree on that
point.

What exactly do you want? Some say that they want the relationship to be
the corner-stone of the series, some say they want it to be in the
background, some say sex doesn't even have to be involved at all, which
confuses the heck out of me. Just wondered if you could take a poll or
something. ;-)

<<I think we can ALL agree that the mature thing to do in
this case is live and let live.>>

Yeah, me too, but I really want to know WHY you want it the way you do.
I'm really curious. Really.

Rebecca Eschliman

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

<< excuse me while I go write some fanfic... >>

While you're at it, how about an extension of your "Paperwork" series dealing
with the "Wetwired" Scully-trashes-the-hotel-room explanations?

- rje -

And then there was a star danced, and under that was I born...


Crunchy Frog

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

On 16 May 1996, SteffD wrote:
> In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960515234818.29737 A-100000@fraser>, From
> Crunchy Frog <awa...@sfu.ca>, the following was written:

> > . WE are familliar with *non-sexual friendships* where we give
> > other people support, caring, and overlook bad/annoying habits. Are
> > you suggesting that your friends are all perfect and only your mate
> > requires these things? If that's true, then it doesn't sound like you
> > have formed very deep friendships with anyone beyond your spouse/SO.
>

> Long, condescending posts containing comments like the above which are
> not only ludicrous but deliberately insulting do your cause little
> favours.

Your eloquence is only matched by your editing ability. But
before you get so indignant, let's look at what you CONVENIENTLY snipped
from my post...

<I can't help it... I have a newsreader that automatically saves a copy
of everything I mail & post.. it's a nice little feature for when people
like to mis-quote or "selectively quote" you...>

start excerpt-------------------------------------------------------

<snip>


other people support, caring, and overlook bad/annoying habits. Are you
suggesting that your friends are all perfect and only your mate requires
these things? If that's true, then it doesn't sound like you have formed
very deep friendships with anyone beyond your spouse/SO.

But I doubt this is the case. Instead, you may feel that the
same 'friend' relationships you have with someone of the same sex are
unworkable with someone of the opposite sex. If so, all I can say is I
think that you're limiting yourself and missing out on some great
friendships.

end excerpt--------------------------------------------------------

Now lookie here... conveniently, the whole paragraph that started
with "But I doubt this is the case" seems to be missing from your
quote.... If your newsreader somehow managed to be missing such part of
my post, and you'd like to read the whole thing, I can certainly send you
a copy. I'm *SURE* you wouldn't have, well, edited it out on purpose just
so your complaint would sound better. And the fact that the majority of
the post was in reply to a suggestion that the so-callled
'antirelationshippers' are immature and unable of comprehending complex
adult relationships seems to also be conveniently lost in your response.

And the second paragraph says "you may feel that the same friend
relationships... If so, all I can say..." I hope I don't have to
capitalize and underline and asterisk the words "may" and "If so" for you
to notice them.

> One of the things that is most patronizing about the above, and many
> similar comments, is the implication from the antifaction that only
> *they* are mature, sophisticated etc enough to appreciate the concept of
> platonic love, and that because we don't think that the relationship in
> *this* show demonstrates that concept we are somehow suggesting that
> platonic love itself is impossible. This is patently absurd and no-one
> has ever suggested that.

I beg to differ. There have been more than one post that said
that a sexual or romantic relationship is the 'only natural progression'
of the things Mulder & Scully have experienced together. (I find it
interesting that these posts didn't say it was the 'natural progression'
of Mulder & Scully's personalities, regardless of their situation... that
old nature vs nurture debate...) All the things that are being used as
evidence that M & S are in love are also evidence for a deep, platonic
friendship - I have yet to see anything that speaks of romance to me. I
guess that since some people hold this evidence up as proving M & S
really do love eachother, it suggests to us non-romantics that they can't
see a platonic relationship with the same qualities.

If you can understand deep platonic-love relationships, then all
power to you. Now explain to us just what it is about M & S's
relationship that makes you feel it is 'beyond' platonic? We're not being
flippant when we ask this; we really do want to know what it is you see.
But all that has been posted has been that M & S have a caring, trusting,
respectful relationship. That's old news.

> Why isn't it possible to discuss this without being flamed by the
> antifaction? Can they *really* be so insecure in their beliefs that they
> can't accept there might be 'extreme possibilities' in this case.

Flaming? I love how people cry 'flaming' whenever the discussion
heats up. Please note that everytime I gave a "pop psychology" theory, I
followed it up by stating how ludicrous it was. It was to illustrate the
insulting and childish namecalling that had started with the original
post, which was calling into question the maturity of non-romantics.

> Most of us like a relatively quiet life, which was why many of us ceased
> posting on this topic before. But I think that was a tactical mistake,
> and *this* time we're not going away even if it means having to suffer
> being flamed and insulted. We have just as much right as the antifaction
> to express what we believe.

Perhaps that's part of the problem for non-romantics and
relatioshipper in seeing eye-to-eye: tactics are for wars and battles. We
want a discussion. Without the name-calling, without the hissy fits of
offended dignity (OK, I have to admit, I have my hissy fits and I'll
continue to have them... I do my best work when I'm in a snit :) and
perhaps, just maybe, listening to people's views before judging them. Or
editing them for that matter.

Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

On Thu, 16 May 1996, Jennifer Ann Whitton wrote:
> who keep bringing up sex are the so-called anti-relationshipers. I keep
> hearing "shippers" say relationship, in my mind implying feelings and
> intimacy. not necessarily physical so much as emotional and spiritual.
> (sounds cheesy..I know. :p) And non-shippers assume that means sex.
> <shrug> Am I mssing something?

They already have a perfectly wonderful emotional and spiritual (platonic)
relationship. The majority of the people who have been wanting to see
'something more' have been talking about adding romance to the equation.
On television, romance pretty much equals sex.

Sandra Ballasch

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

My objection is to the tone of this discussion and not the sex vs no-sex
argument for the characters. There has been a firm (and IMO rudely
stated) assumption by one group (for want of a better term -
relationshippers) that the other group (again, for want of a better term -
antirelationshippers) is either warped/cowardly/maladjusted - take your
pick - because we (or I since I can't really speak for anyone else on this
issue) see the current state of affairs as both mature and realistic. For
me this is part of the attraction of the show BECAUSE it is realistic and
more like real life than what happens on most television or in the movies.
I think Carter, et al, have offered us a giant accolade by assuming that
we can deal with a show that mixes fantasy (the plotlines) and reality
(the way the characters interact with each other and the world around
them) in a highly skilled manner.

Again IMO.

Sandra Ballasch

On Thu, 16 May 1996, Jennifer Ann Whitton wrote:

> > Thanks for your thoughtful post on the "relationship." I've always
> > thought it's funny that the "relationshippers" seem to be totally focused
> > on the sexual part of the relationship, believing sex is the only area
> > left to explore, and they assume that it could only be handled (or
> > mishandled) just llike everything else on TV (the "Moonlighting"
> > argument).
>
> Know what's weird? I consider myself a relationshipper (who doesn't want
> anything to happen *on* the show, except for lots and lots of UST...I like
> fanfic...) and I can't figure something out. It seems to me that the people

> who keep bringing up sex are the so-called anti-relationshipers. I keep
> hearing "shippers" say relationship, in my mind implying feelings and
> intimacy. not necessarily physical so much as emotional and spiritual.
> (sounds cheesy..I know. :p) And non-shippers assume that means sex.
> <shrug> Am I mssing something?
>

> Jen
> je...@gladstone.uoregon.edu
>
>
>

TwoSpooky

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

>our main point of interest is the spiritual bond between
>them...we just think that it is human nature that this should manifest
>itself as a romantic affiliation, since there is also an abiding physical
>attraction...how could there not be?
>
>Kristel

Hear, hear!! I agree completely.

As for the rest of this ridiculous flaming and name-calling...

Oy.

Why is this such a sensitive topic? (Yes, I am asking a real, *not*
a rhetorical, question.) I'm just curious as to why everyone has
such strong opinions about this (yes, myself included)... I just find
it interesting that (with a few notable exceptions) the M&S romance idea
is either loved passionately or hated passionately. It's just curious
how bitterly factionalized XF fandom is over this issue... We can't
seem to have a calm, *rational* discussion. I find this disturbing...
and I don't think it serves *either* side -- since both have done it --
to make insulting pseudo-psychoanalytic diagnoses in place of real
argument!

