Surrender TOS
Frankie Jackson
I wonder, am I the only person how is disturbed by this story (and
not pleasantly either)?
Here we have a physically stronger being forcing sex on someone
physically weaker who has said he doesn't want it but is being forced
anyway, "because he wants it really" and "it's for his own good".
This strikes me as nauseating - if this were a man and a woman, many of us here
would be outraged. We would say (and be right to say)
that "no means no".
Nor am I impressed by the argument that this is only fantasy, if we
are not aiming for emotional truth when we write, why do we bother?
Now it may be that I am doing the author a diservice - perhaps later
eps will show Spock's remorse at forcing himself on his captain and
the abandonment of vulcan ethics that it entailed. But I fear that
we are meant to approve of what is, so far as I can see an assault on
a man who is already at the end of his tether.
So far only parts 1-3 have shown up here - I really don't want to read
any more unless someone can assure me that either the assault is not pressed to
a conclusion or that Spock is devasted when he realises
how badly he has abused both friendship and trust.
I had been looking forward to this story - I cannot say how
disappointed I was.
frankie
---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Gifford
On 4 May 1997 15:59:11 GMT, Killashdra wrote:
>
>frank...@hotmail.com (Frankie Jackson) wrote:
>> I wonder, am I the only person how is disturbed by this story (and
>> not pleasantly either)?
>
>> Here we have a physically stronger being forcing sex on someone
>> physically weaker who has said he doesn't want it but is being forced
>> anyway, "because he wants it really" and "it's for his own good".
>
>for having the courage to do so, Frankie. However, I would urge you to
>read the rest of the story before making up your mind.
This also brings up something interesting about writing TrekSmut that has to
do with b/d. Typically, or at least in the stuff I've read, slash that
involves b/d which falls into the range of what I call "semi-consensual"
(where "no' doesn't always mean "no" and is often ignored by the top) has a
certain pattern to it. It's *usually* P/Q or G/B (more likely the latter)
and hinges on the fact that the top knows the bottom well enough to know when
"no" really means "yes I want this, but I'm afraid and/or my pride's on the
line here." We assume that Garak is observant enough and familiar with the
way people think to be able to "read" Bashir, and, of course, Q would know
exactly whether Picard's "no" really means "no" or not (Mercutio's "TQ" is a
perfect example of this). In "Surrender," Killa is doing the same thing.
Kirk's "no" doesn't really mean "no" (at least in my reading of the story),
and Spock would certainly be in a position to know what's what.
>That said, I can understand why this story would not be for everyone. I
>would have hoped that the code in the subject line and the warning in the
>intro would have allowed those who find such subject matter disturbing to
>avoid the story.
One more reason for those content codes. :-)
>> Nor am I impressed by the argument that this is only fantasy, if we
>> are not aiming for emotional truth when we write, why do we bother?
This is a really good point. Writing about bdsm (and all the various
variations thereof) is tricky and the "semi-consensual" line is vary narrow
and changeable. There is a certain attraction for some readers (and I'm
sometimes one of them, depending on how the author handles it) in the idea
that a top would be good enough (or have the advantage of telepathy) to know
when to push.
I should speak out as a RL top here and say, kids don't try this at home
unless you know what you're doing. It's a Bad Idea unless you're a former
member of The Obsidian Order, a telepath, or an omnipotent entity. It's one
thing to play around with pre-arranged rape scenarios, another to ignore
someone seriously saying no. Ahem . . . sorry; I will go on at times
>I would hope that the story would speak for itself in this regard.
>As in all things, our perceptions are colored by our own experiences. I
>can only say that from my point of view, there is nothing nonconsensual
>about this encounter.
I didn't see it as non-consensual, but I can understand the concern.
>Frankie, thank you for expressing your displeasure in such a civilized and
>thought-provoking manner. I shall consider your point of view.
I have to second this. Dialog, people, dialog! And it was brought about by
"mere" TrekSmut. :-)
Ruth
--
***************************************************
* Ruth | FAQ Maintainer for *
* Gifford | alt.startrek.creative.erotica *
*-------------------------------------------------*
* Better living thru TrekSmut--See for Yourself! *
* http://www.capital.net/users/rjs1/asce *
***************************************************
"To hell with your assumptions. I've got problems
of my own. Just when it looks like everything in
my miserable little life is starting to go well, my
father up and dies, and the love that dare not speak
its name has set up shopkeeping in my guest room."
"The Life, Thoughts and Deeds of Hieronymous Jobs"
Emily Gifford
T'Rhys
frank...@hotmail.com (Frankie Jackson) wrote:
>I wonder, am I the only person how is disturbed by this story (and
>not pleasantly either)?
>
>Here we have a physically stronger being forcing sex on someone
>physically weaker who has said he doesn't want it but is being forced
>anyway, "because he wants it really" and "it's for his own good".
She hasn't finished it yet. If it still is a classic "Kirk falls in
love with his rapist" story when it ends, then I'll yell at her.
LL&P
T'Rhys
(email address munged to foil the mass mailing Klingon spambots.
Remove "nospam" to reply)
Susannah Mandel
Frankie Jackson (frank...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: This strikes me as nauseating - if this were a man and a woman, many of us here
: would be outraged. We would say (and be right to say)
: that "no means no".
: Nor am I impressed by the argument that this is only fantasy, if we
: are not aiming for emotional truth when we write, why do we bother?
Frankie, I do see what troubles you in the story, and I am not entirely
undisturbed by it myself.
However, on consideration, it seems to me that the main point here
is that there is, in fact, an "out" which prevents this b&d from being
nonconsensual. Yes, it's a very tricky business, but the fact is that
there's telepathy going on here -- and, in the immortal words of Ceclia
Tan, "telepaths don't need safewords."
The SF premise which we are being asked to accept is that one
person _can_, in fact, know when no _doesn't_ mean no coming from another,
and when somebody really _does_ "want it." This could, obviously, be both
tricky and dangerous to try to justify IRL. But we're _not_ talking about
RL -- we're talking about an imaginary universe, and in that universe
telepathy offers the plot possibility which Killa is exploiting here:
'nonconsensual' b&d which is, in fact, consensual.
Please don't try to extrapolate from this to real-life political
or personal situations. I remind you that this is in fact SF, and
the telepathy part _is_ a fantasy element whose importance to the
scenario cannot be overestimated.
As for the "emotional truths," I think that they lie at the center
of the narrative and are being masterfully achieved -- which I find the
great virtue of Killashdra's stories in the first place.
: So far only parts 1-3 have shown up here - I really don't want to read
: any more unless someone can assure me that either the assault is not pressed to
: a conclusion or that Spock is devasted when he realises
: how badly he has abused both friendship and trust.
: I had been looking forward to this story - I cannot say how
: disappointed I was.
I strongly suggest that you keep reading (both because the coming parts
are _good_, and because they clarify the situation considerably).
Also, I must point out, in re 'disappointment', that the subject
line does mention the bdsm elements and they probably shouldn't have come
as a surprise when they finally showed up. I was slightly disappointed
when I saw the subject line in the first place, because that's not my cup
of tea, especially in this particular scenario; I was pleasantly surprised
on reading to find that what I find most disturbing about that has, in
fact, been "explained away," in a rather interesting fashion.
: frankie
: ---------------------------------------------------------
: Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
: ---------------------------------------------------------
--
cheers,
--;-;--@ susannah };&)
========================================================================
The Devil, having nothing else to do,
Went off to tempt My Lady Poltagrue.
My Lady, tempted by a private whim,
To his extreme annoyance, tempted him.
-- Hilaire Belloc: 'On Lady Poltagrue, a Public Peril.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Susannah R Mandel * sma...@fas.harvard.edu *
************************************************************************
"My God!" ejaculated Phelps.
Frankie Jackson
--====================987654321_0==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I'm trying this again - I don't think the last try got
"out" there.
---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------
--====================987654321_0==_
Content-Type: text/plain; name="MAIL.txt"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="MAIL.txt"
Killashdra said
>That said, I can understand why this story would not be for everyone. I
>would have hoped that the code in the subject line and the warning in the
>intro would have allowed those who find such subject matter disturbing to
>avoid the story.
Trouble is I don't think this is a "little rougher" than your usual
stuff. I found it a whole whacking great heap rougher than your usual
stuff.
I don't mean physically but mentally. If it hadn't been so well-written I
wouldn't have found it so disturbing.
So many people had urged me to press on that I did but I found
that I literally *could not* finish Part Four. I found the spectacle
of a sick man being put through a series of humiliating sexual hoops
for "his own good" more than I could bear.
I skipped to Part Five and found the rational (though well-written as
usual) completely unconvincing. It felt to me like an attempt to excuse
the inexcusable.
Even if I accept that a forced sexual experience is good for what
ails Kirk (which seems like an awful leap to me) and even if telepathy
does mean never having to say you're sorry, what happened to choice?
What happened to free will? If it were a medical treatment, an adult
would have the right to refuse it, even if it was what he/she needed.
"This is not logical, captain." And even in a fantasy world, the humans
have to be recognisable humans and their reactions recognisable as human
or there is no point writing them *as* human.
I'm sorry Killa, but this read to me as a story in which the sex was
written (or thought of first) and the rationale was grafted on after;
to make what (I'm sorry but this is how it reads to me) the rape
palatable to a sophisticated western readership.
