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?
....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.
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???
>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.
>....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.
>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.
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.
<<....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!!
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 | ^^ ^^ \___________________________/
> ....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
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
> 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.
>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?
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. . ."
100573.2...@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!)
>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???
You DO get to whine. (See above.) And so eloquently, too!
>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...
In article <4nb432$...@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
elizabeth nordstrom (enord...@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."
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
> 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 University of Houston SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
> 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.
Julia Kosatka University of Houston SFLAaE/BS, PSEB, DDEB, HLLL Unpublished Writer: Will Rewrite for Food
> 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!)
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.
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.
In article <4nbbji$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com >, From parat...@aol.com (Parateam), the following was written:
> All of this aside, it doesn't appear that we can ever agree on what a > relationship truly is, but when my fellow "anti-relationshippers" > (using your definition) are attacked, I will fight back!!
We were constantly attacked and that's why we left....but now *we're ba-ack*....and we're not going to be frightened off this time however loudly you (not you personally) all shout :-)
I know the definition of a relationship - I looked it up in my Oxford English Dictionary! But we are talking about a specific type of relationship here, as I stated in my original post - not a platonic asexual relationship. That is not what CC has created in this show. If that was what he intended to create, then he has signally failed if 50% of his audience don't agree that's what he's achieved!
You can't prove a point by making poor analogies - which is what 'Moonlighting' is. And it has been hashed over many times before.
Likely we'll never agree, and as I said before, at the end of the show's run, half the audience will be dissatisfied. I just hope it's your half and not mine ;-) But who knows?
In article <4nbohh$...@paraguay.it.earthlink .net>, From elizabeth nordstrom <enord...@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!