Maybe the real reason that this discussion seems to have degenerated
into dime-store psychoanalysis is because there is a *fundamental*
difference between so-called "relationshippers" and "anti-
relationshippers" as to *how* the M&S relationship is viewed. Different
people react to the characters in very different ways, and what one
person might take as a sign of UST, another won't.

I liked the suggestion (I forget who made it) that CC might be keeping
the exact nature of M&S's relationship deliberately ambiguous. That's
a very likely possibility.

Different people, with different personalities, will see different
things, since there *is* a fundamental vagueness/ambiguity as to
exactly *what* M&S are, or could become, to each other. Interpretations
will vary. That doesn't make one more psychologically sound or more
mature than the other -- so let's quit insulting each other, huh?

Shanna Swendson

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960514210614.24918B-100000@fraser>, Crunchy Frog
<awa...@sfu.ca> wrote:


> Men and women can be friends without being in love with
> each other. Men and women can be attractive people, and be friends without
> being in love with each other. Men and women can be attractive people, be
> friends, and have deep-seated trust for each other without being in love
> with each other. Men and women can be attractive people, be friends, have
> a deep-seated trust for each other, and joke about the various uses of
> dessert topping WITHOUT BEING IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER.


AMEN, sister!!!!! (Rest of well-articulated, brilliant arguments deleted)

I think it was this unique relationship that truly hooked me into the
show. It seems like any show that has men and women working together
either has them fight all the time and hate each other, denies that the
woman is a woman (she's one of the guys and tougher than any man -- a
staple on cop shows), or, most commonly, develops a romantic relationship.

Maybe I've just happened to work in boring offices, but the places I've
worked are nothing like what I see on TV. Television would have you
believe the workplace is a hotbed of lust and sex.

I've had a number of very close friendships with male co-workers who were
very much aware that I was female. We tease and flirt some, respect each
other and stand up for each other. I'd never seen that portrayed on
television -- until the X-Files.

Now, why take something that unique and turn it into the banal by turning
it into something that has been done and done again?

And please note, I'm not anti-romance in general. I'm a romance
novelist. But when I want a good romance, I'll read a romance. I don't
want it in my X-Files.

Shanna

Kristel S. Johns

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

> OR, we could say they're all sexually frustrated and want to live
>out a vicarious affair with Mulder <or DD> through the a romance between
>him and Scully (using the admittedly unfair strerotype of all
>relationshippers being female).
>

Not only is this unfair, it is patently untrue. We have a surprising number
men on the xf-romantics mailing list--they are among our most ardent
relationshippers.

>> A real relationship (except very young newlyweds) does not
>> revolve, in most instances, around sex. (Or even romance.)
>
> I agree. Most such relationships are called (pause for a big
>breath) "PLATONIIC". Which is how the "anti-relationshippers" see M &
>S (We're working on a new name, because we say M & S DO have a wonderful,
>non-sexual, non-romantic, relationship. We say the "r" word does not
>preclude a non-sexual friendship).
>

We think that as well...we think they have a wonderful friendship. We like to see
that friendship. But we do believe that, with the romantic chemistry that
exists between them, by the fact that they complement each other by the
very virtue of their opposite natures, that they balance each other out,
and that they do have a sexual chemistry between them, that the relationship
could successfully evolve into a romance without a negative consequences to
the show. The writers of The X-Files may be the only writers on television
with the talent to create such a romantic relationship without falling into
the traps that have always existed. I want to see them try. I have explained
WHY I feel Mulder and Scully belong together, but I am not going to sit here
and psychoanylize for you to try to determine why it is that I look for
such things in the first place. The fact remains that I see them. I seen
a strong emotional attachment coupled with a physical interest and their
shared history, their commitment to their quest, that to me, translates into
love. A love that, is for the moment, platonic, but doesn't HAVE to stay
that way. It could easily become more, much more than anything we have
ever seen on television. That is what I want: I want a romance the likes
of which most shows only dream of creating, where the romance does not
wind up in domestic bliss, or in intolerable angst, where the sizzling
chemistry does not obscure the point to the show.

Consider it a challenge.

>> Why does a sexual relationship have to get in the way of their
>> work?
>
> Why does it have to be the end result of a male-female
>friendship?
>

It doesn't, nor have we ever claimed that it does. But we believe that
with these two, the makings are there and should be acted upon. This is
precisely what I was speaking of when I said that there are words being
shoved into our mouths which we never spoke.

> And why does the show necessarily have to be about this
>> relationship, should it occur? It doesn't. But, as Kristel
>> said, we'd like it at least acknowledged occasionally.
>
> WHY? If, Carter forbid, such a thing should happen, why do you
>have to know about it? Why do you have to see it? Is it some deep-seated
>voyerism that only TV, the electric peepshow, brings out in people? I
>have relationshipper friends who simply say that M & S are happily
>practicing their Kama Sutra in the back-ground, and that since it never
>has to do with the plot of the show (which is principally, despite how
>much I like character development, the investigation of paranormal or
>bizarre cases), we never see it. They're content to sit back and believe
>they are right (while, as they well know, I'm content to sit back and
>believe they're nuts... but that's another story.. :)... why do you
>*have* to see it onscreen, despite the fact that it may have no place in
>the plot of the episode?
>

Personally, I am not looking to have this romance on the show to fulfill
any lack in my own life, I simply care about the characters, insomuch as
I am capable of caring about two fictional characters, and believe that there
lies a great creative and dramatic challenge to be fulfilled.

> One last note, that we've been ignoring: an observation that the
>"natural result" of the experiences between Mulder and Scully is that
>they fall in love and have a romantic/sexual relationship. That a man and
>a woman working side by side under such conditions will 'naturally' turn
>to each other for more than friendship.
>
> Now that sounds familiar... hmm, where have I heard that before?
>Let's see... oh my gosh, isn't that EXACTLY the rhetoric that used to be
>used as justification for keeping women out of positions in law
>enforcement, the military, the judicial system, etc? That a man and a
>woman cannot work together in a stressful situation without their
>hormones and fuzzy warm tender feelings overtaking them? Remember, it was
>believed that women would 'distract' the men in such jobs, and they be
>more concerned with each others' safety than with their jobs.
>
> Unless you say that a Mulder & Scully in a sexual relationship
>would still be able to put a civilian's safety ahead of each others'.
>However, I can't see relationshippers being very happy if such a
>situation arose on an episode.
>

I say that this is exactly what can, and must happen. We have stated over
and over that just because they were to become involved in such a manner, it
MUST NOT consume the work of the characters nor the direction of the show.
Scully could never accept Mulder putting her ahead of the safety of the
civilian population, or vise versa, because for him to do so would be
against the nature of the character, with whom she is in love. It
would be a dilemma, but they are consummate professionals, and they would
not have to allow the relationship to distract them, now skew their
priorities towards their duty.

> Isn't it nice to be living in an enlightened age where such a
>view of partnerships under stressful conditions has been discarded, where
>people realize that men and women can be - gasp - FRIENDS just as easily
>as they could be lovers?
>

Why the sarcasm? You have not been attacked. Why can't we keep this a
peaceful, intelligent conversation without the taint of malice? I'm
striving to do so--why are others not capable of the same?

Kristel


munc...@netcom.com

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.960515...@bayou.uh.edu>,
Julia Kosatka <ju...@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote:


>On 15 May 1996, SteffD wrote:

>> You can't prove a point by making poor analogies - which is what
>> 'Moonlighting' is. And it has been hashed over many times before.
>
>Just because it's been pointed out before, doesn't change the fact.
>

The DDEB fights among itself...

Julia, I have to support Steff here.

The reason I think "Moonlighting" is a poor and irrelevant analogy is
that the whole *point* of Moonlighting was the sexual tension between the
lead characters. The story was never really about the mysteries--it was
about the Blue Moon detective agency and the quirky, romantic, funny
people who ran it/staffed it. Ditto "Cheers", the other TV show people
love to compare X-Files to. Cheers had one and only one premise: Sam
and Diane were mad for each other--how long could they hold out?