I did hope that the story would deal with Spock's realisation
that he has rationalised what he wants as what his captain needs
and taken advantage of a man at a low ebb but Part 5 seems to
have killed that one dead.
I'm obviously in a minority of one here (again) and I really don't
think I want to read any further. It's just too upsetting.
I've been told (and abusively e-mailed) that I ought to have read
the whole thing but this is a work in progress and I hoped to have
some input into the way it was going. I'm only sorry I've not
been persuasive enough.
--====================987654321_0==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
--====================987654321_0==_--
Frankie Jackson
--====================987654321_0==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
And yet again since I don't think the attachment attached.
Frankie Jackson
From: eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford)
>This also brings up something interesting about writing TrekSmut that has to
>do with b/d. Typically, or at least in the stuff I've read, slash that
>involves b/d which falls into the range of what I call "semi-consensual"
>(where "no' doesn't always mean "no" and is often ignored by the top) has a
>certain pattern to it. It's *usually* P/Q or G/B (more likely the latter)
>and hinges on the fact that the top knows the bottom well enough to know when
>"no" really means "yes I want this, but I'm afraid and/or my pride's on the
>line here."
But this is part of the problem for me. No should mean no - everyone
has the right to decide *for themselves* whether they want to protect
their pride, whether they want to stay afraid.
>We assume that Garak is observant enough and familiar with the
>way people think to be able to "read" Bashir, and, of course, Q would know
>exactly whether Picard's "no" really means "no" or not (Mercutio's "TQ" is a
>perfect example of this). In "Surrender," Killa is doing the same thing.
>Kirk's "no" doesn't really mean "no" (at least in my reading of the story),
>and Spock would certainly be in a position to know what's what.
But why should this inner knowledge entitle them to infantalise someone else by
removing from them two of the most basic of rights - the right to decide who
they will have sex with *and* the right to
be wrong?
It's *my* pride (or Julian's) it's *my* fear (or Picard's) and I (or
Kirk) have the right to decide what, if anything I/we are going to do
about them.
Otherwise we/they are conceding to some omnipotent/quasi omnipotent
master race the right to decide stuff for us/them.
Bad idea IMO
> It's one
>thing to play around with pre-arranged rape scenarios, another to ignore
>someone seriously saying no. Ahem . . . sorry; I will go on at times
Can I just amend this, although I'm sure it's not what you meant,
if you go round saying that it's only when you "seriously" say no
that it counts, you cause the very problems I'm complaining about.
People deciding for themselves that other people's no's mean
something else.
No means no - unless you have a prior, explicit arrangement with
someone that no means yes.
Um - look I think I might have gone in a bit heavy on my last post.
I really didn't mean to insult anyone, it's just something I feel
strongly about.
frankie
Mary Rottler
In article <336cc76a...@nntp.netcruiser>,
tkn...@nospam.ix.netcom.com says...
>
>frank...@hotmail.com (Frankie Jackson) wrote:
>
>>I wonder, am I the only person how is disturbed by this story (and
>>not pleasantly either)?
>>
>>Here we have a physically stronger being forcing sex on someone
>>physically weaker who has said he doesn't want it but is being forced
>>anyway, "because he wants it really" and "it's for his own good".
>
>She hasn't finished it yet. If it still is a classic "Kirk falls in
>love with his rapist" story when it ends, then I'll yell at her.
>
.Here, here! ! !
Mary
Annchgo
I know I will be flamed for this. And I have decided - so what. Just read
my whole post before doing so.
The question of Spock forcing Kirk to engage in a sexual encounter has
come up and has disturbed some people.
First, forcing anyone to engage in an unwanted sexual encounter is wrong.
It usually takes place between strangers (rape), new couples or dating
partners (date rape) or even married couples (rape again.)
That said, I would like to add that sometimes, between a couple of
long-standing, a couple that knows the other very well, and a couple that
truly cares about each other, sometimes no can really mean yes. Yes,
please because it excites me. Or no, but I really want to say yes and I
need my guard to be forced down for a change or even no, I feel like
playing a kinky game so make me.
Kirk are Spock are a couple of long standing (even if you do not envision
them having a slash relationship. By now they know each other very well.
They care about each other (again, even if you do not see a slash
relationship, the caring has always been there) and sometimes even
grown-ups like to play games (here you do have to envision a slash
relationship). Spock would not hurt Kirk intentionally and vice versa.
Therefore it is "safe" for Kirk to say no, but mean yes. Because Spock
knows the game for what it is.
There are all kinds of sexual fantasies out there. Some involve power
trips, real or percieved. Some are even darker.
anne in chicago
Uif1
Thank you Ann for being able to articulate what I've been stewing over
ever since I read Frankie's post.
Relationships are so complex, and the issues of sexuality, power and
control and ambivalence are very intertwined here.
As someone who generally detests stories about rape, slavery, whatever
kind of coercion that finally ends in Kirk and Spock coming together, I
found no sense of real violation in this story. At the same time I
recognize the risk of writing the scene that Killa has...for me the
relationship context made it possible to view this as passionate and not a
brutal dominance. I think, as always, we react to what we read through the
filters of our own imaginations, experiences and beliefs. There is room
for divergent opinion here.
Deb
eeross
<Frankie>
>Trouble is I don't think this is a "little rougher" than your usual
>stuff. I found it a whole whacking great heap rougher than your usual
>stuff.
>I don't mean physically but mentally. If it hadn't been so well-written I
>wouldn't have found it so disturbing.
<Ellen>
Since this is the case, I don't think you should make yourself
read anymore, and having once made the attempt, in an attempt
to share something they enjoy, I don't think anyone should try
and convince you further. And *definitely*, no one should be
abusive, I'm bothered that anyone was.
As was made clear just awhile back, there is a wide diversity
of tastes on this group; I adore Killa's writing, but I also
understand what you're saying. I was also (and continue to be)
very disturbed by this piece, but in different ways and for different
reasons. I was overwhelmed by the inability I saw on Kirk's part to
give in, to allow someone else to be strong for you, and it spoke to
me on a very deep emotional level. Sometimes you *can't* surrender,
or say what it is you want, and having someone who knows you well enough
to
continue to push you past your own self-imposed limits, who you can
trust to not hurt you or abuse you, to put your own needs above his
or her own, can be tremendously freeing. Does somebody have the
*right* to push that far? In some relationships, I think that there
is a tacit right to do what is necessary to fulfull the Other's needs.
In slash, this is more likely to come out in terms of sexual dominance
and submission.
These are areas that shouldn't even be dabbled in too far IRL unless
there *is* complete trust on both sides, and deep knowledge
each of each other - a given in the K/S scene, as far as I've
seen. If you don't go into it *knowing* that Spock would not
hurt Kirk, nor do anything that would harm him, then it plays
out as you say, a rationalization of Spock's doing what he wants.
And for you, obviously Kirk's explanations and acceptances don't
ring true, while for others they do. Spock *is* fulfilling
his own needs and desires, but the primary desire is to do
what *Kirk* needs, putting Kirk's needs above his own.
And concerning the whole issue of when no means no - I agree.
No should always mean no; people should always stop when the
word is used. While I know that *personally* sometimes no means
I want to be persuaded, I wouldn't put that burden on another
person to decipher my own quirks - unless the relationship is
one where the depth and mutual understanding is such that the
boundaries can be pushed and explored. If someone has never
experienced this personally, seeing it played out would be
*very* disturbing. Fanfic is a *safe* place to explore these
ideas, even if you don't have a safe place in your own
life to do so.
In Killa's story, and in other examples given, I believe there
is a seduction of sorts going on, beneath the surface, and an
"established" subtext to the relationships that imply an
understanding and mutual knowledge that allows me to accept
things in the stories that I might reject IRL.
I don't think that fiction and real life can or should be
seen as absolute or implied reflections of each other; or that
one should draw principles for action from slash, such that *if*
I find this particular scenario believable in terms of the characters
and the situation, that means that it would be acceptable (a) in
real life and (b) with anyone, anytime, anywhere. The times I
would find such a scenario acceptable in my or anyone's life are
limited. But I can also envision situations where discussing issues
such as domination and surrender is not possible, *because* the
people involved may have intimations of what they want, but don't
know how to talk about it, or acknowledge it. You said:
<Frankie>
>But why should this inner knowledge entitle them to infantalise
>someone else by removing from them two of the most basic of rights
- the right to decide who they will have sex with *and* the right
to be wrong?
<Ellen>
Even in the closest of relationships, this kind of situation is
risky - even if it's what both sides want on some level, someone
who is forced to give in to a desire they can't describe may resent
being made so vulnerable; and the one "forced" into being the
coercer may resent having to be in control. It's something that
ideally *shouldn't* be deliberately pursued IRL unless
there is explicit understanding on both sides of what is at stake
- but then that can interfere with the very release that is sought.
And there's also the issue of who really is in control? On a very
deep level, I see Kirk as being completely in control - because I
believe that Spock will not push him further than he can bear.
Kirk says "I can't" - but both men are aware of Kirk's arousal.
We are aware that Kirk is shutting down because he believes he
can't allow himself the luxury of surrender, doesn't deserve what
is happening - but Spock, as a telepath, is aware that Kirk is
fighting with *himself*, more than with Spock. Does that give
Spock the right to push Kirk over the edge? I think that when you
get to that level of a relationship, talk of rights and
corresponding responsibilities starts to sound very artificial.
