Vulcans: rapists? Pro and con
ToolPackinMama
CON:
1) The Vulcan marriage customs: Vulcans are betrothed as children. They
feel irresistibly drawn to the one to whom they were betrothed or
married at Pon Farr. Pon Farr is the only time when Vulcan sex urges
are overwhelming. Males who are not betrothed to anyone feel an urge to
fight another male for a bride, not to do battle with the bride-to-be
herself.
If a guy is in Pon Farr and he does whatever it is that he has to to
obtain a bride, I wonder if Vulcans would even consider what we'd call
"rape" to be rape under such circumstances? After all, for the guy,
it's a matter of life and death. Of course he's desperate. And to
them, it's "getting married", not just having sex. Vulcans have one
word for both mating and marriage: Farr, which means to _bond_.
Vulcans bond to the people they have sex with. For all we know, Vulcans
mate for life. I don't think the Vulcans have a word for rape.
2) The Vulcan telepathic abilities: Vulcans are exquisitely sensitive
creatures. Spock showed us how he could feel another creatures pain
from across distance, in both Devil In The Dark (when he sensed the
injured Horta's anguish and pain from yards away), and in Immunity
Syndrome (when he sensed the death of the crew of the Intrepid from
miles away). Vulcan men would certainly sense it if their partner was
unwilling. If their partner wasn't having fun, they wouldn't have any
fun. When Vulcans are in physical contact with a person, they can sense
their partner's thoughts and feelings so acutely that they have trouble
distinguishing their partner's thoughts and feeling from their own.
Many times when Spock melded with somebody he became so immersed in the
other personality that he had trouble remembering who he was immediately
afterward.
Vulcans have perfected the art of putting their whole life force (katra)
into another person's body and co-inhabiting it entirely. We know this.
What we don't know is if Vulcans are even capable of keeping their own
personalities and feelings separate during sex. I know of no reason to
think that they can.
Since it seems that in order to rape a woman (or a man, or a child,
etc.) the Vulcan man would have to be aware of the pain and anguish they
are causing, and even participate in it, I think it's highly unlikely
that a Vulcan would rape, even during Pon Farr.
Thanks to their spectacular telepathic abilities, Vulcans would be
unlikely to feel that they need to rape. They could obtain consent
fairly easily, if they can just make contact with a person's mind. The
Vulcan man could look into the heart of his charmer and know at once
what they most crave, and it would be all downhill from there.
3) The Vulcan moral/ethical system: Vulcans deplore any rash emotional
action. Period. The only time that emotional behavior is considered to
be excusable is during the time when it's unavoidable, specifically
during Pon Farr.
PRO:
I'll let somebody else start the Pro argument.
CaptJosh
"ToolPackinMama" <la...@lauragoodwin.org> wrote in message
news:3CA7E2E4...@lauragoodwin.org...
> OK, here's why I think Vulcans aren't the type of guys who are rapists:
>
> CON:
>
> 1) The Vulcan marriage customs: Vulcans are betrothed as children. They
> feel irresistibly drawn to the one to whom they were betrothed or
> married at Pon Farr. Pon Farr is the only time when Vulcan sex urges
> are overwhelming. Males who are not betrothed to anyone feel an urge to
> fight another male for a bride, not to do battle with the bride-to-be
> herself.
>
necessarily followed.
Pon Farr is only a life and death matter to one who is a Bonded vulcan male.
The unbonded males have never shown any problems with it. I'm not sure about
that Vulcan Engineer on VOY, though. And even if he wasn't bonded, he was
being affected by outside influence. His cycle had been upset somehow. I
haven't seen that ep in years.
> Thanks to their spectacular telepathic abilities, Vulcans would be
> unlikely to feel that they need to rape. They could obtain consent
> fairly easily, if they can just make contact with a person's mind. The
> Vulcan man could look into the heart of his charmer and know at once
> what they most crave, and it would be all downhill from there.
>
> 3) The Vulcan moral/ethical system: Vulcans deplore any rash emotional
> action. Period. The only time that emotional behavior is considered to
> be excusable is during the time when it's unavoidable, specifically
> during Pon Farr.
>
To say that they deplore an action is still to indicate an emotional
response. But we have no strong words for their reactions that are not
emotionally charged.
jump101
I just have a question here. What do you mean by "mate for life"? My
thought on that has always been "one mate for the entire lives of both". If
my definition is correct (might not be), then Vulcans do not mate for life.
