the delphic expanse

This has come up in two separate threads in the last day or so, so I thought it would be a discussion-worthy topic.

There is a general assumption that there are no-fraternization policies in place in Starfleet. These are often a part of fics that involve Archer, Trip, and/or T'Pol in romantic situations and relationships.

However, in "Breaking the Ice,' Archer tells the school children that dating on the ship isn't against the rules, just problematic due to lack of privacy.

We know Kirk and Picard both have officiated weddings of crew members.

And recently rewatching early Voyager episodes, when Janeway and Chakotay are discussing the topic, Janeway says something to the effect of (I can't recall verbatim) "Starfleet has never gotten involved in people's personal lives."

It was clear from the Voyager episode that what bugged Chakotay was the indescretion--two people making out in a turbolift. Janeway wasn't bothered by the relationship itself, but was more inclined to have people keep it on the down-low when on duty and in public.

When Chakotay asked her what *she* intended to do about pairing off, she first says "That's a luxury I don't have," then kind of shifts the reason to being about Mark and not her command.

So, I know in the real navy, there are rules governing relationships. You can't be more than so many steps in rank apart from each other, and I think someone told me that a married couple can't serve on the same ship (though I don't know if that's true.)

Keep in mind, Star Trek only has to follow its own internal logic, not necessarily that of our world. So that said, do we really believe that the captain (or his senior officers, for that matter) are forbidden to have shipboard relationships? Or is that something that, while permitted, most people just kind of avoid by convention as a "bad idea"?

I assume that Starfleet more or less evolved from the navy, considering that they're using naval idioms a lot. Further one can assume that they also took on their rules on fraternization (i.e. forbidden). Until Enterprise that wouldn't have been a problem, because the fact that Starfleet didn't even know the nearest neighbours (Andorians, Tellarites) suggests that the sub-warp 5 ships were kept close to Earth.

With Enterprise's launch, that changed. Somewhere during the season's run there has to be a relaxation of the no-frats because they are unrealistic on multi-year missions. In my universe this happens after the return from the Expanse.

Well, we know that Earth culture has changed dramatically by Enterprise's time. Earth is united. Money is no longer used. There's no war, poverty ... a lot of things have changed since the Vulcans arrived. I don't think it would be a stretch at all to say that some military traditions and rules might have changed in the meantime as well.

Then too, Enterprise is positioned as an experimental vehicle - "The first warp 5" - and sent on a mission of exploration with a crew that's heavily weighted towards scientists, biologists, geologists, etc. There's not a lot of talk of whether or not fraternization is a problem on National Geographic vessels or other scientific vessels like Cousteau's Calypso. They have captains and first officers, etc. too, but don't exercise the same rules as a strictly military vessel.

And then finally, Gene Roddenberry did set up Kirk's ship and Starfleet with a sort of Naval feel, based on his own experiences. But he also called it "a wagon train to the stars" and seemed to imply that there were ship-board romances.

So, my personal opinion is that the writer has leeway to say either a) there is an old-fashioned policy that gets sorely tested and then changed by the realities of long missions on space or b) there isn't the same kind of strict fraternization policy as we'd think and it's limited to chain-of-command and "kept the workplace professional" kinds of things, or c) even, there isn't one at all though the writer might have to make a good case for that. They may even be a good case for one getting implemented during the Romulan war as things get far more militaristic.

Aquarius wrote:And recently rewatching early Voyager episodes, when Janeway and Chakotay are discussing the topic, Janeway says something to the effect of (I can't recall verbatim) "Starfleet has never gotten involved in people's personal lives."

It was clear from the Voyager episode that what bugged Chakotay was the indescretion--two people making out in a turbolift. Janeway wasn't bothered by the relationship itself, but was more inclined to have people keep it on the down-low when on duty and in public.

When Chakotay asked her what *she* intended to do about pairing off, she first says "That's a luxury I don't have," then kind of shifts the reason to being about Mark and not her command.

Me, I'd view that as Janeway's own personal position rather than Starfleet's. I.e. she's so wrapped up in keeping her crew safe, getting them home, etc. that she's isolated herself to remain strong and their leader.