Both of the aforementioned shows were romantic comedies. They were never
supposed to focus on anything beyond the sexual tension. Once the
sexual tension went, the shows collapsed (for some of us) like a balloon
with a leak. I think a better comparison with The X-Files would be
another dramatic series: "Hill Street Blues", which had two of the
principal characters involved in a passionate affair from day one. The
X-Files is constrained from doing this more by the lack of a large cast
than by anything else.

The X-Files, however, unlike most TV dramas, is plot-driven. When the
relationship is incorporated into that plot, as in "Tooms", it serves to
cement *our* relationship to the characters even as it advances the story.
If Mulder's relationship to Scully had been merely platonic, much of the
dramatic power of "One Breath" would have gone out the window.

Bottom line for an ongoing episodic melodrama: viewers come back for the
characters. This has been proven time and time and time and time again
in the ratings. People watch "ER" for the characters, not to learn the
details of a bowel resection. People watch "The X-Files" to see *these*
two characters solve mysteries, not just any two random investigators.
And if these two characters are smart, sexy, and available, the
inevitable happens in the minds of viewers. Maybe it will never happen
onscreen. I agree with the poster who said a really *grownup* sexual
relationship has never been attempted on television (no, I'm not talking
about sex here). But the reasons for not having Mulder and Scully
romantically involved have nothing to do with the realities of human
behavior we all know and understand. It has to do with the commercial
and artificial constraints of network television. If "The X-Files" was a
movie and not an ongoing series, Mulder and Scully would be conducting a
passionate affair under Skinner's very nose. But this would give the
show an emotional closure an ongoing series cannot afford.

And for the poster who complained that having the leads romantically
involved was just old hat--so what? The reason it's a cliche is because
it has *been* satisfying audiences for thousands of years. It reinforces
our understanding of the way people really behave, which is what drama is
all about.

Julia, you know I'm not picking on you personally. I'm just standing on
your post to make my stump speech. I'll get down now. :D Thanks.

Your sister in squidge,

Sarah Stegall

munc...@netcom.com

unread,
May 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/17/96
to

You know, the longer I read this thread, the more the question arises in
my tiny little mind:

Why the hell is everyone so afraid of sex?

The relationshippers bend over backwards to say they prefer Mulder and
Scully in a sexual relationship. The anti-relationshippers equate sex
between the two as something slightly less degrading than heroin
addiction and child molestation.

Sex is surely not something to apologize for, snicker about, or talk about
behind one's hands. As an expression of desire, it celebrates the
physical body as well as the mind. Are we really all such complete
victims of Western culture's all pervading mind/body spiritual split that
we truly believe an intellectual relationship is somehow superior to one
that also incorporates physical expressions of love?

Everyone pays pious lip service to the *idea* that sex can be a natural
and beautiful thing, but everything I have read in here, from both sides
of the question, seems to me to be denying that. Personally, I think it
is latent Puritanism.

****************************************************************
Sarah Stegall*http://www.webcom.com/munchkyn*munc...@netcom.com
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like his passengers...
****************************************************************

Andre Bridget

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

I think that you protest too much. Scully and Mulder have to keep
their relationship on a professional basis because at the first hint of
anything more personal Skinner would have to break up the team. Do you
really believe that the Review Boards we have seen popping up from time
to time wouldn't require the split? See what they did to Skinner three
weeks ago? The FBI does not allow agents significant others to work in
the same offices. Now if Mulder and Scully finally get fed up and tell
the Bureau where to put it then join the Lone Gunman we could see a more
than a mutual admiration society relationship.

-
AJ_is_A_Fannish_Mom JVQ...@prodigy.com

Jonathan Day

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

SteffD (10057...@compuserve.com) wrote:
: ....is that they will *insist* on bringing up the same old hoary
: irrelevant comparisons like 'Moonlighting' when they want to explain why
: a mature adult relationship between the two protagonists can NEVER be
: done on television.

What's irrelevent about saying that TV companies haven't got a particularly
brilliant record on such matters?

To be honest, I /don't/ want there to be any on-screen relationship. What
the characters do between episodes is their concern, but, personally, I
find visually sexual elements in anything (especially sci-fi!) highly
unpleasent. If they must, they must. I'll just have to find something
else to watch. There's no shortage of surreal, spooky, relationship-free
sci-fi, after all.

IMHO, CC is doing a good job trying to balance all the different sides,
giving all the fans as much of what they want as he can. Whatever
people say about what he's done, I hope CC gets credit for trying
to consider the feelings of /everyone/.

Parateam

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

Kristel writes in response to (what I consider to be) a thoughtless post:

<<Why not create a relationship that would blow people's minds?>>

I thought they'd already done that!

<<We wish to see their relationship reflect all of this--the
abiding respect, the fact that in their quest their lives and souls have
become inextricably bound together, the attraction, the trust, the
affection--we wish to see all this commingled in a manner of relationship
that surpasses any seen on television these days.>>

Isn't this what we already see?

<<We feel that this evolution of the relationship by necessity must, as
one of its lesser points, include sex, simply because there comes a point
in such a bonding where there is nowhere left to go but to dedicate your
entire being, heart, mind, body, and soul, to the desires and welfare of
your counterpart.>>

So...the relationship will continue along the way it's been going, but
they'll be having sex? I'm sorry, but I just can't see *what* changes you
want to make to the relationship other than the addition of sexual
intimacy. I'm not flaming you here, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm
just asking for some clarity. It seems like whenever the relationshippers
are quizzed about what they want to happen between Mulder and Scully, they
heatedly deny the sex angle but are too vague to be able to explain in
concise terms what exactly would make them happy.

<<It is the manifestation of this bond, of utter trust and dedication,
which we wish to see reflected in the show.>>

Manifested in what way?

<<We mrely want the occasional glimpse of it, because there is a brand of
purity in such dedication and committment and devotion that would contrast
wonderfully and add the tiniest light of hope to a show where the miracles
of nature and science are continually twisted and tainted by the
mechinations of man and monster.>>

Their relationship is already *pure* in its dedication, commitment and
devotion. I feel that it already sets off the "machinations of man and
monster".

<<After all, in a loving relationship, and yes, we TRULY believe that
Mulder and Scully are deeply in love, what more pure expression of trust
and devotion is there than making love?>>

This conflicts with your earlier statement, that sex is a lesser part of
their potential relationship. And again, here we sit at cross-purposes,
because you believe that sex is *the* pure expression of trust and
devotion while we believe that their commitment to each other lies in
other arenas. We also split hairs on "in love" and "love". I believe
that Mulder and Scully do "love" each other, but that they are not "in
love" with each other.

<<If, somehow, we 'shippers seem to place an emphasis on the physical side


of the Mulder/Scully relationship, it is because it is easier to grasp
onto the obvious than to take the time to go into an in-depth explanation
as to what we see and what we would like to see.>>

But that's why we're confused!! We *want* to know the in-depth reasons!
If you simply indulge in talking about sex as the ultimate definer in
their relationship, then we are *always* going to argue with that.

I've asked, several times, for a relationshipper to explain *why* they
want Mulder and Scully involved, and have yet to receive a response. If
it takes you fifty posts to explain, then fine. Come on, you guys, I
wanna know! Give me a Relationshipper Manifesto!! This is a really big
rift in the fanbase and I'm really curious!! I'm not flaming!! Honest!!

Parateam

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

<<It seems to me that the people who keep bringing up sex are the
so-called anti-relationshipers. I keep hearing "shippers" say
relationship, in my mind implying feelings and intimacy. not necessarily
physical so much as emotional and spiritual. (sounds cheesy..I know. :p)
And non-shippers assume that means sex. <shrug> Am I mssing
something?>>

Yes, you *are* missing something. The only reason we bring up sex is
because, to our minds, it's the only thing that we can possibly figure is
missing from their relationship in order to turn it into a romance.
Everything you just described about their relationship IS ALREADY THERE.

<<Very interesting point, Elizabeth. Who knows whether it's valid - but
I'm a 'relationshipper' (tho' I hate the term!) and I've been married
for 13 years. So that would seem to support what you say!>>

Oh, sure, because you are a control group of ONE. Can we get off this
line of anti-reasoning? It's insulting to all parties.