There is the same kind of tension for me in Killa's
_Turning Point_. In a very real way, Spock is finding himself
swept away and out of control - the consent is more explicit
there, but that whole issue of giving in and being forced to
give up control is still very much there for me. Kirk is *lovingly*
using his personality, and the emotional hold he has over Spock
to get what he wants - but he wants it for them both. The failure
of both at the end of the story to see what it is that each really
wants, or is capable of, I see as a misreading each of the other.
Spock doesn't think Kirk is capable of the kind of total surrender
that Spock needs, once Spock has given himself; Kirk sees Spock's
realization of this as a turning away from Kirk. Both want the same
thing, but don't know how to say it. In "Surrender", Spock doesn't
allow that kind of self-delusion. He sees that if he doesn't force
the issue here, in this way, Kirk will be broken in another way, where
Spock may not be able to help. It's a controlled situation, with
someone who loves him.
--Ellen
Jeanita
Frankie Jackson (frank...@hotmail.com) wrote:
:
: But this is part of the problem for me. No should mean no - everyone
: has the right to decide *for themselves* whether they want to protect
: their pride, whether they want to stay afraid.
Most relationships are a good deal more complex than that. People say no
and mean maybe, they say no and mean yes, but only on Tuesdays. In fact,
no doesn't necessarily mean no at all in certain situations. If I know
you very well, I will be able to determine exactly what no means. What I
do with that knowledge is up to me, of course, but simply being able to
read a person doesn't imply a willingness to do that person harm.
:
: But why should this inner knowledge entitle them to infantalise someone else by
: removing from them two of the most basic of rights - the right to decide who
: they will have sex with *and* the right to
: be wrong?
:
: It's *my* pride (or Julian's) it's *my* fear (or Picard's) and I (or
: Kirk) have the right to decide what, if anything I/we are going to do
: about them.
:
: Otherwise we/they are conceding to some omnipotent/quasi omnipotent
: master race the right to decide stuff for us/them.
:
: Bad idea IMO
Frankie, you are right, but only within a fairly narrow context. What I
think you fail to understand is that often (far more often than we think)
people *willingly* hand over their right to make their own choices. This
doesn't simply happen sexually, it happens politically, economically, in
fact, in many different contexts. I think your misunderstanding comes
from misperceiving Kirk's tacit agreement with, and approval of, Spock's
behavior. I think Killa would agree that if, in her narrative, Kirk had
angrily demanded that Spock desist, and/or had actively fought him, Spock
would have stopped at once, apologized, and left. There is much that is
implied within the framework of the story--Kirk's need for Spock's
assistance; his willingness to trust that Spock not only knows what he
needs but wants to give to him; Spock's understanding of Kirk's
psychological make-up; Spock's desire to please. The Kirk we know could
not say "Help me." Not aloud. His peculiar behavior, however, would be a
red flag to Spock and to some (but obviously not all) readers that
something is badly amiss. Spock's response was based on what he knew
about himself, about Kirk and about the situation. It had it's own
intrinsic logic although on the surface it may have appeared to be a
simple tale of nonconsensual sex.
This speaks to a concurrent discussion about PWP and the viewer/reader's
understanding of the various characters. Everyone's perceptions are
different, and although there is going to be broad general agreement about
characters' behavior and motivations, there will always be disagreement
when it comes to specifics. I thought Killa's story was skillfully and
subtly wrought, and firmly based in a thorough understanding of the
characters. Obviously others may not, but the beautiful part is that we
can agree to disagree and still respect one another.
Please don't take this as chastisement or a put-down. I am explaining my
understanding of the dynamics of Killa's story. I am not attempting to
change your mind, show you the light, explain the error of your ways or
otherwise correct your thinking. Let me reiterate that I think your POV
is perfectly valid although, as I've said, a bit narrow in scope.
:
: > It's one
: >thing to play around with pre-arranged rape scenarios, another to ignore
: >someone seriously saying no. Ahem . . . sorry; I will go on at times
:
: Can I just amend this, although I'm sure it's not what you meant,
: if you go round saying that it's only when you "seriously" say no
: that it counts, you cause the very problems I'm complaining about.
: People deciding for themselves that other people's no's mean
: something else.
A good point. You bring up issues of respect and understanding, and
people don't always 'get' when they've ignored or trampled on another
person's rights. It's always good to be careful and check and double
check with a person you don't know well, but let me point out that Ruth
did say pre-arranged, implying a level of mutual understanding. It is
this mutual understanding that is implied in Killa's story, based on years
and years of working and living together. If Kirk had met Spock two days
earlier and Spock was suddenly in his room saying "I know you want it," I
would probably feel much as you do.
Jeanita
--
Killashdra
(forgive the lengthy quoting)
ann...@aol.com writes:
>Kirk are Spock are a couple of long standing (even if you do not envision
>them having a slash relationship. By now they know each other very well.
>They care about each other (again, even if you do not see a slash
>relationship, the caring has always been there) and sometimes even
>grown-ups like to play games (here you do have to envision a slash
>relationship). Spock would not hurt Kirk intentionally and vice versa.
>Therefore it is "safe" for Kirk to say no, but mean yes. Because Spock
>knows the game for what it is.
Yes, yes, yes!!! THANK you for saying this. You picked up *exactly* the
feelings I had about this story, and exactly what I was trying to
communicate. I could not have said this better myself, probably not as
well. (Never was good at being succinct. <g>)
Thank you for posting it, too. Can't tell you how good it is to know
that, at least in part, I got across what I was aiming for.
-Killa
Patricia S. Bowne
Frankie wrote:
"I've been told (and abusively e-mailed) that I ought to have read
the whole thing but this is a work in progress and I hoped to have
some input into the way it was going. I'm only sorry I've not
been persuasive enough.
I can't believe people sent you abusive e-mail, when you started
one of the most interesting and moderate threads we've had for
a while! However, I think hoping to have input in how someone
else is developing a story is unrealistic. The artist's vision
has to come first, ahead of the audience's demands, at least when
we're not paying to read the text -- it really is a lobor of love.
Pat
Peddycoart
Ellen,
Thanks for a very thoughtful and well articulated response to this
discussion.
>I was also (and continue to be)
>very disturbed by this piece, but in different ways and for different
>reasons. I was overwhelmed by the inability I saw on Kirk's part to
>give in, to allow someone else to be strong for you, and it spoke to
>me on a very deep emotional level.
I think the complexity and strength of our varying responses speaks to
how deeply these issues touch us.
Deb
Blade McMicking
frank...@hotmail.com (Frankie Jackson) wrote:
>I wonder, am I the only person how is disturbed by this story (and
>not pleasantly either)?
No, you're not the only one. I was expecting a classic K/S with
Killa's particularly wonderful storytelling -- and it's becoming
increasingly uncomfortable. I've read up to part 5 now.
The violence and dominance are a bit (huuh! *More* than a bit!!)
over-the-top for my my taste and comfort-levels. (Well, duh, Blade,
what *does* "bdsm" mean, eh? Gotta read the preface more carefully, I
do!) I'll admit to reading it solely on Killa's merit as an author.
>Nor am I impressed by the argument that this is only fantasy, if we
>are not aiming for emotional truth when we write, why do we bother?
I would hope that writers would use fantasy as a vehicle to *say
something* -- emotional truth, biting social commentary, a really
great pun, whatever. Perhaps Killa means to say something we just
haven't got to yet? I can certainly hope so ...
>I had been looking forward to this story - I cannot say how
>disappointed I was.
Thank you for saying something, frankie -- it takes someone to *start*
any discussion. <g> I'm on the knife-edge myself, waffling about
whether to continue reading; if I do indeed stick with it, it will be
because of two things: 1. Killa is a fantastic writer, and 2. nothing
in the story *so far* has had the nightmare ability to sear itself
into my brain and make me twitch. (Praising with faint damns,
perhaps.)
It'll be interesting to see where this discussion goes, though ...
Blade
Zepp
On 4 May 1997 17:18:03 -0700, frank...@hotmail.com (Frankie
Jackson) wrote:
>Killashdra said
>
>>That said, I can understand why this story would not be for everyone. I
>>would have hoped that the code in the subject line and the warning in the
>>intro would have allowed those who find such subject matter disturbing to
>>avoid the story.
>
>Trouble is I don't think this is a "little rougher" than your usual
>stuff. I found it a whole whacking great heap rougher than your usual
>stuff.
>
>I don't mean physically but mentally. If it hadn't been so well-written I
>wouldn't have found it so disturbing.
>
>So many people had urged me to press on that I did but I found
>that I literally *could not* finish Part Four. I found the spectacle
>of a sick man being put through a series of humiliating sexual hoops
> for "his own good" more than I could bear.
Except I don't really think that it was that way, Frankie. I, too,
found this story distrubing -- as well as VERY arousing, and extremely
sensual -- which is something, sexually confused as I tend to be,
which is not always easy for me to handle. Even while I enjoy such
things, they shake at places in my mind where I have built walls, for
whatever reasons...
BUT -- I went back and re-read it, part 3 and part 4 especially, since
those to me are the crux of the matter. And on rereading it, I must
say, no, this is NOT rape, not even the kind of rape Penthouse loves
to promote, with teh subtext of "she ends up enjoying it, so its ok".
Perhaps the key is, your use of the word humiliating.