Sarak had three wives over his lifetime... the Vulcan Princess, Amanda and
Perin(sp).
--
Steve
eeg...@exis.net
http://startrek.mnsdesigns.com/
http://www.mnsdesigns.com/
ToolPackinMama
> Vulcans MAY be betrothed as children. This is an old custom and not
> necessarily followed.
Well, Stonn wasn't apparently betrothed to anybody. Maybe Vulcans
produce more sons than daughters, and the Kali-fee is their traditional
way of disposing of excess males.
> Pon Farr is only a life and death matter to one who is a Bonded vulcan male.
Why do you think so?
> The unbonded males have never shown any problems with it.
Excuse me? Why would you say that? Stonn had a problem.
> To say that they deplore an action is still to indicate an emotional
> response. But we have no strong words for their reactions that are not
> emotionally charged.
That's our problem, not theirs. Those are problems cause by
translation.
CaptJosh
"jump101" <eeg...@exis.net> wrote in message
news:3ca7e...@grouper.exis.net...
<Snip>
> I just have a question here. What do you mean by "mate for life"? My
> thought on that has always been "one mate for the entire lives of both".
If
> my definition is correct (might not be), then Vulcans do not mate for
life.
> Sarak had three wives over his lifetime... the Vulcan Princess, Amanda and
> Perin(sp).
>
writing within the confines of an established world/universe. You don't
suddenly introduce a half-brother for a long standing character and a
preiviously unknown wife for the character's father. Really, that movie
should have been written outside of Star Trek. It would have been great if
it was just about humans and some other aliens and not related to Star Trek.
But put in the context of Trek, it was pretty sad.
CaptJosh
> CaptJosh wrote:
>
> > Vulcans MAY be betrothed as children. This is an old custom and not
> > necessarily followed.
>
> Well, Stonn wasn't apparently betrothed to anybody. Maybe Vulcans
> produce more sons than daughters, and the Kali-fee is their traditional
> way of disposing of excess males.
>
> > Pon Farr is only a life and death matter to one who is a Bonded vulcan
male.
>
> Why do you think so?
>
> > The unbonded males have never shown any problems with it.
>
> Excuse me? Why would you say that? Stonn had a problem.
>
There was nothing there to indicate that he was also undergoing Pon Farr.
ToolPackinMama
> I just have a question here. What do you mean by "mate for life"?
Until one of them dies?
> My
> thought on that has always been "one mate for the entire lives of both". If
> my definition is correct (might not be), then Vulcans do not mate for life.
> Sarak had three wives over his lifetime... the Vulcan Princess, Amanda and
> Perin(sp).
Well, T'Pring in Amok Time said that the only way she could divorce
Spock is through the Kali-fee. IMHO that means her husband has to die
before she can take a new one. This is one reason Vulcans let guys kill
each other: it's very inconvenient to have two guys bonded to the same
woman.
ToolPackinMama
> Stonn objected to not being chosen as T'Pring's champion.
As well he should if all his hope for life rests with her.
> There was nothing there to indicate that he was also undergoing Pon Farr.
Excuse me? He got all emotional, and was anxious to have his chance to
fight for T'Pring. I think that is an indication!
jump101
news:a88vfm$q2e3e$1...@ID-107133.news.dfncis.de...
Shatner wasn't the only writer on that project. Bennett and Loughery were
in on it too. Bennett didn't put the skids to the idea either and he was
the producer of that and several other Trek works. Loughery was the sole
writer of the screenplay. Maybe we should blame him.
ConnMoore
>From: ToolPackinMama la...@lauragoodwin.org
>Date: 3/31/2002 8:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:
>OK, here's why I think Vulcans aren't the type of guys who are rapists:
>
Why has the idea even come into your head?
Greg Sinclair
"ToolPackinMama" wrote:
> I'll let somebody else start the Pro argument.
okay, i'll have a bash...
AHEM!!
PRO:
come on! she was ASKIN' FOR IT!!! look at droxina's costume in cloud
minders, for gosh sake!
really, though. i thought even we humans had separated rape from sex...
haven't we? isn't rape a non-sexual act of agression?
John Savard
<la...@lauragoodwin.org> wrote, in part:
>If a guy is in Pon Farr and he does whatever it is that he has to to
>obtain a bride, I wonder if Vulcans would even consider what we'd call
>"rape" to be rape under such circumstances? After all, for the guy,
>it's a matter of life and death. Of course he's desperate.
