Insert your “Hump” joke here.
OK, Anakin.
I was reading(don’t judge me) a romantic historical novel in which a couple walked naked onto a beach and did it on the sand. When they got up he told her they needed to bathe in the sea because “I have sand in the strangest places”
Him? What about her?
I imagine she got sand in all the expected places.
You make a good point. Probably not as much of a surprise from her perspective.
I always suspect that those tropes all evolved from where can a young-ish person find to make out with their significant other far away from the prying eyes of parents, Ms. Grundy, and the like. The quality of said sex was likely NOT a factor, or at least, not from the POV of a “traditional” male partner. Other examples, such as making out on a blanket out in the woods/wilderness (bug bites, minimal padding, animal interruptions) or the slightly more modern trope of the mile high club (no space, concealment, no padding, minimal privacy) are equally suspect from the POV of a mutually satisfying sexual experience.
But the thrill of getting away with it is I’m sure just as true now as when they first evolved.
I’d figure the sex-on-the-beach trope probably got its biggest impetus from Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr.
Her clam?
I didn’t read that at all, even as a young teenager.
Seemed clear to me that to be the Captain you needed compassion and aggression. You needed to be able to send people to their death, and cause the death in others, and compassion to avoid if if you can.
I do agree even that would be a tough sell in 2023, as we are all special snowflakes now and everything can be solved with a hug.
Do you really believe that society has changed in that way? Because all of the research I’m seeing indicates people are more prone to retaliatory aggression, more polarized, more extreme, more mistrusting than in the decades past. I’d argue that the “compassion” part of that lesson would be a hard sell for many these days.
Also, it’s 2024.
Seems like some viewers have a problem with that the portrayal of the “unrestrained aggressiveness” personality included violating specifically sexual boundaries. But the writers evidently wanted to portray that the “unrestrained aggressive” personality is unrestrained about everything he thinks he can get away with, rather than go for the “even HE has limits” trope. But I never got the impression that it was purporting to say that decisive aggressiveness means being “a little bit rapey inside”.
It’s not being rapey that was meant. The storyline for Rand was her constant desire to get Kirk’s attention with his total ignoring of her advances. Spock was pointing out that the uncontrolled Kirk displayed an attraction to Rand. That it was out-of-control attraction is just what let’s it be revealed.
Yeah. I never looked at it as “good Kirk and Evil Kirk”, even though that’s the way it’s usually talked about. I thought of it as more “Id Kirk Versus Superego Kirk”. The compassionate, empathetic, moral Kirk was crippled due to lacking passion & drive, while feral Kirk was just that - feral. All appetite and passion, no self control, morality or foresight. Both were unbalanced.
Feral Kirk was more dangerous since he still had enough drive to actually do things, but passive Kirk was mainly safer because he wasn’t going to do much of anything.
Both Kirk’s got more extreme as the episode went on. Passive Kirk found making decisions harder, and aggressive Kirk had a harder time faking being normal