SteffD

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

In article
<shanna_swendson-1705961304360001 @shanna_swendson.mccom.com>, From
shanna_...@mccom.com (Shanna Swendson), the following was written:

> Now, why take something that unique and turn it into the banal by
> turning it into something that has been done and done again?

But that's the point. With these two characters, it doesn't have to *be*
banal - in fact they have an opportunity to present the relationship in
a way which is new to television - not like the soap opera many people
seem to fear. Why should we accept that sexual, romantic adult
relationships always have to be presented in a banal way on TV? Demand
something better - and we could have it, with these characters.


>
> And please note, I'm not anti-romance in general. I'm a romance
> novelist. But when I want a good romance, I'll read a romance. I
> don't want it in my X-Files.

Do we really have to split everything up into categories like this?
That's one of the reasons I like XF - it gives us so much - intrigue,
conspiracy, scary shows along with dark humour at times and
slapstick-almost at others. So the show already crosses genres and
there's no reason why, if they have faith in themselves, they couldn't
break new ground on the relationship too.

I *believe* in extreme possibilities like the man said. Don't have a
closed mind, or be fearful that it can never be done. Do you really
still want to be watching XF in four years time with their relationship
in stasis - stagnant, rather. CC will have to show more of their private
lives - look how much he has revealed over the last three years. And the
one thing that many - I would not be so bold as to say most - of us
wouldn't like is to see them set up with *other* partners. The Melrose
Place arguments would apply euqlly - if not more so - to that!

J. H. Madigan

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

I've been following this thread for a while, and now, even though
it has been flogged into the turf, I can no longer resist the urge to
reply. ;-)

I'm seeing a lot of "we" and "they" stuff about various
"factions", and I would like to stress that I speak only for myself and
not for any alleged faction. I do not whish to see M&S romantically
involved, not because I don't see any UST (I see quite a bit actually),
but because the X-Files thrives on ambiguity and a lack of resolution.
A&LoR is present in everything from the scripts to the mood to the
camera work. It is integral to the show. An M&S romantic entanglement, or
at least the sort a lot of people seem to want, would be too pat and
defined for the show and therefore I don't think it would work.
Furthermore, I think it would fundamentally alter the nature of the
X-files because of its incongruity. I keep seeing a lot of descriptions
of M&S that include words like "spiritual", "soul mates", etc.,
descriptions that seem more representative of a love story from mythology
than from anything which exists in the X-Files universe, or in the real
world for that matter. One of the things I really like about M&S 's
relationship as it is is the fact that it's not perfect. They disagree,
they fight, they are sometimes distant and sometimes close, remarkably
like real people for a TV show.

As an example of how I think the X-Files would be fundamentally altered,
imagine M&S in a perfect, unassailable romantic bond. Then imagine
_Wetwired_ and Scully's sudden paranoid doubt in Mulder and his role in
their work. Imagine how the lack of doubt and ambiguity would render the
entire episode and all the plot and character development that takes place
in it entirely unbeleiveable.

Hell, we're already asked to accept overwhelming government conspiracies and
aliens, not in isolation but in league with one another. How much more can
one take? ;-)

I think _Ouiblette_ is another good example. Look at how M&S's relative
distance and misunderstanding are integral to the character development
and plot of _that_ episode. I know, fear of The Rift made a lot of
people scream. But without the lack of certainty between M&S the whole
story would have to be different, and in my opinion a lot of dramatic
tension would have to be sacrificed. This would not be an improvement.

I'm sure CC & company could write an excellent romantic story. I just
don't think it can be done in the X-Files.

On 18 May 1996, SteffD wrote:

> closed mind, or be fearful that it can never be done. Do you really
> still want to be watching XF in four years time with their relationship
> in stasis - stagnant, rather. CC will have to show more of their private
> lives - look how much he has revealed over the last three years.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. What I'm getting at the
moment is that you either feel that M&S's relationship is stagnant now
OR that it inevitably will be in the future without a romantic element,
and furthermore that you don't think more of M&S's private lives can
be revealed without leading to a romance. At the risk of having
misinterpreted you, I disagree on all three counts. I'm not sure what
you're basing this one. Would you care to clarify? I'm not trying to
invalidate you opinion, I really am very curious. ;-)

JM


NoOne4

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

:a lot of people wrote a lot of things:

Frankly, I can see a Mulder/Scully relationship from both points of views.
On one hand, there is so much tension going on right now that to some
people it might seem inevitable that there be some sort of romantic
involvement between Mulder and Scully. on the other hand, a relationship
could destract from the whole point of the show: the two agents' search
for The Truth. I've read so many posts debating both sides of the
argument. (I'm not going to annoy everyone-If you want to read what other
people have posted, read their posts.) A good ending of the series (god
forbid) would be their relationship finally being agnowledged. However, I
could also see Chris Carter ending the series with a cliffhanger. (a
devil's god?)

After spending days thinking of what I actually thought on this issue, I
think all i would like to see is each character coming to grips with their
feelings towards each other. I wouldn't even mind if they didn't even
reveal their feelings toward each other. then again, I wouldn't be upset
be either a sexual relationship or a truly platonic one. Stubborn as I am,
I am very open minded. (The believing skeptic? That's me)

Actually, the way I would like the series to end would be a realization on
the part of Scully that MULDER was conspirating against her. That would
truly be a trust no one scenario. Then again, I'm perfectly happy just to
watch The X-Files, because whatever it is, it's still the best show on TV.

-Robin "Trust NoOne"

SteffD

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

>> There has been a firm (and IMO rudely
stated) assumption by one group (for want of a better term -
relationshippers) that the other group (again, for want of a better term
-
antirelationshippers) is either warped/cowardly/maladjusted - take your
pick - because we (or I since I can't really speak for anyone else on
this
issue) see the current state of affairs as both mature and realistic.
<<

Actually, from this side it feels just the other way round. We have been
flamed to hell and back, condescended to, patronised and called sexual
inadequates by some of the - for want of another better term -
anti-relationshippers.

I guess how you feel about the tone of a particular piece will depend
partly on whether you agree with the content or not! For instance, the
tone of your own piece was hardly placatory condemning the whole group
of us as it did with a sweeping generalisation.

>> I think Carter, et al, have offered us a giant accolade by assuming
that
we can deal with a show that mixes fantasy (the plotlines) and reality
(the way the characters interact with each other and the world around
them) in a highly skilled manner. <<

But we do agree on the above. The characters are subtle and fascinating
and that is why I watch the show. We just disagree on how we want them
developed and I would think that we could do that in a civilized way.

SteffD

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

In article <4ngqkj$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com >, From para...@aol.com
(Parateam), the following was written:

> But if nobody else wants to then we shouldn't,
> because it would be boring discussing the pro's and con's of a
> relationship with myself. Although, come to think of it, at least I'd
> always agree with myself.


ROFL, Para! Thanks for lightening the tone!

SteffD

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

In article <4ndlt3$n...@news.cc.utah.edu>, From cch1...@cc.utah.edu (C
Hooper), the following was written:
> maybe i'll try back latter to see if you guys grow up

We'll await your return with interest to see if your spelling and
punctuation improves.

SteffD

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

>> What's irrelevent about saying that TV companies haven't got a
particularly
brilliant record on such matters? <<

Nothing. It's a fair point.

But I'm an optimist in this and I think it can be done. Maybe it won't
be XF. But one day a show will come along which will combine all these
elements.

SteffD

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

> To me, logic does not dictate that two partners will inevitably fall
> into a romantic relationship. I find that argument to be weak,
> unfounded and completely unsubstantiated.

And here we go again.....and I'll say it as many times as seems to be
necassary - of course two partners don't have to fall in love. Where did
you read that?

But we are talking about these specific characters here, not characters
in general, and we beleive that *these* characters as presented on
*this* show have more than a platonic relationship.

>> Just
wondering, what is your definition of platonic love? <<

Just wondering...what is yours, since you didn't say either. Well, I
always understood that Plato meant a love which was of the spirit, and
not sexual, and that's what it says in my dictionary, too. How is your
definition different?

