my problem with the "relationshippers"

486 views
Skip to first unread message

Tony R. Boies

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

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

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

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

SteffD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stef

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


Parateam

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

Tony --

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

Eric Johns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angela Boese

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

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

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

snip


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

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

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

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

Angela

Parateam

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

Yep, gotta straighten this out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viva la platonica!!!

Crunchy Frog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Julia Kosatka

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

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

They *have* a mature adult relationship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Character development or interaction do *not* equal sex.

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

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

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

duch...@pipeline.com

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


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

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

J.D. Haas

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

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

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


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

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

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


Champey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Willing to believe in extreme possibilities. . ."

Barbara

elizabeth nordstrom

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

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

Yes, indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know I would.

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

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

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

>Stef


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

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

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

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

elizabeth


elizabeth nordstrom

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


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

elizabeth

SteffD

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

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

Turn about is fair play!

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

Stef

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


TwoSpooky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kennebec

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

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


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

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

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

M.R. Power

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

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

: >The relationship between Mulder and Scully is indeed immensely


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

: Yes, indeed.

I agree totally!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

: I know I would.

Hear hear.

: forward to.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Well said.

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


Sheryl Martin

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

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

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

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

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


Julia Kosatka

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

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

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

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

Julia Kosatka

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

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

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

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

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

Sandra Ballasch

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

Please spare me from amateur psychologists.

Sandra Ballasch

On 15 May 1996, elizabeth nordstrom wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Karen

Karen Green

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

On Tue, 14 May 1996, Crunchy Frog wrote:

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

Bless you, Crunchy Frog!

Karen


SteffD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SteffD

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

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

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


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

Parateam

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

Just to be mean.....

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

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

SteffD

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

Julia Kosatka wrote:-

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

...oXymoron, I'm afraid!

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

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

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

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

Parateam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmm, beg to differ on that.

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

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

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

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

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

Again, VIVA LA PLATONICA!!

Julia Kosatka

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

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

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

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

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

JimKing

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

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

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

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

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

JimKing

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

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

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

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

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

~ Jim

SteffD

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

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

> Please spare me from amateur psychologists.
>


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

Margaret Young

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Julia Kosatka

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

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

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

Julia Kosatka

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C Hooper

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

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


Eric Johns

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

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

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

Who's flaming?

Kristel
kjo...@mail2.alliance.net

Eric Johns

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

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

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

Kristel
kjo...@mail2.alliance.net


Eric Johns

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

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

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

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

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

Kristel

Join the X-Files Relationshippers Mailing list!

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

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

Hope to see you there!


kennebec

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

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

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

AMY

elizabeth nordstrom

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

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


How do you know I'm an amateur?

elizabeth


Crunchy Frog

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


Now I've heard bloody everything.


On 15 May 1996, elizabeth nordstrom wrote:
>

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

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

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

> intimate relationship makes me think they have a rather

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

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

Uh-huh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> elizabeth


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

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

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

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


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

GravesPA2

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

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

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

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

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

Paula G.

Crunchy Frog

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Aileen Buss

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

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

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

SteffD

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

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

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

Jim,

On that at least we can agree :-)

Julia Kosatka

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good idea.

X-PHILE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

SteffD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bart Gerardi

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

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

Bart Gerardi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Bart

--


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

Serotonin Pete

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<<< Serotonin Pete >>>

Parateam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thed my cake.

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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer Ann Whitton

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

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

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

Jen
je...@gladstone.uoregon.edu


Eric Johns

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

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

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

Allow me to clarify.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kristel
kjo...@mail2.alliance.net

Join the X-Files Relationshippers Mailing List!

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

TwoSpooky

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

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

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

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

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

JMHO...

Parateam

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

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

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

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

Parateam

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

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

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

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