On the other hand, maybe Starfleet only have a no-fraternization policy in place for senior staff, or COs?

This is just the personal canon I've constructed to fit with what I've seen, take it as you will.

I think for most of the crew (and this is actually evidenced by the fact that we have seen weddings between crew members on the shows, as well as the way Archer answered the question about dating) forming relationships and getting married is just one of those things Starfleet should expect to happen. Missions are long and it would be ridiculous to ignore the fact that human nature encompasses sexual and social needs...and I'm sure the rule makers of Starfleet didn't get to their positions by being ridiculous. Therefore, I don't think fraternization is against protocol. I do believe, however, there are probably strictures and procedures in place to ensure said relationships don't interfere with the business at hand.

When it comes to captains and first officers I'm not sure I've quite made up my mind, yet. Obviously, they're not automatons, but they ARE in pretty powerful positions. I think that in the end, though, the same rules governing the rest of the crew would technically be extended to captains and XOs. However, I would assume that at some point in the training for these positions, captains and XOs would have to take an ethics class or seminar where this subject would be discussed thoroughly. I could see the gist of the discussion in such a class being "It's technically alright, but think long and hard about if you want to get into it. And just because it's technically allowed doesn't mean there isn't the chance an investigation could be opened to make sure the relationship isn't any sort of liability or abuse of power."

Personally, when I write and this issue comes up, I do it from a place that models after a situation that came up in NASA. Apparently, they have (or had, at the time) no official policy about fraternization.

However, a shuttle mission was almost scrubbed when it's mission commander and another crew member got married pre-launch.

The couple involved didn't believe they had done anything wrong.

Higher-ups, on the other hand, told them, "You're the best of the best. You're supposed to know better."

(This can be seen on the episode of The Universe titled "Sex in Space")

So, I kind of come from the perspective that maybe the captain and the next closest couple of people down the command chain are the best of the best and supposed to know better.

I have pretty much the same belief as creek_chub.

My husband is in the military, and while there are a buttload of ridiculous rules, there are also some places where they're given leeway. And in those instances, there are still unspoken rules--especially for those in command. Like Aquarius said, those in command actually have higher expectations of them.

I imagine that the Trip/T'Pol relationship could be investigated--not because there is a hard and fast rule about fraternization (I tend to believe there isn't one--these missions are supposed to last years, after all), but because Starfleet would want to know if their relationship is interfering with their work. And, honestly, I think they would come out of said investigation okay, most likely because they are the same rank. But I also believe there would be a warning: "We're watching you. Don't screw up."

If you take my second favorite ship, Archer/Sato, I think Archer would be in a whole heap of trouble for that. Not because he was breaking any written rules--but because, as Aquarius said, he should know better. He is in a position of power--the ultimate on the starship--and it could look like he was taking advantage of an ensign. No matter how consensual the relationship is. This, of course, doesn't stop me from shipping them. I'm just saying, I believe he is more likely to get into serious trouble for hooking up with anyone under his command, despite there not being a no-frat rule.

Personally, when I write and this issue comes up, I do it from a place that models after a situation that came up in NASA. Apparently, they have (or had, at the time) no official policy about fraternization.

However, a shuttle mission was almost scrubbed when it's mission commander and another crew member got married pre-launch.

The couple involved didn't believe they had done anything wrong.

Higher-ups, on the other hand, told them, "You're the best of the best. You're supposed to know better."

(This can be seen on the episode of The Universe titled "Sex in Space")

So, I kind of come from the perspective that maybe the captain and the next closest couple of people down the command chain are the best of the best and supposed to know better.

I really like this, and the more that I think about this, it makes sense that there wouldn't be a strict set of no-fraternization rules for the bulk of the crew.

Enterprise and her mission was planned. I'd have a hard time believing that the planners didn't at least think about the possibility of relationship, dating, sex and marriage on something like this, when modern-day NASA and other space agencies are starting to look at this sort of thing. Long term scientific endeavors (like Antarctica) also give some thought to it. Surely the planner of Enterprise's mission included psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc.? I would hope so. Given that Starfleet would have been planning Enterprise's mission for decades, and under tutelage of the Vulcans, surely past experience, research, knowledge and an understanding of how long these people would be in deep space would have been thrown into the planning mix before even crew compliments were chosen.