>> Some say that they want the relationship to be
the corner-stone of the series <<

I hang out with lots of people who are <avert your eyes if you are
sensitive> relationshippers, and I have never heard *anyone* say they
want the relationship to be the main focus of the show.

But it seems some find it impossible to address the points actually
being made. Ah well.

bostongirl

unread,
May 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/18/96
to

On May 17, 1996 23:49:18 in article <Re: My problem with
anti-relationshippers....>, 'Kristel S. Johns <kjo...@mail2.alliance.net>'
wrote:


>A love that, is for the moment, platonic, but doesn't HAVE to stay
>that way. It could easily become more, much more than anything we have
>ever seen on television. That is what I want: I want a romance the likes

>of which most shows only dream of creating, where the romance does not
>wind up in domestic bliss, or in intolerable angst, where the sizzling
>chemistry does not obscure the point to the show.

- This debate is really getting tiresome. How many relationships that
can be defined as above do, in reality, exist in the workplace? I would
wager several. THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS ACTED UPON BECAUSE IT MAY NOT BE IN
EITHER PARTY'S BEST INTEREST.
I think also that the argument the relationshippers (sorry, but it
looks like you people have already been tagged that!) is, as Kristel says
in a nut shull: I WANT.
They WANT this to happen. That's not reason enought why it should.
If it ain't broke ( and it most assuredly ISN'T, then don't fix it.).
Just my 2 cents....-

Jackie

Eric Johns

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

In article <4njpfn$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com says...

>
>Kristel writes in response to (what I consider to be) a thoughtless post:
>
Thoughtless? I spent all day at work composing that post to be a clear and
consise as I know how to be. Maybe you should think about those sorts of
things before making statements.

><<Why not create a relationship that would blow people's minds?>>
>
>I thought they'd already done that!
>

I'm talking ROMANCE, dear...I LIKE my romance...I am a true blue,
dued-in-the-wool romantic...I am referring to ROMANCES that will blow
people's minds...We don't get many of those on television. I would like to
see a ROMANCE the likes of which is rarely, if ever, witnessed on TV.

><<We wish to see their relationship reflect all of this--the
>abiding respect, the fact that in their quest their lives and souls have
>become inextricably bound together, the attraction, the trust, the
>affection--we wish to see all this commingled in a manner of relationship
>that surpasses any seen on television these days.>>
>
>Isn't this what we already see?
>

Again, I am talking ROMANCE...I have already established myself as
pro-romance (is this a little clearer than "relationshipper"?) so that
shoul come as no surprise to you. I am afraid to inform you that you are
coming across as being intentionally obtuse.

><<We feel that this evolution of the relationship by necessity must, as
>one of its lesser points, include sex, simply because there comes a point
>in such a bonding where there is nowhere left to go but to dedicate your
>entire being, heart, mind, body, and soul, to the desires and welfare of
>your counterpart.>>
>
>So...the relationship will continue along the way it's been going, but
>they'll be having sex? I'm sorry, but I just can't see *what* changes you
>want to make to the relationship other than the addition of sexual
>intimacy. I'm not flaming you here, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm
>just asking for some clarity. It seems like whenever the relationshippers
>are quizzed about what they want to happen between Mulder and Scully, they
>heatedly deny the sex angle but are too vague to be able to explain in
>concise terms what exactly would make them happy.
>

Again, the intentional obtuseness (and no, I am not flaming either, I am
simply stating the tone your message seems to convey to me.) I have been
as consise as I possibly can. NO ONE has said that they do not like the
relationship as it is now...we pro-romancers simply seem to feel that there
is room for it to evolve in a romantic sense. We want the continued
flirtation, the tenderness, the gentle humor...we also want it openly
acknowledged that these two are in love. Now, these two are adults of the
ninties, so isn't it just a TAD unrealistic that if they were to openly
acknowledge that they are in love with one another, they wouldn't
eventually move into a sexual relationship is well. That is what we are
after. We want them in an acknowledged love affair...the sex would simply
be a by-product of that.

><<It is the manifestation of this bond, of utter trust and dedication,
>which we wish to see reflected in the show.>>
>
>Manifested in what way?
>

In the acknowledgement of their romantic love for one another. I have been
pretty clear on that point also.

><<We mrely want the occasional glimpse of it, because there is a brand of
>purity in such dedication and committment and devotion that would contrast
>wonderfully and add the tiniest light of hope to a show where the miracles
>of nature and science are continually twisted and tainted by the
>mechinations of man and monster.>>
>
>Their relationship is already *pure* in its dedication, commitment and
>devotion. I feel that it already sets off the "machinations of man and
>monster".
>

It does, but as I have stated, REPEATEDLY, we still feel that the
relationship could/should evolve into a romance. Personal preferrence.

><<After all, in a loving relationship, and yes, we TRULY believe that
>Mulder and Scully are deeply in love, what more pure expression of trust
>and devotion is there than making love?>>
>
>This conflicts with your earlier statement, that sex is a lesser part of
>their potential relationship. And again, here we sit at cross-purposes,
>because you believe that sex is *the* pure expression of trust and
>devotion while we believe that their commitment to each other lies in
>other arenas. We also split hairs on "in love" and "love". I believe
>that Mulder and Scully do "love" each other, but that they are not "in
>love" with each other.
>

No, I have not said that sex is the only pure expression of love and
trust...you are twisting my words to suit your purpose. I said that in a
loving (romantic...when it is me posting, you might as well infer that as
being my meaning) relationship, that sex is a pure, healthy expression of
love and trust. Anyone here who has been married (and yes, that is
me...whoever made the remarks about relationshippers, or pro-romancers
having no sex lives of their own was WAY off base) or has been in a deeply
loving romantic relationship can relate to this. I am not saying that sex
is always pure, and in the wrong relationship, it can be twisted and
tainted and convoluted, but I am talking about absolute love and faith and
commitment and devotion, in a romantic sense, and the powerful, though by
no means exclusive, expression thereof, which is sex. Sex would be a
by-product of the romance, not the point of it. I don't know how I can
make this any clearer. English is my first language, and you may be the
only person who has ever accused me of not saying things the way I mean
them.

><<If, somehow, we 'shippers seem to place an emphasis on the physical side
>of the Mulder/Scully relationship, it is because it is easier to grasp
>onto the obvious than to take the time to go into an in-depth explanation
>as to what we see and what we would like to see.>>
>
>But that's why we're confused!! We *want* to know the in-depth reasons!
>If you simply indulge in talking about sex as the ultimate definer in
>their relationship, then we are *always* going to argue with that.
>

I am not going to sit here and psychoanalyze myself for you. Why I want
the relationship is not at issue. I have stated quite clearly the reasons
I feel that there could/should be a romance from the dramatic
standpoint...my personal reasons for wanting it are my own. I will say,
however, that I tend to see romantic trends in a lot of places that others
don't. I guess I am just a romantic by nature. Just because you lack that
way of looking at things does not make it an invalid POV.

Furthermore, I have stated, repeatedly, that sex would not be the ultimate
definer. It seems to be you who has a hard time releasing that mindset.

>I've asked, several times, for a relationshipper to explain *why* they
>want Mulder and Scully involved, and have yet to receive a response. If
>it takes you fifty posts to explain, then fine. Come on, you guys, I
>wanna know! Give me a Relationshipper Manifesto!! This is a really big
>rift in the fanbase and I'm really curious!! I'm not flaming!! Honest!!
>

I know that you are not flaming, and I appeciate that and hope that you
will not see my words here as being inflammatory either. However, I do
feel that you are intentionally refusing to see the point we are trying to
make and are instead focusing on individual statements and taking them out
of context to suit your purposes. I have been as clear on this matter as I
know how to be. I have given you all the rationale I have ever come across
for why we pro-romancers feel things should happen the way we want them to.
What I have not done, and will never do, is evaluate myself and my personal
life for the benefit of those who can't accept the reasons why we want
things the way that we do. What does it matter WHY we want them. We do.
End of story.

Kristel
kjo...@mail2.alliance.net


Eric Johns

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

>In article <4njpfn$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com says...
>>
>>Kristel writes in response to (what I consider to be) a thoughtless post:
>>
>Thoughtless? I spent all day at work composing that post to be a clear
and
>consise as I know how to be. Maybe you should think about those sorts of
>things before making statements.