But if the Vulcan happens to be on somebody else's planet, the
inhabitents there might be less understanding.
I don't see it unreasonable that the Vulcans might anticipate that.
However, your other arguments are interesting.
"It might have made your history a bit less bloody", as Spock says,
rather sums up your main argument. If Vulcans' telepathic abilities
make them naturally less likely to wreak mayhem on others, wouldn't
that apply most especially to something like rape?
I would include in the category of rape, though, sex where consent is
obtained through mind manipulation (which is what was depicted as
attempted in Voyager).
Are Vulcans a pair-bonding species? Nothing quite that alien tends to
get depicted on Trek.
I have no problem conceding that Vulcans are extremely unlikely to
rape. For it to be impossible, though, would take a lot of evidence.
John Savard
http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/index.html
John Savard
<la...@lauragoodwin.org> wrote, in part:
>Excuse me? He got all emotional, and was anxious to have his chance to
>fight for T'Pring. I think that is an indication!
Not definite enough. If he was in pon farr, he clearly wasn't in as
advanced a state of it as Spock.
He was surprised by her decision, thinking perhaps there was always a
chance Kirk would keep her, and Vulcan emotional control doesn't
always seem to be quite what it's cracked up to be.
Since it would be a coincidence for Stonn and Spock to be in pon farr
at the same time, I would incline to thinking they weren't as the
default, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary.
John Savard
http://members.shaw.ca/quadibloc/index.html
chebs
ToolPackinMama wrote:
> it's very inconvenient to have two guys bonded to the same
> woman.
Well....... I..... ah geez, I just CAN'T go there!
kwc ;^)
Graeme
writing within the confines of an established world/universe. You don't
suddenly introduce a half-brother for a long standing character and a
preiviously unknown wife for the character's father.
>>
Sherlock Holmes was around for two novels and 1½ short story collections before
we suddenly found out that he had an older, smarter brother.
That being said, I don't necessarily LIKE the idea of Sybok or the Vulcan
priestess, but I don't think that they're definite literary no-no's.
>>Really, that movie should have been written outside of Star Trek. It would
have been great if it was just about humans and some other aliens and not
related to Star Trek. But put in the context of Trek, it was pretty sad.
>>
The idea for that movie had been germinating for a LONG time. Way back in the
70's, before Star Trek: The Motion Picture had been written, there was talk
about a Star Trek movie where the Enterprise finds God, and it turns out to be
Lucifer instead. DeForrest Kelly mentioned it on a talk show around 1975. I
didn't like it then or in 1989, but I don't think we can lay it all at
Shatner's feet.
And I still like Trek 5 better than Trek 7, 8, or 9.
Graeme
haven't we? isn't rape a non-sexual act of agression?
>>
Who knows? Can we have any assurance in saying that everyone who commits that
crime is identically motivated?
Greg Sinclair
"Graeme" wrote:
> Who knows? Can we have any assurance in saying that everyone who commits
that crime is identically motivated?
myself, i don't think so. but, 50,000 feminists assure me that that's the
way it works.
Greg Sinclair
news:tCGq8.6740$hS3.3...@news0.telusplanet.net...
they also tell me that all sex is rape. whatever, i guess.
Led4acs
>
> > Who knows? Can we have any assurance in saying that everyone who
commits
> that crime is identically motivated?
>
> myself, i don't think so. but, 50,000 feminists assure me that that's the
> way it works.
That Sinclair Guy wrote
they also tell me that all sex is rape. whatever, i guess.>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not all feminists think like that fat ugly bitch Andrea Dworkin. I personally
like feminists who think like Camille Paglia.
Graeme
>> > Who knows? Can we have any assurance in saying that everyone who commits
that crime is identically motivated?
>>
>> myself, i don't think so. but, 50,000 feminists assure me that that's the
way it works.
>>
Can you take any of them seriously after the way they buried their principles
all through the Clinton years? During the Thomas and Packwood businesses, they
were telling us that women NEVER lie about harrassment. Come Clinton's long
line of accusers, and the party line switches to "Oh, wait, maybe sometimes
they do."
>>they also tell me that all sex is rape. whatever, i guess.
Yeah, that too. But even among fringe groups, Katherine McKinnon is hopefully
a fringe group.