There is a feeling, which one can have, in which, to be restrained in
some manner, far from taking away one's freedom, rather, frees one to
"go for it", to express the entirety of one's feelings and reactions,
however passionate and/or incendiary those feelings might become. To
some folks, like our captain and in some ways myself, the letting go
of one's control is very hard to do. It is threatening, even though
inside we know the threat is not a real one. One becomes conditioned
to "keeping it all in", and sometimes one *cannot* let go, even when
one deeply wishes to. In this context, when Kirk's hands were bound,
when choice was made for him, he is not humiliated, but freed. He is
scared, but his fear is of himself, and his own reactions, the fear
that what he feels cannot possibly be returned, that he will
inevitably be scorned and rejected for his feelings toward this man.
And he finds, that he is not, that his feelings are returned. And for
me, this works.
>I skipped to Part Five and found the rational (though well-written as
>usual) completely unconvincing. It felt to me like an attempt to excuse
>the inexcusable.
>
>Even if I accept that a forced sexual experience is good for what
>ails Kirk (which seems like an awful leap to me) and even if telepathy
>does mean never having to say you're sorry, what happened to choice?
>What happened to free will? If it were a medical treatment, an adult
>would have the right to refuse it, even if it was what he/she needed.
And yet, in the end, it IS his choice. He is a full and willing
participant, by the end of the scene, and from then on. His
reluctance stemmed primarily from fear of ridicule and rejection,
rather than any distaste for the act itself.
>"This is not logical, captain." And even in a fantasy world, the humans
>have to be recognisable humans and their reactions recognisable as human
>or there is no point writing them *as* human.
>
>I'm sorry Killa, but this read to me as a story in which the sex was
>written (or thought of first) and the rationale was grafted on after;
>to make what (I'm sorry but this is how it reads to me) the rape
>palatable to a sophisticated western readership.
I do feel I must say this: IDIC, Frankie. I enjoy your posts most
greatly, and while it makes me sad that you cannot enjoy this story as
I did, I must admit that your reaction to it is just as valid as mine.
Nobody died and made *me* God -- if in truth you cannot relate to this
story, so be it. It does not make me wrong and you right, or the
reverse. It is only that we all are different, and each of us must do
as our hearts command us. It is a pleasure to have this discussion,
sir.
>I did hope that the story would deal with Spock's realisation
>that he has rationalised what he wants as what his captain needs
>and taken advantage of a man at a low ebb but Part 5 seems to
>have killed that one dead.
>
>I'm obviously in a minority of one here (again) and I really don't
>think I want to read any further. It's just too upsetting.
>I've been told (and abusively e-mailed) that I ought to have read
>the whole thing but this is a work in progress and I hoped to have
>some input into the way it was going. I'm only sorry I've not
>been persuasive enough.
I regret that anyone was so rude as to send you abusive email; certes
that sort of behaviour aids nothing. As I said above, I respect your
feelings and our differences, and still look forward to seeing the
rest of the revised "Father to the Man." <Hmm -- I suppose I should
ask if this is the same Frankie -- UseNet is a confusing place! Well,
if not, no harm intended...> If in all truth ye cannot bring yourself
to finish the story, let be. None of us reads *all* of what's in here
-- no-one could, I think. Ye made an honest try at it, and it was not
to be.
Live long and prosper
Greywolf the Wanderer
--borrowing Zepp's account.
--header munged to foil spambots; remove the extra "p"
Ruth Gifford
On 5 May 1997 20:41:04 -0500, Patricia S. Bowne wrote:
>
>Frankie wrote:
>
>"I've been told (and abusively e-mailed) that I ought to have read
>the whole thing but this is a work in progress and I hoped to have
>some input into the way it was going. I'm only sorry I've not
>been persuasive enough.
>
>
>one of the most interesting and moderate threads we've had for
>a while! However, I think hoping to have input in how someone
>else is developing a story is unrealistic. The artist's vision
>has to come first, ahead of the audience's demands, at least when
>we're not paying to read the text -- it really is a lobor of love.
I was also pretty upset to hear that people were sending Frankie abusive
e-mail. I realize that we often want to defend our favorite authors, but
still . . . I think Killa has answered the posts very well, and the only
reason I've leapt into the debate is to explain things from the viewpoint of
a writer who writes about this kind of thing as well.
I just want to say, Frankie, that *I'm* glad you expressed your concerns and
I think Pat is right. It is an interesting topic.
Indrani DasGupta
frank...@hotmail.com (Frankie Jackson) wrote:
> I'm sorry Killa, but this read to me as a story in which the sex was
> written (or thought of first) and the rationale was grafted on after;
> to make what (I'm sorry but this is how it reads to me) the rape
> palatable to a sophisticated western readership.
Frankie, I hope you do not take what I say to be patronising but one
of the reasons the K/S scenario works for me is the existence of The
Bond, a plot device absent in most other slash scenarios. And, while I
understand your disappointment at the premise of this story I would
like to point out that it *is* true to the spirit of K/S. Adult
relationships are nothing if not complex and the interaction between
these two men has always stretched that limit.
> I'm obviously in a minority of one here (again) and I really don't
> think I want to read any further. It's just too upsetting.
> I've been told (and abusively e-mailed) that I ought to have read
[snip]
In that case, please don't. We all absorb the world around us through
the filter of our individual experiences, and gray areas abound. I am
aghast at the thought of you having received abusive email, however...
this newsgroup is in dire need of discourse such as this.
Indrani.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Frankie Jackson
--====================987654321_0==_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------
--====================987654321_0==_
Content-Type: text/plain; name="EMAIL.txt"
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="EMAIL.txt"
Hang on a minute here - I've just had a thought.
We've had a number of posts from people claiming that in some
relationships it is possible for them to know that "no" means "yes".
But nearly everyone we've heard from so far has been (or appears to
be) a woman where the question of forcing "consent" is much less
dangerous. Either they are the physically weaker of the couple
or they are of roughly equal strength to their partner.
But most of the people (if not the posters) round here will be men
and (lets be accurate about this) boys and to some of them we
are going to be saying, "Hey guess what guys? All those stories
in the porno mags are true, there are times when no means
yes, huh huh. Sometimes she doesn't know what's best for her."
In other words we are validating the rapist's excuse throughout
the ages, "She wanted it really."
Trouble is, I don't see anyway round a double standard.
Guys for you, in the absence of a clearly negotiated prior
agreement, "no" must *always* mean *no* because if you're
wrong, and too much of the time you will be, you can do more
harm than a lot of you can imagine.
shanna...@pnx.com
On 5 May 1997 20:09:11 GMT, jea...@cpcug.org (Jeanita) wrote:
>Frankie Jackson (frank...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>:
>: But this is part of the problem for me. No should mean no - everyone
>: has the right to decide *for themselves* whether they want to protect
>: their pride, whether they want to stay afraid.
>
>Most relationships are a good deal more complex than that. People say no
>and mean maybe, they say no and mean yes, but only on Tuesdays.
Rape is never consensual. If one person wants sex and the other one
says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
the Wells, by the same author. This is as out of character as you get.
Spock would never rape Kirk, would never force himself on Kirk.
Rape is an act of violence. It's not about sex and it's got nothing to
do with love.
shan...@pnx.com (use this for replies)
Webmaster for ST: The Ultimate Fantasy (adults only)
http://www.serve.com/Shannara/index.html
Jeanita
shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
: On 5 May 1997 20:09:11 GMT, jea...@cpcug.org (Jeanita) wrote:
:
: >Frankie Jackson (frank...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: >:
: >: But this is part of the problem for me. No should mean no - everyone
: >: has the right to decide *for themselves* whether they want to protect
: >: their pride, whether they want to stay afraid.
: >
: >Most relationships are a good deal more complex than that. People say no
: >and mean maybe, they say no and mean yes, but only on Tuesdays.
:
: Rape is never consensual. If one person wants sex and the other one
: says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
: it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
: the Wells, by the same author. This is as out of character as you get.
: Spock would never rape Kirk, would never force himself on Kirk.
: Rape is an act of violence. It's not about sex and it's got nothing to
: do with love.
I think we're dealing with different levels of understanding here. In
_Beside the Wells_ which *Jess* wrote, btw, the situation is entirely
different. Bear in mind that Jess's story is an A/U character study in
which the protagonist's inability to to see the similarities between
himself and his slave(s) is examined and put to the test. The A/U Spock
*would and did* rape his slave because he didn't believe that there could
be such a thing as nonconsensual sex between a piece of property (Kirk)
and a sentient being (himself). This was not an attitude specific to
Spock--he was reflecting the beliefs of his culture. The point of Beside
the Wells was that Spock eventually was able to learn that the privilege
of selfhood was not his to keep or give away. He was able to transcend
his conditioning, learn this lesson and act on what he'd learned, even
though it was certainly too late for any kind of rapprochement between
himself and Kirk.
For both authors, the point was not to simply write about rape. In fact,
in my reading of Killa's story, I do not see that a rape took place. I
can say this based on my understanding of the characters and Killa's
description of events and character motivation. Permit me to suggest that
actually reading the story being discussed might give you a clearer picture of
what's going on.
Jeanita
--
Macedon
First, and unrelated to the below, a correction:
shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
> Rape is never consensual. If one person wants sex and the other one
> says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
> it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
> the Wells, by the same author....
"Beside the Wells" was not by the same author. The author was Jess, not
Killa.