I apologize. I just re-read and relalized that you were referring to the
post before mine as thoughtless, not mine. Guess the tension around here
has gotten to me...

Kristel, who is now using the terms pro- and anti-romancers...does this
work for everyone?
kjo...@mail2.alliance.net


Elizabeth Holden

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

Champey (cha...@aol.com) writes:

> Even some of us "relationshippers" (though liking to fantasize about the
> possibilities) really DON'T want to see this great partnership/friendship
> altered by a romantic liason. It IS possible to have an intimate
> relationship with someone without having sex...

Or wanting to; true. Happens all the time with *most* of our
relationships (however close or casual) with everyone we meet.

But it's hardly the stuff of epic.

I want to see the show continue to tease us with the possibility of a
romance (or a sexual relationship) between Mulder and Scully, without
actually having it happen.

--
Namaste,
Elizabeth

-- ab...@FreeNet.Carleton.ca -- Ottawa, Canada --

hut...@teleport.com

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

This is a late follow up to Parateam's post due to a battle with my newsgroup
software...

In article <4njpfn$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,


para...@aol.com (Parateam) wrote:
>Kristel writes in response to (what I consider to be) a thoughtless post:
>

><<Why not create a relationship that would blow people's minds?>>
>
>I thought they'd already done that!

Well see! We *do* agree on some things! (I knew we could :>)...They
did! We relationshippers (and yes having names for the two sides of this
argument is childish, but as I recall it, it was *we* who were dubbed by
"those opposed to a romantic relationship", not vice versa) think that they
have, too. Why do you begrudge us wanting more? Yes, CC has set some high
standards already...does that mean we're obliged to stop hoping he'll
*continue* to develop this amazing relationship?


>
><<We wish to see their relationship reflect all of this--the
>abiding respect, the fact that in their quest their lives and souls have
>become inextricably bound together, the attraction, the trust, the
>affection--we wish to see all this commingled in a manner of relationship
>that surpasses any seen on television these days.>>
>
>Isn't this what we already see?

Why is it that you can see this but not the potential for even more?

>
><<We feel that this evolution of the relationship by necessity must, as
>one of its lesser points, include sex, simply because there comes a point
>in such a bonding where there is nowhere left to go but to dedicate your
>entire being, heart, mind, body, and soul, to the desires and welfare of
>your counterpart.>>
>
>So...the relationship will continue along the way it's been going, but
>they'll be having sex? I'm sorry, but I just can't see *what* changes you
>want to make to the relationship other than the addition of sexual
>intimacy. I'm not flaming you here, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm
>just asking for some clarity. It seems like whenever the relationshippers
>are quizzed about what they want to happen between Mulder and Scully, they
>heatedly deny the sex angle but are too vague to be able to explain in
>concise terms what exactly would make them happy.
>

We're asking for some character development that reflects that they are indeed
romantically attracted to one another (and yes, that does mean sexually too).
It seems obvious that as a whole, shippers and "the soon to be named" will
never agree on this point...


><<It is the manifestation of this bond, of utter trust and dedication,
>which we wish to see reflected in the show.>>
>
>Manifested in what way?

*snipped*


You seem to think that there is some checklist all relationshippers are
working off of Parateam...there isn't. What would you like Kristel to say?
"We the relationshippers, will only be satisfied with 2.3 handholds per
episode, 6.2 minutes of Mulder & Scully in the sack (since you're still stuck
on the notion that's all we want to see), 4 kisses, 1 gratuitous butt shot
(since we're all moronic juvenile and sexually deprived--and yes, I know that
wasn't what *you* said Parateam) ..."

It doesn't work that way. And it isn't the point either. I truly, sincerely
appreciate that you seem interested in knowing what it is shippers want. But
we're a pretty diverse bunch, as are (insert non-romance/anti-shipper name of
choice here)s. You would probably get a different answer from every person
you asked. Do some of us think sex would become a part of it if a romantic
relationship were explored? Yes. Why wouldn't it be for god's sake? That
doesn't mean we all want to *see* it. Some of us don't. I for one wouldn't
mind a visual confirmation it was happening, but I sure don't *have* to have
one. It's the psychological attraction and the gestures of affection that
keep me riveted to my TV when they occur. We simply want the context they
occur in expanded. I will not keep stating what Kristel says so much more
eloquently than I ever could....but I will say that we as a group don't put
the emphasis on the sex...why do you continue to do so? No, this is not meant
to be antagonistic...I too am curious. I can understand why someone who
doesn't see the UST would think the idea of Mulder and Scully getting together
distasteful. I can even understand how someone who sees their relationship as
emotionally platonic could be put off by the idea. (I'd be amazed at how
diffently we view this program, but I would understand.) But I don't get why
someone who apparently sees the existing relationship so similarly to most
relationshippers would be so adamantly opposed to it. Is it only the idea
that they would be having sex that is repulsive to you? You seem to have a
larger argument to make against a romance, but I think it's been lost in the
emphasis on sex. Is it maybe a sense that because it hasn't been done thus
far that there is no need to? I understand fully that neither side will ever
"convert" the other. That's not why I'm here. I do want to understand the
(sorry) anti-relationship POV, so please give it. I *do* think as fans we
should be able to discuss this in a rational manner from time to time. The
snide and nasty comments that have been made at times make both groups of fans
look stupid in my opinion. I hope you'll understand that this is not intended
to be either of those.

Heather (who is all for a romantic relationship--label her what you will!)


Kristel S. Johns

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

In article <4njd3u$t...@useneta1.news.prodigy.com>, JVQ...@prodigy.com says...

I think that there are a lot of workplaces that don't allow affairs
between their employees...but they happen. I worked in some of them.
I think that if Mulder and Scully did start a romance, they would have
to be very discreet, for their own safety, as well as for the fact that
they could be broken up if word got out, but think about it: these are
our heros...they are the ones who continually outsmart the ploys and
plots of the bad guys each week (ok, well, sometimes the bad guys win...
like in "Wetwired".) and I think that they would be aware of all of this,
and, well, if it came down to it...deny everything.

They would hate it, but they would do it.

Kristel

Jackie Mellor

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

More on the relationship debate which has been raging furiously...


In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960516014205.29737D-100000@fraser>, Crunchy
Frog <awa...@sfu.ca> writes
>
> No, that won't work. I'm not in any way opposed to Mulder or
>Scully having sexual relationships... it's just that it wouldn't make any
>sense to me for them to have such a relationship with each other.
>
I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions on this matter,
'shippers and anti's alike; it's just a pity we can't all agree to
differ and live peacefully with each other! The argument is certainly
taking up a lot of bandwidth. For what it's worth, I view myself as part
of the UST brigade - I'd like to see them "get it together" at the very
end (though not as a mere ratings ploy - there would have to be some
realistic development of "the relationship" *before* the last episode).

> In fact, I *really* would like to see poor Scully have a bit of
>fun herself... after all, Skinner got to, Mulder got to, we're assuming
>Bambi got to... but as GA put it, "Never in the history of Dana has Dana
>scored." This is assuming, of course, that such a relationship would have
>some bearing on the case or phenomena that is being investigated.
>Otherwise, it would really have no reason for being shown.
>
HEAR! HEAR! I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice. C'mon on Mr Carter,
Scully is an attractive woman, surely she can attract better than those
dweebs Frohike and Pendrell? Guys (and girls), what do you think? *Is*
she attractive? At the moment, its no wonder she's been called "Loser of
the week". Lets see an end to Scully as laughing stock. It's no good for
the character and no good for the show.

Besides, if Scully were to have a fling, I'd love to see Mulder's
reaction <sly UST'rs grin>.

--
Jaye

**********************************************************
"There are among the people
murderers who have never committed murder,
thieves who have never stolen
and liars who have spoken nothing but the truth."
- Kahlil Gibran
**********************************************************

Julia Kosatka

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

On 18 May 1996, SteffD wrote:
> I *believe* in extreme possibilities like the man said. Don't have a
> closed mind, or be fearful that it can never be done. Do you really
> still want to be watching XF in four years time with their relationship
> in stasis - stagnant, rather. CC will have to show more of their private

Whoa! Stagnant? I have many platonic friends and our relationships are
far from stagnant. There's nothing inherant about a romantic relationship
that's more dynamic than a platonic one.

