www.ditl.org

Come to think of it no.

and in that particular sense, i'm more romantic than erotic. dont care how it is. as long as its there

and usable of course.

Reliant121 wrote:See, Rochey/Seafort/Katefan expect me to have the exact same standard, plot is superior. I can appreciate a plot, but I am a man for eye candy. call me simple or something, i seriously dont give a crap. And what Katefan said about me missing the point, I watch star trek for one thing: enjoyment. not to look for meanings, not to look for deeper philosophy. Enjoyment. Now if your enjoyment is looking for that, then fine. But it is not for me.

I don't know if I have the exact same standard as the others, but I do know that plot is important to me. What I object to is you ignoring the plot points shown in Balance of Terror and claiming it was a simple cat and mouse episode. I also find it strange that you do this with an episode that first introduced the Romulans, a race you are supposed to be a fan of.

And that is one of the things I find frustrating in arguing with you. You claim Kirk is arrogant, yet fail to show any indication of that arrogance that goes beyond any instance not also shown by any of the other captains. You say he is violent but are unable to prove he is more violent than, say, Worf or Sisko. Chauvenist? Like I said, it was the sixties and there were different standards. In fact, if you look at the fashion of the time mini skirts were in. At least TOS has an excuse, unlike Voyager or Enterprise where they have supposedly logical ice women walking around in catsuits and five inch heels. Last time I checked cat suits aren't exactly high fashion.

You just throw statements out without any examples or proof to back up your claim. Kirk is a chauvinist? Cite examples. He scored with a lot of chicks, so has Tom Paris and Will Riker. If you are looking for a true chauvenist look at Quark. And Kirk has fallen in love on two different ocassions and suffered true heartache (City On The Edge Of Forever and Requiem for Methuselah), and the reason he fell in love with Edith Keeler and Rayna were as much for their minds and spirits as well as their beauty.

And that is one of the things I find frustrating in arguing with you. You claim Kirk is arrogant, yet fail to show any indication of that arrogance that goes beyond any instance not also shown by any of the other captains. You say he is violent but are unable to prove he is more violent than, say, Worf or Sisko. Chauvenist? Like I said, it was the sixties and there were different standards. In

I see your point but the point that he and other were making is that you dont need solid proof to back up your opinion. He see's Kirk as being annoying, he may not be any more annoying that other captains on paper but he comes off that way.

On the plus side, Kirk was the only captain who didn't sit back, watch a planet and its population die off and call it moral.

On the downside, he was the only captain to go shagging the female population of the universe.

To be brutally honest, i dont care if you dont like arguing with me. The argument was moot in the first place.Which one would i serve under? Sisko or Picard. Because i like them. Not because they are good captains.

And with the chauvenist side of it: i cant accept it purely because "thats the way it was". Irrelavent. By my standards, today's standards, he was a chauvenist.

To be fair, Reliant, such a thing as chauvinism must be viewed in light of the context. Chauvinism implies a particularly conscious decision to treat women in a certain way; no such decision is involved in Kirk's case, because he treated them no better or worse than the norm of the mid-to-late '60's.

However, I fully support your right to feel a certain way about an issue just because you do.

To me, i cannot understand the context. the mid-late 60's are as alien to me as the Vulcans are.

Mikey wrote: Chauvinism implies a particularly conscious decision to treat women in a certain way; no such decision is involved in Kirk's case, because he treated them no better or worse than the norm of the mid-to-late '60's.

So it was okay because it was what everyone else was doing? That's no excuse IMO

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:[

So it was okay because it was what everyone else was doing? That's no excuse IMO

What exactly did he do that's so bad?

Blackstar the Chakat wrote:

Mikey wrote: Chauvinism implies a particularly conscious decision to treat women in a certain way; no such decision is involved in Kirk's case, because he treated them no better or worse than the norm of the mid-to-late '60's.

So it was okay because it was what everyone else was doing? That's no excuse IMO

That's not what I said. I said he was following the socializations of the time period, with making a conscious decision to act in a chauvinistic manner. That has nothing to do with how it translates to a 2008 moral compass, nor whether or not your moral compass is more valid than mine, or his, or anyone else's.

Then I ask, how can i appreciate it if i cant understand it? I cannot understand it. i've tried to imagine a society based like that. I cant. i cant think of living in it. I cannot comprehend it. So how can i appreciate?

and i am bringing in only one item of proof, because it's been a little while since i saw TOS.

Turnabout intruder: Dr. Lester inhabits kirk. Blah blah blah she gets sent back to her body. Now in an extract from his ending log; "Her her life could have been as full as any woman's".

Admittedly, this can be semantic. but if i remember there was a little emphasis on Woman's. Why not anyones? why distinguish specifically that it was a womans life. Why distinguish?

Reliant121 wrote:Then I ask, how can i appreciate it if i cant understand it? I cannot understand it. i've tried to imagine a society based like that. I cant. i cant think of living in it. I cannot comprehend it. So how can i appreciate?

and i am bringing in only one item of proof, because it's been a little while since i saw TOS.

Turnabout intruder: Dr. Lester inhabits kirk. Blah blah blah she gets sent back to her body. Now in an extract from his ending log; "Her her life could have been as full as any woman's".

Admittedly, this can be semantic. but if i remember there was a little emphasis on Woman's. Why not anyones? why distinguish specifically that it was a womans life. Why distinguish?

Because she's a woman and saying "any humans" sounds fucking stupid. I watch TOS today and I don't notice and sexism at all, in fact Kirk was protective of all his crew.

"her life could have been as full as anyones"

and you can go on not noticing. I think it is. my opinion.

I agree with Kendall here. I really don't get these accusations of chauvanism.
Just what did he do? F*ck lots of women? That hardly makes him chauvanistic.
He displayed no special treatment towards female members of his crew, nor did he ever consider them to be incapable of whatever task needed to be done.
While he slept with women on a weekly basis he always treated them with respect.

I think that particular example is a case of a statement that can be colored by one's opinion, rather than form it.