************
Now, to change the subject and rant a little....
First, let me apologize to Killa since I haven't been able to read the
story. The semester is finishing up here and I'm doing damn good just
to keep up with discussion on the group. I haven't read a story in over
three weeks (with apologies to Carly as well, as I missed the recent
"Paris" installment). In any case, what I have to say below is not
specifically related to "Surrender" as I haven't read it and can't
comment. But it IS still related to the general discussion, I think.
Incidently--and just to be clear--this post is not directed at anyone.
Not frankie who began it, not anyone. Clear? It's a tangential issue
on which I'm going to take off on a tear for a while.
All that said, two things....
NEVER ASSUME YOU KNOW WHAT AN AUTHOR IS TRYING TO SAY UNTIL YOU HAVE
FINISHED READING THE ENTIRE STORY! NEVER ASSUME THE AUTHOR AGREES WITH
THE OPINIONS OF THE PROTAG OR ANY OTHER CHARACTER!
I warned you it was a rant. Now I'll explain the above comments (or
howls, really), beginning with the second.
I know published authors who occasionally deal with fans at cons or
signings (or in fanmail) who have mistakenly conflated the author with
his or her characters. They assume the author *agrees* with the
opinions of (usually) the protag, particularly if the story was written
in first person. Bad assumption. A *good* author can create a
convincing character who thinks very differently from him or her. That
is, after all, the whole point of character stories. We aren't writing
*ourselves*. Yes, an author may put some of him or herself into any
given character. It's inevitable. But it's a very bad idea to assume
that an author will be like his or her characters. (Or even that, if
you like the author's writing, you'll like the author as a person--I've
been unpleasantly surprised on a number of occasions on that score!) An
author's goal, particularly a character author, is to create a variety
of characters. In fact, one mark of an unskilled author is to write the
same damn character *over* and *over* and *over*, just changing the name
and details. Boring. By contrast a good author can create two
characters of similar circumstance or occupation who are, nevertheless,
quite different in personality.
Yes, fanfiction is often assumed to be the bastion of Mary Sue-ism. But
that's not necessarily true. And even if an author does share some
points of contact with one of his or her characters, it's still not a
good idea to conflate the two. (For instance, I'm a quite different
person from Chakotay, even though we both happen to be Indian. His
faults are not my faults, his virtues are not my virtues, and he's a
*hell* of a lot better looking than me! <G>) An author may use a
character to portray a particular opinion held by that author, but
sometimes a character is just portraying an opinion held by the
*character*! And sometimes an author may do it all inside-out and
backwards: the opinion of the author may be diametrically *opposed* to
the opinion of the protag, and one has to catch the clues indicating
this is the case. I've been known to pull that trick myself. ;>
Now, a related problem comes from assumptions about what an author
"means" in a story--particularly early on. Sure, a reader begins to
formulate ideas as he or she reads. In fact, sometimes the author
*counts* on that, and then proceeds to lead the reader on a merry
chase! And it's also perfectly okay, if a story really *bothers* a
reader, not to read it. Most writers would prefer that.
But if one does put a book down (or doesn't open the next part of a
story), please refrain from stating what the story was about, because
until one reaches the end...A READER CANNOT KNOW. Sometimes the
author's doesn't MAKE his or her point until the end. (In fact, the
above mentioned "Beside the Wells" is an excellent example of just this
trick. It was an anti-slavery, anti-rape story: an internal journey of
the protag from one belief system to another. How does a slave-owner
come to realize slavery is wrong?) If one decides a story is not his or
her thing, that's fine. I've put down more than my share of books
because the writing was bad, or I didn't care about the characters, or I
didn't like the way the story seemed to be heading and I had no desire
to finish it.... God knows there's no rule that one MUST finish every
story one begins. Sometimes it pays to give a story a chance, though.
Case in point: C.S. Lewis' THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH starts *very* slowly.
I put the book down three times (as a teen) before finally reading all
of it--and it turned out to be my favorite of that trilogy. I had the
same reaction to A DOOR INTO OCEAN (I think that's the title by, Jane
S--), A MILLION OPEN DOORS (by Barnes), and THE INFINITY CONCERTO (by
Bear). All ended up being well worth my time. *However*....
(To repeat myself...) If you do put a book down because it bores or
bothers you, don't then assume you know the author's intent or themes.
There's very little that annoys a writer more than to have someone say,
"I didn't like your opinion/portrayal of XXXX" and have XXXX be the
exact *opposite* of what the writer has said...especially when the
writer then discovers that the reader didn't bother to read the whole
story! And yes, I have seen readers do this to authors at cons and
signings and on GEnie. And I've seen it done in book reviews, too.
Writers can be brutal--rightly, in my opinion--in their replies to this
level of vacuity. Flame me for saying the opposite of what I said,
especially if you only read half my story, and I WILL tear into you. A
polite question is another matter.
It's okay to disagree with an author's opinion, and to say so. But be
sure that one is disagreeing with the REAL opinion, not an assumed
opinion. Here on a.s.c, it's a little easier because the writers are
often available to SAY "Well, what I really meant was...." However, if
one discovers one misunderstood the author, don't try to convince the
author they didn't really mean what they say they did! (I've seen
readers try that tactic, too, to save face.) If one doesn't think the
author conveyed well what he or she meant, then explain why--politely,
of course. But it's plain ol' rude to argue with an author about what
he or she meant. (Wait!, you ask. Isn't that the same thing? No. The
first relates to technique: how well the writing conveyed what the
author meant to say, i.e. a matter of method. The second patronizingly
assumes the author didn't know jack-shit about what he or she was trying
to say, i.e. telling the author what he or she "obviously" thinks.)
Again, lest anyone think I exaggerate, I have watched readers do this
very thing.
Now--once again--the above is not a sideways attempt to squelch the
current discussion raised by Killa's story and I'm not "replying" to
anyone. It's a tangetial topic that popped to my mind as I read the
discussions, and it seemed like a good time to bring it up.
Readers should *always* remember that authors are tricky creatures. We
don't necessarily make themes immediately clear, and our protags may or
may not express opinions which are our own. So a simple rule: Don't
read a story if one finds it troubling, but *don't* then assume what the
author meant. Unless one is a mindreader, one can't. And for God's
sake, don't flame an author for holding an opinion unless one is *damn*
sure the author really holds it!
End of rant.
Macedon
Ellen
<Blade, bits from two places>
The violence and dominance are a bit (huuh! *More* than a bit!!)
<Ellen>
I think that personal comfort levels will drastically affect one's
reaction to this story, as well as one's own experiences and attitudes
concerning bdsm and the nature of relationships. In my own view, I
think that the fact that there is a bdsm element to the story is
secondary; it's just not the point, just the vehicle.
I agree with remarks made by Bechamp that I can't see Spock (or Kirk,
for that matter) wanting to be the perpetual dominant - or submissive.
Frankie got the feeling that the sex came first, then the story was
developed to justify it; *I* feel that the first thing was the scenario
that Kirk is flying towards destruction, unable to let go of his control
for fear of falling apart completely. His emotional reactions are
completely shut down, except for surface irritations; his anger is very
near to the surface, threatening to swamp him. As the story depicts it,
Spock has to find some way to *force* Kirk to let go, to feel all the
things he has prevented himself from feeling because of his own fears
concerning failure and losing control. Kirk needs a *safe* environment
in which to *give up* his control. As Ruth so eloquently describes it, a
*healthy* bdsm relationship can be the place for that - healthy to me,
in this sense, is one where both parties are aware of the situation,
both accede, and both are most concerned with the needs and wellbeing of
the Other. It seems to me that Killa's story provides this healthiness -
provided you accept the assumptions of Spock's concern for Kirk being
paramount; his ability to sense any true reluctance on Kirk's part; and
both Kirk's and Spock's ability to be completely honest with themselves.
I also believe that nothing cuts so closely to us in many ways as our
sexuality - not in terms of orientation, but in terms of relationship,
and intimacy. Particularly in slash fiction, sexuality is the expression
of an extremely deep intimate connection; sexual contact brings us more
closely together than anything but deep "mind to mind" contact (not
telepathy). Sexual intimacy *touches* us (if we allow it) more deeply
than words often can, is harder to ignore than words, and I think that's
one of the reasons that in this story, sexuality, (and dominance) is
used
to break through to Kirk. I personally can't think of anything else that
could have broken through Kirk's control so deeply; according to the
story, words weren't helping at all. I suppose that Spock could have
tried a forced mental connection, but in an odd way, I would have been
more disturbed by that, more likely to consider it rape.
I *believe* that in part, Killa is addressing the issue of mutual
caring and need, and the idea that *sometimes* those needs go deeper
than our comfort levels permit our conscious selves to accede to.
Frankie used the term "infantalize"; in some ways, I think that's true,
if you use it to mean *allowing* someone to return to that childhood
state of total trust and total dependence. Which of us hasn't at one
point or another wanted to completely surrender our control, our
responsibilities, our duties? As a starship captain, Kirk has *more* of
these than most of us, and a greater sense of being in charge.
Presumably, then, his need for release, for relinquishing that control
is greater, as well.
Ellen
Ruth Gifford
On Wed, 07 May 1997 02:24:37 GMT, shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
>
>On 5 May 1997 20:09:11 GMT, jea...@cpcug.org (Jeanita) wrote:
>
>>Frankie Jackson (frank...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>:
>>: But this is part of the problem for me. No should mean no - everyone
>>: has the right to decide *for themselves* whether they want to protect
>>: their pride, whether they want to stay afraid.