> lives - look how much he has revealed over the last three years. And the
> one thing that many - I would not be so bold as to say most - of us

> wouldn't like is to see them set up with *other* partners. The Melrose

I'd much rather see mere hints (like we've seen before) of other romantic
relationships with other people. I think it would add a great deal to
that portion of the show.

Julia Kosatka University of Houston
SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL
Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food

Phenex Tiffany

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

I AM SICK OF THIS! It is getting SO old! It is really quite simple. If Mulder
and Scully get together before the last season and finale episodes of the
show...then the show will be ruined FOREVER! People don't want to see what they
can see on every other
show! personally i love the characters and i think they should get
together...but in the END when there is no danger to a show that i love and
have loved for 3 going on 4 years now. And all of you who say that it happens
in everyday life and is natural? H
ow many of you are acting out your love and sexual tension in front of millions
of viewers? What you do doesn't affect millions of people because they don't
all see it! The show is SEEN! Something that is natural may not necessarily be
good on a show seen
by millions simply because there are to many different points of view that the
show will inevitably fail as a result..i love this show and i won't stand by
and let anything happen to it! SO GET OVER IT CC WILL DO IT IN THE
END!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
list

Mary Lynn

unread,
May 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/19/96
to

Jackie Mellor wrote:
> Besides, if Scully were to have a fling, I'd love to see Mulder's
> reaction <sly UST'rs grin>.
>
> --
> Jaye


hee hee, me too!!

-mar, staunch-self-proclaimed head of the U.S.T.'rs

Tony R. Boies

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

In article <4nj6gt$1...@yama.mcc.ac.uk>, ro...@jpd.ch.man.ac.uk (Jonathan
Day) wrote:

> SteffD (10057...@compuserve.com) wrote:
> : ....is that they will *insist* on bringing up the same old hoary
> : irrelevant comparisons like 'Moonlighting' when they want to explain why
> : a mature adult relationship between the two protagonists can NEVER be
> : done on television.
>

> What's irrelevent about saying that TV companies haven't got a particularly
> brilliant record on such matters?

I posted the original "My problem with 'anti-relationshippers' message,
and apparently I've missed a lot of the carnage that has been posted here
about it. I would just like to say in my own defense, that the comparison
to "Moonlighting" isn't as stupid as some people have made it out to be.
Those that have seen it will know what I am talking about. My original
point was, by introducing a sexual relationship (and I think they already
have a very deep, close and personal friendship) would that detract or
improve the show? They wouldn't have to actually show any sex to imply a
sexual relationship, so I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the
dynamics between the 2 characters changing. I don't think the sexual
relationship is necessary. I think they already have a great relationship
the way it is. They are shining examples of how a male/female
relationships CAN be portrayed through a medium with a long and sometimes
smutty tradition for using sex to sell its programming. My original post
was not to denigrate those who want to see a sexual/romantic relationship
develop, or to suggest that those fans are trying to live vicariously
through the lives of Mulder and Scully.

Tony R. Boies,
World Funnel Ball Champion

--
Tony R. Boies - The New World Champion Funnel Ball Player
Check this out!!
http://www.shentel.net/nutmusic/nutmain.html

Stef

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

>> They WANT this to happen. That's not reason enought why it
should. If it ain't broke ( and it most assuredly ISN'T, then don't fix
it.). <<

That fact that you DON'T WANT it to is not a good enough reason to
prevent it either.

The aphorism you quote would lead to a very dull life if it meant that
no-one ever tried to improve for fear of destroying. Sometimes you have
to take risks.

Stef

--
Friends of XF UST

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Stephanie/postepis.htm

....for fanfic that follows on from the episodes :-)


Eric Johns

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

>I posted the original "My problem with 'anti-relationshippers' message,
>and apparently I've missed a lot of the carnage that has been posted here
>about it. I would just like to say in my own defense, that the comparison
>to "Moonlighting" isn't as stupid as some people have made it out to be.
>Those that have seen it will know what I am talking about. My original
>point was, by introducing a sexual relationship (and I think they already
>have a very deep, close and personal friendship) would that detract or
>improve the show? They wouldn't have to actually show any sex to imply a
>sexual relationship, so I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the
>dynamics between the 2 characters changing. I don't think the sexual
>relationship is necessary.

You are right...it isn't. What we are after is a ROMANTIC LOVE
relationship, that open acknowledgement that these two are deeply IN LOVE.
That doesn't HAVE to include sex, but come on, this is the nineties...I
seriously doubt that two healthy, attractive, a-traditonal, IN LOVE adults
like Mulder and Scully would wait forever to consummate their love. If
they did? Personally, I wouldn't have a hard time with that, because it
would keep the levels of UST that we enjoy (and many are afraid would
disappear with the consummation of the romance) up. One of the most
sensual scenes I have ever seen on television happened In "Dr. Quinn,
Medicine Woman" in an episode where the two main characters, a few months
before their wedding, engaged in an embrace that soon became passionate,
the broke apart, gave a forlorn look at what would one day be their
marriage bed, and went about their business. That scene had it all, the
love, the tenderness, and an acknowledgement that the sexual feeling is
there, just that it couldn't be acted upon at that time. It was very
rewarding.

However, that show is based in the 19th century frontier. Ours in 1990s
Washington D.C. The characters in question do not have the social
strictures on pre-marital sex that the Dr. Quinn characters had, so I do
think it a tad unrealistic that the romance, once acknowledged, would
progress to the point of making love. Should there be an emphasis on that
moment? No. While it would be personally gratifying, I cannot reiterate
enough times that sex is not the aspect of the Mulder/Scully romance that
we wish to see. We want the love (ROMANTIC love, guys...this is me
writing, after all). We think it is there, and we think that there is great
creative and dramatic potential in the acknowledgment of that romantic
love.

yes, the dynamics very well could change if they realized that they are IN
LOVE with each other...the bond might deepen, they would be forced to do
some soul searching as to where their priorities now lay, they would have
to cope with the fact that, every day, they are seeing that one who is most
dear to them lay their life on the line. Do I want these points to become
the emphasis of the show? No. They would be handled with the same
understated, subtle touch as the UST is handled now...the touches, the
glances, the fear...I think that a problem many anti-romancers are having
is that they think we want sweeping, wholesale changes made to the show. I
have been asked that if so much of what we want is already there, why
change it. How big do these changes have to be? Virtually non-existant.
I suppose it is a personal satisaction in knowing that they are there that
we are after. But my question to the anti-romancers is, if the changes
were to be hardly noticeable, why do you resist the idea so much? I have
been asked to give a manifesto as to why we feel Mulder and Scully should
have a romantic relationship (which I am at work on...check back in a few
days) Perhaps turn about is fair play when I ask, besided the blanket
argument/whine "It would RUIN the show!" (which, as I have stated, doesn't
have to be the case) why are you do against it?

Kristel


Heather C.

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

In article <4npmtm$7...@allinux2.alliance.net> ejo...@mail.alliance.net (Eric Johns) writes:
>From: ejo...@mail.alliance.net (Eric Johns)
>Subject: Re: My problem with 'anti-relationshippers'....
>Date: 20 May 1996 12:00:54 GMT


Perhaps turn about is fair play when I ask, besided the blanket
>argument/whine "It would RUIN the show!" (which, as I have stated, doesn't
>have to be the case) why are you do against it?

>Kristel

Because it's nice to finally have an extremely healthy PLATONIC relationship
between a man and a woman shown on tv. I have plenty of men-friends where
there is no sexual chemistry - no romantic love (though lots of love, of
course) - no "oooh, what if..." I don't think it's fair that this type of
relationship is never portrayed on tv as realistic. There always has to be
the idea that "yeah, but really what they want is sex... to fall in love...
etc." Life just isn't always like that. I don't think changing it would ruin
the show, but it would take away an aspect that I think many of us really
enjoy.

- Heather.

Michael David Lee

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

>Jackie Mellor wrote:
>> Besides, if Scully were to have a fling, I'd love to see Mulder's
>> reaction <sly UST'rs grin>.
>>
>> --
>> Jaye


> hee hee, me too!!