And like others have said, it also makes sense that the rules might be different for the top-most ranks of the command chain, even if they ended up being unwritten rules.

Misplaced, can you explain what the rules are?

In the framework of Star Trek, my main assumption is that if it can lead to an abuse of power, it's forbidden. That would make the captain off limits to everyone.

Trip and T'Pol are a little ambiguous. They're pretty much equals who answer directly to the captain and not each other in most circumstances. However, there are situations where T'Pol is placed in charge and Trip, therefore, is subject to her orders.

Also, both positions have the potential for...what's the word I want? Ship's in danger, and the temptation is to go look for/rescue/help your loved one instead of staying at your post and doing your job. (Picard faced this the one time he afforded himself the luxury of dating.)

For the rest of the crew, I would say that department heads/supervisors are not allowed to date those directly under them, but they could date someone of differing ranks in other departments, as long as one department wasn't under the jurisdiction of the other. (IE, Malcolm, head of the security department, couldn't date another security officer, but could date someone from, say, botany, even if they were of lower rank.)

Aquarius wrote:Personally, when I write and this issue comes up, I do it from a place that models after a situation that came up in NASA. Apparently, they have (or had, at the time) no official policy about fraternization.

However, a shuttle mission was almost scrubbed when it's mission commander and another crew member got married pre-launch.

The couple involved didn't believe they had done anything wrong.

Higher-ups, on the other hand, told them, "You're the best of the best. You're supposed to know better."

(This can be seen on the episode of The Universe titled "Sex in Space")

So, I kind of come from the perspective that maybe the captain and the next closest couple of people down the command chain are the best of the best and supposed to know better.

While I can see that it should seem common sense to at least talk with your superiors about these sorts of circumstances, I do have to wonder about something. Follow my train of thought on this for a sec...I'm assuming these two had an actual serious relationship leading up to their marriage, so...how did the higher-ups not see it coming and bring up the fraternization issue before the two married? If the higher-ups knew they were a couple and didn't say anything, then I could see how the couple didn't think they were in the wrong. And on the other hand, if the higher-ups didn't know, and the couple still didn't think they were doing anything wrong, it stands to reason that they weren't trying to HIDE the relationship and thus the only reason the higher-ups didn't know about it was because the couple was able to keep the relationship from interfering with their work, again making me see how they might think they weren't doing anything wrong. Just an observation.

Aquarius wrote:For the rest of the crew, I would say that department heads/supervisors are not allowed to date those directly under them, but they could date someone of differing ranks in other departments, as long as one department wasn't under the jurisdiction of the other. (IE, Malcolm, head of the security department, couldn't date another security officer, but could date someone from, say, botany, even if they were of lower rank.)

Does anyone know the ranks of the couple in Balance of Terror? I think they were in the same department, if we knew their rank it might give us some insight on this aspect of things.

Here, in a nutshell, are US Navy regulations: http://www.ig.navy.mil/ethics/fraternization.doc
This is a Wordpad document.

It would appear that Archer/Sato would definitely not be a choice, not just because he could be taking advantage of her, but because others in the crew could come to believe that she was getting special treatment because she was sleeping with the boss (kinda sounds like the MU doesn't it?).

It also appears that from Harbinger on Trip/T'Pol would be in serious trouble as a sexual relationship is frowned upon, even among those of equal rank. And marriage wouldn't make it OK after the fact.

You'd like to think that Tailhook-type scandals wouldn't happen in the 2200s. You'd like to think that "no, thanks" means "no, thanks", whether the proposition was het, gay or bi by the 2200s. You'd like to think people won't be users/takers in the 2200s. I just don't think that people will change that much, though, even in a united Earth where nobody worries about money (of course, I don't see that happening, either - wish I did, but I don't). So, I figure in real life there will still be some sort of rules around. Star Trek isn't real life, though.