>>
>>Most relationships are a good deal more complex than that. People say no
>>and mean maybe, they say no and mean yes, but only on Tuesdays.
>
>says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
>it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
>Spock would never rape Kirk, would never force himself on Kirk.
>Rape is an act of violence. It's not about sex and it's got nothing to
>do with love.
Whoa! First things first, Killa didn't write "Beside the Wells" (at least I
don;t think she did; someone named Jess did) which *was* about rape. It was
also set in one of those convinient A/U's and did *not* have a happy
ending.
Besides, "Surrender" isn't about rape. Not only that but quite frankly
Shannara, I'm surprised that you'd jump all over a story you haven't read
yet. It's about control and trust. Or at least that's what I read into it.
YMMV, but if you're going to knock it, read it first.
Ellen
<Ruth>
>After all, if Kirk (or whoever) said "no" and *meant* "no," than one can >imagine that the scene would be over.
<Ellen>
Which in itself might have made for interesting followup. Spock makes
the attempt, Kirk rejects him - what then? Do the possibilities prey on
Kirk? Does it damage/destroy their relationship entirely? Does the
attempt crack Kirk's facade of complete control sufficiently to start
the process of falling apart, which then puts Spock in a position to
help pick up the pieces?
<Ruth>
Having said all that, I am *not* advocating rape here. Rape is a whole
different ball game, and I didn't read *that* into the story at all.
<Ellen>
I've wondered if the whole concept of the "rape fantasy" that many women
supposedly have doesn't have more to do with fantasizing about a
completely safe environment where a woman (or man) could completely
trust, completely let down her guard, voluntarily relinquish control and
choices, and allow herself to relax fully into her own sexuality, to
throw away all the conventions and rules and "supposed to's" that our
culture puts on our sexuality. The fantasy of being dominated is a
fulfilling thing, because as long as it's a fantasy, or it's a truly
safe "scenario", the loss of control is voluntary; the reality of rape
is an *involuntary* loss of control that is terrifying and damaging; a
complete violation of your *self* that is never justifiable. It's the
difference between letting someone in, and not being able to keep
someone out.
It seems to me the difference between slash like "Surrender", or torch's
P/K bondage series that explores the issues of dominance and submission
more explicitly, and the slash that has rape at the center, with the
raped then falling in love with the rapist. In the former, the
assumptions of knowledge on the part of Spock, or Q, or the explicit
exploration of the issues, as in torch's series, make all the
difference. While I admit to having been titillated in the past by some
rape scenes, it is always tinged with a disgust and horror that
overwhelms any other reaction, and I end up feeling somewhat violated
myself - which is, I think, the appropriate reaction for me.
<Ruth>
Obviously the big word here is trust, because that's at the core of
these
games that are much more than games. It's all about trust, and *not*
about violence or coercion.
<Ellen>
This is key for my enjoyment of stories of this sort. I have to get the
sense that the *author* is aware of this aspect, that it isn't about
who's on top and who's on bottom, but that both sides trust the other
implicitly. When I get the sense that the author is exploring the
issues, and developing the relationship *outside* of the actual sexual
interactions, rather than just using the bdsm as a gimmick (well, okay,
sometimes for a PWP like "Rough & Ready", it's an, ummm, interesting
device), then it works. But in these cases it's usually an *aspect* of
the overall relationship, not the totality of it.
Ellen
Macedon
I should have added two points of clarification to the previous post.
Perhaps they're self-evident, but just in case....
First, if one has been asked to be an editor or a test reader for a
story, and is reading the tale in parts, obviously the author wants to
know one's reaction at various points along the story. This is a
special case, of course, snd it presumes a dialogue with the author.
(As I said, this is probably self-evident.)
Second, regarding not reading a story if it bothers one....
Sometimes authors *intend* to bother readers, intend to make them (or at
least some of them) think about something they might not otherwise
consider. So no, I don't think readers should automatically put down a
story as soon as it starts to make them uncomfortable. Sometimes being
made uncomfortable is the *point*.
But there are exceptions, and certain events in a story may bother a
reader *too* much. For instance, if a story contains a rape scene and
the reader has herself been the victim of rape, she needs to consider if
she's up to reading about it, even if the rape is not presented as a
rape fantasy or a good thing. It would depend on where she is in the
healing process and only she (or perhaps her therapist) could judge
that. But if a reader without such a background is just "bothered" by
the rape scene or having to acknowledge that things like that happen in
the real world...well, maybe that reader *needs* to be "bothered" a
little! (To quote Bono from a concert, <insert heavy sarcasm> "Am I
buggin' you? Sorry. I didn't mean to bug ya.") Sometimes folks need
to be bugged a little. Ivory towers are dangerous things and I
cheerfully admit that one of my goals as a writer is to sap the
foundations of a few. Pretentious? Hell, yes! <G> (That doesn't mean
all stories have to be written to "say" something. Entertainment is a
perfectly good reason to write. But sometimes stories are meant to say
something and to "bother" people.)
Anyway, common sense applies. By "Don't read it if it bothers you," I
don't mean a reader should should put down every story that challenges
him or her. The power of stories is to touch the capacity of the heart,
to alter the fundamental ways we see the world by drawing us into
another life, another situation, another world. In stories, truth is by
nature metaphorical and relative, not absolute. The stories I have
valued the most are usually those which, in some way, gave me some new
perspective on what it means to be human. That isn't always a
*comfortable* process. ;>
Macedon
Ruth Gifford
On Wed, 07 May 1997 00:54:22 -0400, Macedon wrote:
snip of many really intelligent things about reading and writing
Great rant!
>Readers should *always* remember that authors are tricky creatures. We
>don't necessarily make themes immediately clear, and our protags may or
>may not express opinions which are our own. So a simple rule: Don't
>read a story if one finds it troubling, but *don't* then assume what the
>author meant. Unless one is a mindreader, one can't. And for God's
>sake, don't flame an author for holding an opinion unless one is *damn*
>sure the author really holds it!
The other things about authors (or at least me) is that sometimes we don't
even *know* why we write something the way we do. I've written things,
posted them and then had someone say, "did you know that you were making X
point here?" Sometimes I do, but other times I'm kind of flabbergasted ("you
mean I was making a *satement*?"). There have also been scenes that I've
written and then gone back to and seen "issues" that I was not dealing with
any other way, what I call fan fic as therapy.
And my protags aren't always me. Sure they sound like me somtimes, but even
the character I call my Mary Sue (Sara McNeil) is someone created at a very
different time of my life when I wanted different things than I do now.
shanna...@pnx.com
On Wed, 07 May 1997 00:54:22 -0400, Macedon <mac...@geocities.com>
wrote:
>First, and unrelated to the below, a correction:
>
>shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
>> Rape is never consensual. If one person wants sex and the other one
>> says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
>> it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
>> the Wells, by the same author....
>
>"Beside the Wells" was not by the same author. The author was Jess, not
>Killa.
>
>************
>Now, to change the subject and rant a little....
>
Uh, really? All this time, I thought Killashdra wrote it. Sorry
about that, but it's much the same kind of thing.
Spock is not a rapist in any shape, fashion or form.
Rape is not romantic, it's about control and violence.
It's a very EVIL act, not at all loving and sensual.
Joyce Harmon
In article <3371269b...@news.pnx.com>, shanna...@pnx.com says...
>>
>>shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
>>> Rape is never consensual. If one person wants sex and the other one
>>> says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
>>> it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
>>> the Wells, by the same author....
>>
>>"Beside the Wells" was not by the same author. The author was Jess, not
>>Killa.
>>
>>************
>>Now, to change the subject and rant a little....
>>
>
>about that, but it's much the same kind of thing.
>Spock is not a rapist in any shape, fashion or form.
>Rape is not romantic, it's about control and violence.
>It's a very EVIL act, not at all loving and sensual.
Great, Shannara. Glad you got that. But the Spock in Beside the Wells
was an A/U Spock, behaving in ways that his culture found appropriate.
Yes, he was wrong, and knew better by the end of the story, to his
infinite regret.
*But* if you think the Spock in Beside The Wells was supposed to be a
*hero*, doing things that the author *approved* of, you obviously missed the
point entirely. Suggest you read it again.
Joyce
Macedon
shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
>
> On Wed, 07 May 1997 00:54:22 -0400, Macedon <mac...@geocities.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
> >> Rape is never consensual. If one person wants sex and the other one
> >> says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
> >> it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
> >> the Wells, by the same author....
> >
> >"Beside the Wells" was not by the same author. The author was Jess, not
> >Killa.
> >
> >************
> >Now, to change the subject and rant a little....
> >
>
> about that, but it's much the same kind of thing.
> Spock is not a rapist in any shape, fashion or form.
> Rape is not romantic, it's about control and violence.
> It's a very EVIL act, not at all loving and sensual.
Yeah, exactly. And that was the point of Jess' story.
Aleph Press
shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
:
: Uh, really? All this time, I thought Killashdra wrote it. Sorry
: about that, but it's much the same kind of thing.
: Spock is not a rapist in any shape, fashion or form.
: Rape is not romantic, it's about control and violence.
: It's a very EVIL act, not at all loving and sensual.
Shannara, you are still missing the point.
