www.ditl.org

So who considers what Nikolai Rozhenko's impregnation of Dobara to be rape?

I don't know what anthropological standards are, but I have to believe any sexual interaction with someone you are studying is considered entirely unethical and morally reprehensible.

As a teacher of American high school students, I can fully comprehend attraction to someone who you are instructing or interacting with. There is not a teacher I know that won't admit to finding a certain attraction in certain high school girls. But as a professional, we also have a VERY clear code of conduct with students (further added to by numerous state and federal laws). You simply do not violate that professional relationship. Any breach is akin to rape in Connecticut.

The same thing must be true of cultural anthropologists, no? So, rape or no rape?

This also makes me wonder why this wasn't addressed in the Federation, or is this kinda stuff considered kosher?

I went with "No, but unethical" - the standards of teacher-student conduct, for example, are based not ONLY on the position of trust/professional supervisory issue, but also on the fact that students are under the age of majority. Nikolai violated the ethics of the position he held, but not in the sense of satutory rape.

Mikey wrote:I went with "No, but unethical" - the standards of teacher-student conduct, for example, are based not ONLY on the position of trust/professional supervisory issue, but also on the fact that students are under the age of majority. Nikolai violated the ethics of the position he held, but not in the sense of satutory rape.

In CT, age of consent is 16. Which applies to about half of the females. I see your argument but a vast majority of cases with teachers in CT are actually 16 or older, for obvious reasons.

Understood. Perhaps age of censent wasn't specifically the best argument to make, but my point is that teachers are in an almost parental supervisory position over children - whether thos children are 15 or 17 years of age. Nikolai should have kept his distance, but was not in such a position.

I'll go for "No, but unethical" for reasons already stated in the thread.

No, but unethical because... what else has been said.

While it may be unethical by our standards, (I should warn I haven't seen the episode), from what I understand it was consensual and who are we to say what is absolutly wrong and right.

Well, we're the ones actually having this discussion, so we DO get to say what's wrong or right for the purposes of this discussion.

Rape no, a violation of the Prime Directive, possibly. Think about what the local yokals will think when the child is born with no nose ridges, or any other hidden distinguishing feature? Such a birth could alter the natural course of development for these people, beyond what was done in the episode.

Its been a long time since I watched the episode so I'm not sure if that angle was brought up.

KuvahMagh wrote:Rape no, a violation of the Prime Directive, possibly. Think about what the local yokals will think when the child is born with no nose ridges, or any other hidden distinguishing feature? Such a birth could alter the natural course of development for these people, beyond what was done in the episode.

Its been a long time since I watched the episode so I'm not sure if that angle was brought up.

I don't think that it was, IIRC, but an excellent point.

KuvahMagh wrote:Rape no, a violation of the Prime Directive, possibly. Think about what the local yokals will think when the child is born with no nose ridges, or any other hidden distinguishing feature? Such a birth could alter the natural course of development for these people, beyond what was done in the episode.

Its been a long time since I watched the episode so I'm not sure if that angle was brought up.

Why would a civvie care about violating the PD?

Why would a civvie care about violating the PD?

that's a good point

A civvie who was working in a UFP a/o Starfleet-commisioned position. I'm sure that the PD was a UFP initiative, not just restricted to Starfleet specifically.

If I'm not mistaken he was a Federation Observer, like Mikey said it is likely that the PD would apply to people in such roles.

The breach of the PD is also brought up on his MA article.

Mikey wrote:A civvie who was working in a UFP a/o Starfleet-commisioned position. I'm sure that the PD was a UFP initiative, not just restricted to Starfleet specifically.

Given the shitty track record of punishing PD violations, the guy would probably walk away anyways. What happened to him BTW?