this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024
24 points (85.3% liked)

Daystrom Institute

3451 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to Daystrom Institute!

Serious, in-depth discussion about Star Trek from both in-universe and real world perspectives.

Read more about how to comment at Daystrom.

Rules

1. Explain your reasoning

All threads and comments submitted to the Daystrom Institute must contain an explanation of the reasoning put forth.

2. No whinging, jokes, memes, and other shallow content.

This entire community has a “serious tag” on it. Shitposts are encouraged in Risa.

3. Be diplomatic.

Participate in a courteous, objective, and open-minded fashion. Be nice to other posters and the people who make Star Trek. Disagree respectfully and don’t gatekeep.

4. Assume good faith.

Assume good faith. Give other posters the benefit of the doubt, but report them if you genuinely believe they are trolling. Don’t whine about “politics.”

5. Tag spoilers.

Historically Daystrom has not had a spoiler policy, so you may encounter untagged spoilers here. Ultimately, avoiding online discussion until you are caught up is the only certain way to avoid spoilers.

6. Stay on-topic.

Threads must discuss Star Trek. Comments must discuss the topic raised in the original post.

Episode Guides

The /r/DaystromInstitute wiki held a number of popular Star Trek watch guides. We have rehosted them here:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I've often pondered about how Vulcans view gender and sexuality.

I think pre-Surak/logic, they may have demonstrated homophobia and transphobia, but modern Vulcan Society would probably be chill with it under the reasoning that discrimination would reduce a person's efficacy as a functional member of Vulcan Society. For instance, given a choice between allowing a person to contribute verses driving them to the brink of suicide, Vulcans would probably tend to lean towards the first option.

There could very well still be stigma (Vulcans are far from a perfect society; some may have views that it is illogical to have a romantic relationship without a child), but it's dampened by the logic from the previous paragraph.

There's also the Pon Farr to keep in mind. Not only would it be hard to fight a person in the Ponn Farr, but also you'd literally be killing them by trying to prevent expression of their orientation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] williams_482@startrek.website 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The only logical argument I can find in all of this, is that choosing a mate based on feeling/preference, instead of logic, might demonstrate that an individual is more emotional and therefore less logical. And I think we all know how Vulcans feel about things that are not logical and/or things that act upon their feelings....

Personally, I don't see that having a preference in a mate, even one that steps outside the heteronormative, is a flaw in their logic. If you enjoy your time with your mate, and that makes you a better, more productive individual, then I fail to see a problem.

I don't see any evidence that Vulcans don't completely agree with your own personal stance here.

Vulcans clearly do act upon personal values, desires, preferences, etc, that we as humans would view as emotional responses. "I want [a cookie/you to live long and prosper/to have galactic peace/to solve this math equation/etc]" is, for a human, a statement inherently rooted in an emotional assessment. The Vulcans themselves, however, clearly do not view these things as emotional expression.

We see partnerships which don't produce children, and despite Vulcans having no filter whatsoever when it comes to criticizing others for being "illogical", nobody seems to have anything to say to Sarek for apparently having no children with his last wife Perrin. When Tuvok is separated from his wife, he acknowledges on multiple occasions that he misses her because he wants to be able to spend time with her; he certainly doesn't bemoan the missed opportunity to fulfill a societal obligation to pop out more babies.

We don't have explicit counterfactuals here, but we all know that ultimately comes down to Doylist reasons. There's no reason we should assume that Vulcan society shares Rick Berman's personal sense of morality in this area.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Fair enough.

There are certainly aspects of desire that can be viewed as non-emotional. Not even just in sexual desire, but in general. Like, "I want a cookie" doesn't have to be an emotionally driven sentiment. Having want/desire does not necessarily mean an emotional drive for that thing.

Also, there are many ways to miss someone. If I were separated from my partner for a long period of time, her presence would be missed. Beyond the obvious physical intimacy, having someone around to talk with that I trust and value the opinion of; and someone I can share humerus stories with, or memes/quips that I heard or made. Or simply the knowledge of having them near in case I need assistance in any capacity. It's a comfort.

There's more to it than just intimacy, and emotion; though, being an inherently emotional human, I recognise those aspects in myself as well.

I admire the Vulcans. I think they're on to something.