Beside The Wells was *not* saying rape was romantic. Far from it. In BW,
in an *alternate universe* where the Vulcans had never had Surak, Spock
had been raised to believe that his power and privilege allowed him to
own people, and that these people should be grateful for the privilege of
being owned by him. This is a *real-life* dynamic. Read some histories of
slavry in the US.
He wanted the au Kirk, and projected onto him his own desire. That is,
since he desired Kirk, and did not see Kirk as an independent entity but
as an object he owned, he could not understand why Kirk could not desire
him. He thought he was in love with Kirk, but in fact, because he
couldn't see Kirk as a person, all there was was lust.
In the end of the story, Kirk (who, the entire time, has resisted giving
Spock what he really wants, which is reciprocity), takes control and has
sex with Spock in such a fashion as to imply that he likes it. Spock
considers this an expression of love. The next day, he finds that Kirk
has escaped, and has left him a message saying that last night was a
taste of what *could* have been if Spock had not believed he could own
people, if he had wanted to be a lover and treat Kirk as an equal instead
of being an owner and treating Kirk as property.
The whole thing is anti-slavery, anti-rape, and very realistic. Kirk does
not fall in love with his owner. Spock realizes, bitterly, that trying to
own what he wanted lost him it forever. It is an alternate universe, so
saying "Spock isn't a rapist" is like saying "Kirk isnn't an assassin"--
he's not, but in the Mirror Universe, he was. And your continued
insistence that "This story is WRONG!" when not only haven't you read it,
but you have totally misunderstood its point, is really rather
irritating. Beside the wells is not a romantic rape fantasy, it is an
anti-slavery story.
As for Surrender, yes, rape is about power and control and violence.
However, bdsm is *not*. Since you and I have probably nevr participated
in bdsm, and several people who actually have and consider it their
preferred form of sexuality have argued in favor of the fact that
Surrender is about loving domination and not rape, maybe we should shut
up and let people who have real life experience with this kind of
relationship win the argument instead of broadcasting our personal
ignorance and prejudice to the world. I am bdsm-phobic and find the
concept of inflicting pain on your lover disgusting, but I will not deny
that this can be a valid sexual experience for someone. Likewise, I won't
deny that in some cases, no doesn't mean no, even though in my life it
always will, because I bow to the experience of those who know what
they're talking about.
--
"These are only my opinions. If they were the gospel truth, your bushes
would be burning." -- Nancy Lebowitz button
"Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion." -- My favorite
bumper sticker
-- Alara Rogers, Aleph Press
al...@netcom.com
All Aleph Press stories are available at ftp.netcom.com /pub/al/aleph.
Macedon
Ruth Gifford wrote:
> The other things about authors (or at least me) is that sometimes we don't
> even *know* why we write something the way we do. I've written things,
> posted them and then had someone say, "did you know that you were making X
<G> Was it Ellison who said when that happens just grin and pretend you
meant to do it all along and everyone will congratulate you on your
cleverness! <chuckle>
More seriously, though, I think that happens to most of us, now and
then. But some authors are more "deliberate" writers while others tend
to fly by instinct and do things without realizing they're doing them.
e.g. Kit Kerr is the former, Judy Tarr is the latter. That's not to say
the former is a more intelligent writer than the latter, or that the
latter never sets out to make a point. It's a matter of how each
approaches writing. Whatever works....
Macedon
T'Rhys
"Greg Gast" <gg...@digital.net> wrote:
>I object !!
>Spambots are the result of Ferengi scum, not honorable Klingon houses!
>
>Quaplah'
My apologies, no offense was intended. The spambots have since been
discovered to actually be a tool of the Dominion's Jem'Hadar masters
(Ferengi spambots are impossible to foil or escape).
LL&P
T'Rhys
(header munged to foil the mass-mailing Dominion spambots. To reply
via email, remove NOSPAM.)
Helsos
>>shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
>>> Rape is never consensual. If one person wants sex and the other one
>>> says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
>>> it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
>>> the Wells, by the same author....
>>
>>"Beside the Wells" was not by the same author. The author was Jess, not
>>Killa.
>>
>>************
>>Now, to change the subject and rant a little....
>>
>
>about that, but it's much the same kind of thing.
>Spock is not a rapist in any shape, fashion or form.
>Rape is not romantic, it's about control and violence.
>It's a very EVIL act, not at all loving and sensual.
Great, Shannara. Glad you got that. But the Spock in Beside the Wells
was an A/U Spock, behaving in ways that his culture found appropriate.
Yes, he was wrong, and knew better by the end of the story, to his
infinite regret.
*But* if you think the Spock in Beside The Wells was supposed to be a
*hero*, doing things that the author *approved* of, you obviously missed
the
point entirely. Suggest you read it again.
Joyce<<
Good post, Joyce. It seems Shannara read Beside the Wells the same way she
read Surrender - without comprehension. A careful reading would show that
the Author of "Wells" was indeed against rape, and that the sex in
Surrender was certainly not rape. Yes, it was domination - is that bad,
between two consenting adults? Is there only one acceptable method, one
position? If anyone is uncomforatble with any degree of domination, then
fine - don't read it (it WAS marked b/d!), but don't comment on something
you haven't read!
Jeanita
shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
: On 7 May 1997 03:04:54 GMT, eres...@cyberg8t.com (Ruth Gifford)
: wrote:
: >Besides, "Surrender" isn't about rape. Not only that but quite frankly
: >yet. It's about control and trust. Or at least that's what I read into it.
: > YMMV, but if you're going to knock it, read it first.
: >
: >Ruth
:
: I read up to the part where Spock was violating Kirk and, disgusted,
: did not go any further. Nor will I. Spock at that point is completely
: out of character.
:
: Killa wrote a very fine novel, "Bitter Glass," and I know she's
: talented. But this story makes it look like she thinks rape is okay
: if it's a guy getting raped, that it's erotic.
How do you know what she made it look like if you didn't finish it?
I'm with Frankie. I bet
: some of you folks wouldn't be so hot for this story if it was a woman
: getting raped and it made to look like an act of love.
We've told you over and over again why this isn't a rape story, and
trust me, we give you many points for being able to maintain the
unwavering rigidity of your point of view, but let's leave that aside for
a moment. I *have* read stories just like Surrender in which a woman was
ostensibly 'forced' into a sexual encounter 'for her own good' in order to
expand her horizons, and did, in fact, have her horizons expanded as a
result. One was a scene from Rubyfruit Jungle by Rita Mae Brown, and the
other is a story Octavia Butler wrote ::Om Octavia Om, we genuflect
in your general direction:: in which the protagonist is forced into sexual
relations with a male, marries him, has his baby and later comes to
respect and admire him. It was not enjoyable to read about (Nothing in the
protagonist's life was enjoyable, actually), but within the context of the
story it made sense. It wasn't *only* about being raped and eventually
coming to like sex with the rapist. So you see, it is possible to put a
woman in Kirk's shoes and still have the result be fairly positive. It's
been done, and quite well, I might add. And no, I didn't get all bent out
of shape over it. I accepted--and enjoyed--the logic of it. Analyzing
any of those stories (including Killa's) from a simplistic "rape is bad"
standpoint does them an injustice, and indicates an inability to think
outside the box that is, frankly, a bit frightening.
From what I've read of your comments, I suspect it will be hard for you to
understand this, but try. We've used small words, we've broken the
concepts down into very simple ideas, we've explained about _Beside the
Wells_ at least five times that I've counted, and the author herself
weighed in to tell you that it wasn't about glorifying rape. I'm
beginning to wonder about your inability to dialogue rationally on this
topic. Does this subject make you angry? Frighten you? We're looking
for reasoned responses from you, Shanarra, because we know you're
capable of them. I'm hard put to grasp your determination to ignore,
evade, or deny the context within which the story takes place. I
understand, of course, that it is impossible to comment coherently on a
story you haven't finished reading, so I can see why you are incapable of
anything other than your by-now-standard 'rape is bad' response, but
Shanarra, we've all agreed with you that rape is bad. If that is the most
cogent response you're capable of... well, say it several *more* times if
it pleases you, but realize that you're adding nothing of value to this
discussion.
Jeanita
--
shanna...@pnx.com
>On Wed, 07 May 1997 02:24:37 GMT, shanna...@pnx.com wrote:
>>
>>On 5 May 1997 20:09:11 GMT, jea...@cpcug.org (Jeanita) wrote:
>>
>>>Frankie Jackson (frank...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>>>:
>>>: But this is part of the problem for me. No should mean no - everyone
>>>: has the right to decide *for themselves* whether they want to protect
>>>: their pride, whether they want to stay afraid.
>>>
>>>Most relationships are a good deal more complex than that. People say no
>>>and mean maybe, they say no and mean yes, but only on Tuesdays.
>>
>>Rape is never consensual. If one person wants sex and the other one
>>says no, if the one wanting sex forces himself on the other person,
>>it's rape. I haven't read the story, but I read another one, Beside
>>the Wells, by the same author. This is as out of character as you get.
>>Spock would never rape Kirk, would never force himself on Kirk.
>>Rape is an act of violence. It's not about sex and it's got nothing to
>>do with love.
>
>Whoa! First things first, Killa didn't write "Beside the Wells" (at least I
>don;t think she did; someone named Jess did) which *was* about rape. It was
>also set in one of those convinient A/U's and did *not* have a happy
>ending.
>
>Besides, "Surrender" isn't about rape. Not only that but quite frankly
>Shannara, I'm surprised that you'd jump all over a story you haven't read
>yet. It's about control and trust. Or at least that's what I read into it.
> YMMV, but if you're going to knock it, read it first.
>
>Ruth
I read up to the part where Spock was violating Kirk and, disgusted,
did not go any further. Nor will I. Spock at that point is completely
out of character.
Killa wrote a very fine novel, "Bitter Glass," and I know she's
talented. But this story makes it look like she thinks rape is okay
if it's a guy getting raped, that it's erotic. I'm with Frankie. I bet
some of you folks wouldn't be so hot for this story if it was a woman
getting raped and it made to look like an act of love.
shan...@pnx.com (use this for replies)
Predatrix
(I'm impressed, btw, with the quality of debate on this thread, and
Macedon raised a very good point about the difference between author &
character, except, I assume, in bad Mary-Sues.
Excuse the "NC17" in the header -- this message is largely about
consensuality and censorship, and to a smaller extent about slash, and
I want to help those people who are determined to killfile such
subjects. Being anti-censorship does *not* mean I am determined to ram
porn, slash or bdsm down the throats of those who would be offended).
I am driven to take up my keyboard, however, by a persistent
assumption that springs up like a weed in many "adult fanfic"
discussions: the belief that having a non-consensual element to one's
fantasies or erotic writings is Dangerous & should be Stamped Out.
Surely this is the essential background to the anti- half of this
debate? No real people are involved, after all, just the agitated
electrons (in some cases, very agitated) that make up fictions. But
does this particular kink necessarily mean that one would feel driven
to act it out directly? I know several sadomasochists (IRL and on the
net) who would feel the deepest disinclination to "break" their
partner's consent in anything they actually did, yet some of whose
fantasies gain an intense erotic charge from imagined
non-consensuality. Given that their fantasies aren't likely to be
under conscious control, what do the anti- people expect to gain from
their suggestions apart from the pleasant glow of determined moral
superiority?
I remember once going to a women's workshop on sexuality in which
every participant except me seemed to have a rape fantasy. Is it
really useful to suggest that those who have such fantasies should
somehow stop having them? Those who write erotica with a
non-consensual element should stop writing them down (and if possible
stop thinking them)?
John Preston, in his excellent collection of essays _My Life as a
Pornographer_, vividly recreates a moment in his teens when he
happened to be writing down an erotic fantasy and left it for a moment
to go and get a drink of water. When he got back from the kitchen, his
grandmother had read the thing. She fixed him with a basilisk glare
and demanded, "How dare you even think these things?"
I realise I am attacking the subject from a different angle to that of
most contributors to this thread, but I believe it is not a question
of what we are permitted to *do* but what we are permitted to *think*.
Nobody is advocating violence or coercion. Nobody is advocating a form
of play which wantonly (or at all) ignores safewords.
I believe that fiction offers a safe clean space in which it is
possible to imagine things which one need not (and in some cases
should not) go through in real life. Use possibilities. Obey the
half-conscious demands of your fantasies. If you want to imagine a d/s
scene in which the Top can justifiably and humanely push the Bottom's
limits, you may do so. What if the dominant is a touch-telepath, like
Spock in Killa's story -- he would *know* in the most intimate way
possible when to push and when to stop. What if the dominant is a god
with even more outrageous abilities, like Q in Ruth's & Atara's work?
Even if you want to imagine rape scenes in which the rapist is in some
way "right" this is a work of the imagination, I hope. All of these
are trying to reach an emotional reaction that is a million miles away
from suggesting the events of the story should literally happen.
Often the emotional reaction won't work for those who simply *don't
get* that fantasy. I know people who "don't get" slash, and I myself
"don't get" most commercial straight-male porn I've seen (not that
I've seen much). Rape/comfort stories are a glaring example of an idea
that pushes hot buttons for some and leaves others mildly (or
not-so-mildly) troubled. After all, many forms of fiction start to
appear curious if looked at through a perfectly uninvolved eye: why
should people want to read about a character being murdered, or a
plague of rats or gooey things, or soldiers at war (to pick three
popular mundane genres at random)?
The writer is often going for something unconnected with literally
advocating that the events in the fictional story should take place.
Do we want to muzzle the work of pornographers? Erotica writers (and
is erotica just porn in evening dress)? Slash writers? Suspense
novelists who write about serial killers? Is our ultimate priority
making sure that the reader knows that Violence, Coercion and Rape are
Bad Things? Should we be telling writers "how dare you even think such
things"?
Cheers, Pred'x (... listen, Killa's story is a fiction, really. No
real people were broken in the making of this work of the imagination.
Writing borderline-consensual stories doesn't mean you will want to
tie your next lust object to the bed against their will and wickedly
ignore their cries for help. Writing slash stories does not mean you
want to sellotape the actors who played Kirk and Spock (or Avon and
Blake, or Picard and Q, or <insert your favourite pairing here>) to
each other in an empty room and see if they make it together if you
wait long enough. No, really...)
Frankie Jackson
Re: Surrender TOS
shannara writes
> Beside
>the Wells, by the same author. This is as out of character as you get.
>Spock would never rape Kirk, would never force himself on Kirk.
>Rape is an act of violence. It's not about sex and it's got nothing to
>do with love.
But that's the point of Beside the Wells (or one of them any way)
that in a slave culture Spock wouldn't be Spock, not the Spock
we know, the one formed by a decent, logical, ethical society.
In the story, Spock is a decent man by local standards, he
is not a sexual sadist, and therefore, so far as he is concerned,
it's not rape and he is honestly unable to see that it might be
so considered by his victim. He thinks that is love on his part (
although even he asks at one stage "was it love or avarice"), but
what he describes throughout reads more like sexual obsession.
He seeks love from Kirk, he never gets it and at the end realises
how bitterly he has been hated.
The rape is unexplicit, unerotic and all the more horrible because
of it.
As for it not being in character, Spock learns from his experiences and
he acts on the knowledge and self-knowledge he has gained. I
can think of no more Spockian characteristics than that.
Then you say
>I read up to the part where Spock was violating Kirk and, disgusted,
>did not go any further. Nor will I. Spock at that point is completely
>out of character.
You are, of course, entitled not to read further, what you cannot do,
however, is make pronouncements on the story as a whole based
on less than a thousand words and expect your opinions to be
respected.
I was trying to comment on "the story so far" not as a whole and
I was careful to read the whole thing before I commented on
the story as a whole.
For all you know, the Spock in the story was under alien control
or playing a game with Kirk on shore leave or half a dozen other
possibly explanations you haven't read far enough to find; including
the real explanation.
The story sets out to denounce slavery by showing that it warps
the most decent of men on both sides. There would be no point
in writing it with a bad man as protagonist, it gets part of its
power from the fact that slavery has warped even one of the most
ethical beings in the trek universe.
frankie
Zepp
On Wed, 07 May 1997 09:26:47 -0700, Ellen <eer...@okway.okstate.edu>
wrote:
<snips for brevity>
>I also believe that nothing cuts so closely to us in many ways as our
>sexuality - not in terms of orientation, but in terms of relationship,
>and intimacy. Particularly in slash fiction, sexuality is the expression
>of an extremely deep intimate connection; sexual contact brings us more
>closely together than anything but deep "mind to mind" contact (not
>telepathy). Sexual intimacy *touches* us (if we allow it) more deeply
>than words often can, is harder to ignore than words, and I think that's
>one of the reasons that in this story, sexuality, (and dominance) is
>used
>to break through to Kirk. I personally can't think of anything else that
>could have broken through Kirk's control so deeply; according to the
>story, words weren't helping at all. I suppose that Spock could have
>tried a forced mental connection, but in an odd way, I would have been
>more disturbed by that, more likely to consider it rape.
This is an excellent point. I agree with it completely. One reason
the scene in the ST movie, where Spock forced a meld on Valeris, to
get needed information, disturbed me so much is that I *could* not see
Spock doing that, no matter how desperate the situation. It violates
the single most basic tenet of Surak's Teachings. JM Dillard fudged
it in her novel, by having Valeris think permission to him, as he
starts to reach for her thoughts. Even then, it gave me the creeps.
So, folks, there you have it, the point at which the infamous Greywolf
says "Bleagh! That's *enough*!. Mind rape. Surrender, OTOH,
contained no such thing, either mental, OR physical. If one reads it
attentively, as Shannara and some others seem not to have done, it is
made obvious that Kirk *does* give consent, even though he has fears
of rejection or ridicule, he consents.
>I *believe* that in part, Killa is addressing the issue of mutual
>caring and need, and the idea that *sometimes* those needs go deeper
>than our comfort levels permit our conscious selves to accede to.
>Frankie used the term "infantalize"; in some ways, I think that's true,
>if you use it to mean *allowing* someone to return to that childhood
>state of total trust and total dependence. Which of us hasn't at one
>point or another wanted to completely surrender our control, our
>responsibilities, our duties? As a starship captain, Kirk has *more* of
>these than most of us, and a greater sense of being in charge.
>Presumably, then, his need for release, for relinquishing that control
>is greater, as well.
>
>Ellen
Exactly. Thanks, Ellen -- nicely said.
Greywolf the Wanderer, who is enjoying this entire discussion (and the
story that caused it) immensely.