I agree. So far all the speculation about a more intimate relationship
between Mulder and Scully has been based on the more recent signs of
Scully's jealousy of other women and Mulder. Just to keep it going,
Scully should really, really fall head over heels in love with someone,
so that we can watch Mulder suffer the pangs of repressed feelings for
Scully! Of course, this guy would have to be some alien or ultimately a
bad guy just to set things right again.

Anyways, I think this whole thread is silly. I would, however, like to
see more character development for Scully.

__ ____________
/\ \ /_________ /\
:::::/ \ \:::::::::::::: Michael D. Lee :::::::::::\ _____ / / /::
::::/ /\ \ \::::::::: md...@cc.umanitoba.ca :::::::\ \ \ / / /:::
:::/ / /\ \ \:::::: U of M Department of Psychology ::::::\ \ \/ / /::::
::/ / /__\_\ \::::: * HAVE * A * PARADOXICAL * DAY * :::::::\ \ \/ /:::::
/ / /________\ \ \ /
\/___________/ \_\/

--


__ ____________
/\ \ /_________ /\

Stef

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

>> It is really quite simple. If Mulder
and Scully get together before the last season and finale episodes of
the show...then the show will be ruined FOREVER! <<

In your view. Thousands of us think differently, and if we want to
discuss it we will.

Eeyore9886

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

>Guys (and girls), what do you think? *Is*
>she attractive? At the moment, its no wonder she's been called >"Loser of
>the week". Lets see an end to Scully as laughing stock. It's no good >for
>the character and no good for the show.

I'm a girl and I would say she's definatly attractive. Especially when she
smiles. When/where was she called "Loser of the week"? She shouldn't be
the laughing stock...not only is she attractive, but she's smart, capable
and very cool.

~Kimberly

Leikin Sky

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

Someone wrote:
> In fact, I *really* would like to see poor Scully have a bit of
>fun herself... after all, Skinner got to, Mulder got to, we're assuming
>Bambi got to... but as GA put it, "Never in the history of Dana has Dana
>scored." This is assuming, of course, that such a relationship would have

>some bearing on the case or phenomena that is being investigated.
>Otherwise, it would really have no reason for being shown.


To which Jaye replied:


>>HEAR! HEAR! I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice. C'mon on Mr Carter,
Scully is an attractive woman, surely she can attract better than those

dweebs Frohike and Pendrell? Guys (and girls), what do you think? *Is*


she attractive? At the moment, its no wonder she's been called "Loser of
the week". Lets see an end to Scully as laughing stock. It's no good for
the character and no good for the show.

Besides, if Scully were to have a fling, I'd love to see Mulder's


reaction <sly UST'rs grin>. <<

ITA! I've stated quite a few times here (& elsewhere) that this blatant
double-standard is a sad sight 2 see on such an avant-garde, progressive
show as XF...MANY times has CC maintained that M/S are equals...Well,
apparently he meant it in just one narrow arena-- work. When it comes 2
their social life, Mulder is seen as someone who *can* "score" (e.g. "3"),
whereas Scully is seen as the type of women only certain men (read: what
*other* men would consider "losers") would be attracted 2!!! >:-/
Are beautiful, intelligent career women supposed 2 read something into
this? Equal opportunity is what I want!!!

Leikin,
"I Want To Believe" in M/S romance...or ANY Scully romance!
Leikin Sky

Rob

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

In article <4nr058$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> eeyor...@aol.com (Eeyore9886) writes:
>...not only is she attractive, but she's smart, capable and very cool.
>~Kimberly

Yeah, what she said.

In any case, FBI folks have no time to have a private life. Especially Scully
and Mulder, they are always flying all over the place at the drop of a hat,
who has time to date with that kind of schedule.

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
May 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/20/96
to

In article <hcannon.45...@macalstr.edu>, hca...@macalstr.edu
(Heather C.) wrote:

: In article <4npmtm$7...@allinux2.alliance.net> ejo...@mail.alliance.net


(Eric Johns) writes:
: >From: ejo...@mail.alliance.net (Eric Johns)
: >Subject: Re: My problem with 'anti-relationshippers'....
: >Date: 20 May 1996 12:00:54 GMT
:
:
: Perhaps turn about is fair play when I ask, besided the blanket
: >argument/whine "It would RUIN the show!" (which, as I have stated, doesn't
: >have to be the case) why are you do against it?
:
: >Kristel
:
: Because it's nice to finally have an extremely healthy PLATONIC relationship
: between a man and a woman shown on tv. I have plenty of men-friends where
: there is no sexual chemistry - no romantic love (though lots of love, of
: course) - no "oooh, what if..." I don't think it's fair that this type of
: relationship is never portrayed on tv as realistic. There always has to be

I'm afraid you've just contradicted yourself there. It is common
knowledge that not only is there deep respect and trust in Mulder and
Scully's relationship, but they have sexual chemistry. Not even Chris
Carter denies that... I believe it was part of his plans to start with.
Sure, I have plenty of work relationships with men, and in no way is there
any sexual chemistry, but I've also had many male friends, and I have to
say that there is a percentage of those that I seriously considered having
a romantic relationship with. Why? Well, because we were already so
well-matched, with similar interests, and we basically already accepted
and loved each other. It's not such a huge step to move to the next
level, and it's not necessarily wrong. Some of the best marriages are
between best friends. Many people find their significant other at the
workplace.

: the idea that "yeah, but really what they want is sex... to fall in love...

But they're *already* in love... :)

I think you're putting words into relationshipper's mouths. None of the
posts I've seen here, or on the relationships list states that we want
them to just have sex. That's the whole problem in the argument of those
against. They think that there will just be one sex scene, and then the
animosity will begin (ą la Moonlighting). Well, first, let me state that
this is a poor comparison indeed, because apart from basic animal lust,
David and Maddie never had anything in common, and most of the time when
they were not investigating something was spend in full-blown arguments
and door slamming. Mulder and Scully are the complete antithesis of
Moonlighting. They already share so much respect, understanding, a real
bond, and we already know that they would do anything for the other.
Really, they aren't acting any differently than a couple would, except
that there's no 'physical' contact, such as handholding, hugging,
cuddling, etc. I've stated in previous points what small modifications
could be made to make a smooth transition into a loving relationship
without 'ruining' the show as some of you so passionately contend, and
others have done so as well, in a much more eloquent manner than I ever
could.

If I never saw M&S having sex, I would have no problem with that. But
what about if Mulder got a call in the middle of the night because a new
victim has been found, and when he turns the light on he's sleeping in
Scully's arms? That would not change the A plot in any way, but would
still give us relationshippers a great deal of satisfaction. Let's face
it, two people have never been more compatible than those two. Why
continue to go against the laws of nature by creating rifts between them?
And in what I've suggested above, you don't get any long drawn-out,
graphical scenes. I don't watch shows like Melrose Place (unlike the
gratuitous accusations some have thrown towards the relationshippers). I
can't stand them. Why? Because they don't portray the natural
evolution/deep commitment, understanding and respect that comes with a
long-lasting, loving relationship.

As for the thought that portraying a normal, loving relationship between
these two investigators would be boring, I refer you to a series called
Hart to Hart. This couple of investigators did very well in TV history.
Unfortunately, the only problem so far has been that no one has
successfully made the transtion betweensexual tension and stable couples.
I fault this primarily on the improper focus put on the relationship.
People think that once you start including a relationship, then you have
to put more emphasis on it. That's not what we want. We want the same
time on the Mulder and Scully relationship as is put in now, except that
we want it portrayed a little more openly, that's all. I don't want a big
wedding episode. I watch Lois and Clark for that (begin sarcastic
tone...and maybe we'll get it within the next three years... end sarcastic
tone).

And when I read that to have Mulder and Scully acknowledge their love for
each other would ruin the show, I see only your lack of faith in the
writers, because if they've shown us something, it's that they can pull
off anything they set their minds to with class and a level of quality
that is hard to match.

: etc." Life just isn't always like that. I don't think changing it


would ruin
: the show, but it would take away an aspect that I think many of us really
: enjoy.

What aspect is that?

:
: - Heather.

Nancy

******
FoLC, X-Phile Relationshipper and DueSer

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages