the delphic expanse

Journal article about romance in space

The place to chat about whatever. Come and get to know your fellow fans.

Journal article about romance in space

Postby Brandyjane » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:07 am

I found this journal article via Instapundit: Sex On Mars: Pregnancy, Fetal Development, and Sex In Outer Space (http://journalofcosmology.com/Mars144.html)

It analyzes what would happen on a three-year round-trip voyage to Mars if both men and women are included in the crew.

The author uses analogies drawn from primate behavior and from studies of human behavior during isolation experiments and teams of researchers in the Antarctic. The conclusions drawn are basically that if you put a mixed-gender group together for long periods of time, they're going to begin pairing off and having sex, no matter their marital status, the agency's rules, or their training. There was even one pretty depressing anecdote in which two male astronauts began fighting and one of them then attempted to rape a female astronaut during a 110-day isolation training exercise.

Here's the part that I found most interesting:

When a woman chooses to have a sexual relationship during her sojourn in the Antarctic, it is often with senior (rather than junior) personnel, including the station leader who is usually seen as having the most status by the women, as well as an unfair advantage by the other men, thereby creating considerable tension and conflict (Stuster 1996).

On the other hand, most studies report that including women as team members has a very positive effect on morale (Rosnet et al., 2004; Leon 2005), especially if they are married and accompanied by their spouse (Leon 2005; Leon et al., 2003). For example, in a study of three married couples from different countries icelocked on a boat in the High Arctic for a 9 month period, partners provided each other with significant emotional support. Married partners were also instrumental in alleviating interpersonal and group tensions, and contributed to the effective functioning of the team (Leon et al., 2003)
.

Naturally this all got me thinking about Trek. It's no wonder Archer says in "Broken Bow" that Starfleet has no official rule against dating! By his time they would know from experience that such rules won't work.
Brandyjane
Lt. Commander
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 7:18 am

Postby Aquarius » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:38 am

I know it's on iTunes, but you might check Hulu or YouTube to see if you can find it for free--there's a show called The Universe that was on one of the Discovery channels or something like that (can't tell you now because I don't have cable any more), and one week the topic was Sex in Space." (That's the episode title you can find it under). I'm wondering if one of the experts on the show was part of conducting this study. Any way, that episode sort of serves as my foundation for where I write from in terms what the rules are vs. the reality of what goes on.
Avatar by Misplaced.
User avatar
Aquarius
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5516
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:30 pm

Postby Honeybee » Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:44 am

I've always thought that if a mission like Enterprise's mission were to go forward, instead of an obviously mostly unmarried crew, including the captain, it would be far more sane to have married couples (gay or straight) on board in solid relationships. Of course, even solid couples break up and have affairs, but it certainly seems like a plan. (Or groups, Mistress Euclid. Groups might work, depending on the culture.)

I think it would have been very interesting to have a married Captain from the get-go. Sure, this removes the romancing of the alien babes but it would have opened new story.

Obviously, the spouse of the captain would have to be in a position where they did not directly report to the Captain but would need to have something to do. Ship's doctor, Chef, head of one of the science teams.
User avatar
Honeybee
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5634
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:37 pm

Postby Kathy Rose » Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:09 am

Interesting topic to ponder, for sure. It also makes me feel validated about all the pairings we come up with.

There was an episode of TNG where Picard was in love with a member of the crew, and they realized that he would be too distracted if he had to send her on a dangerous mission.

It's also interesting that while Starfleet, at least in Enterprise's time, didn't have married couples (that we know of), the Boomers, by definition, were families. Travis' father was the captain of the Horizon, and his mother was the chief engineer and medic, wasn't she? Of course, they had to do that out of necessity. Other than children too young to help, you wouldn't want "extra bodies" along just for the sometimes years-long ride that a cargo run might take.
Old enough to know better, but that's never stopped me before.
Kathy Rose
Captain
 
Posts: 2873
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: Central Illinois

Postby panyasan » Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:48 am

Very interesting. I agree that I would be interesting if Archer was married and his wife had an role on the ship.
My favorite captain is Sisko (DS9). His wife had died, but it felt like he was still married. He came across as the most mature captain of ST for me. Maybe it's because there wasn't a need for him for a "alien babe of the week". (At the end Sisko remarries and his relationship with his second wife comes across as natural.) I also liked Sisko's role as a father.
Avatar by Bluetiger
User avatar
panyasan
Commander
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:12 am

Postby ladyrainbow » Tue Dec 21, 2010 11:40 am

Yeah, in that way, DS9's Sisko was "more realistic" than the other captains of Star Trek, as far as relationship's go. He had to deal with raising a son alone on the station, and deal with his relationship with Kasidy Yates.

That's another thing w/Voyager I was kinda "HUH?" about. You're in the Delta Quadrant, a long way from home, you think nothing's gonna happen on board between the crew? (besides Tom and Belanna)

If you count "non-canon", the only other married couple in Starfleet is Captain Robert April, and his wife Sarah Poole-April, and Sarah was his CMO. What if the CMO had to declare his/her spouse unfit for duty? That would be tough.
User avatar
ladyrainbow
Commander
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:13 am

Postby Aquarius » Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:45 pm


Kathy Rose wrote:Interesting topic to ponder, for sure. It also makes me feel validated about all the pairings we come up with.

There was an episode of TNG where Picard was in love with a member of the crew, and they realized that he would be too distracted if he had to send her on a dangerous mission.

It's also interesting that while Starfleet, at least in Enterprise's time, didn't have married couples (that we know of), the Boomers, by definition, were families. Travis' father was the captain of the Horizon, and his mother was the chief engineer and medic, wasn't she? Of course, they had to do that out of necessity. Other than children too young to help, you wouldn't want "extra bodies" along just for the sometimes years-long ride that a cargo run might take.



The Boomers are different. Those ships are private sector, not government/military. It would be no different than, say, husband/wife teams that do long distance trucking. But driving a "big rig" for the Army? No, they don't want your spouse in there with you.

One of the interesting things about that "Sex in Space" show I mentioned earlier was their discussion of NASA's stance on the subject. There are no official rules against it, but it's still frowned upon--to a point where a shuttle mission almost got scrubbed once because two of the astronauts had fallen in love and married during the course of their training for the mission. I believe the husband was also the mission commander...he protested the scrubbing of the mission, citing that he didn't break any of the rules, and his bosses at NASA told him "you all are the best of the best, you're supposed to know better."

WTF???

The mission was allowed to go on, but on the show they made it abundantly clear that NASA was unhappy.
Avatar by Misplaced.
User avatar
Aquarius
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5516
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:30 pm

Postby Honeybee » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:04 pm

I remember reading an article that said NASA was supportive, but the Discovery documentary stuff came out afterward and so I think the thing I originally read was spin.

You'd think NASA would realize that you put the best of the best together - that they might click since they have both spent their whole lives working toward similar goals.
User avatar
Honeybee
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5634
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:37 pm

Postby Aquarius » Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:59 pm

NASA is very image-conscious, so public perception is important to them. They're not going to want anything to come out that paints them in a negative light, even if they believe they are right. If the public knew how they really felt about that union, NASA knows they'd be perceived as the Big Bad Meanies who just didn't understand.
Avatar by Misplaced.
User avatar
Aquarius
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5516
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:30 pm

Postby Honeybee » Tue Dec 21, 2010 7:20 pm

Oh, I'm sure. And believe me, The Houston Chronicle, where I read about it, would probably not deliberately print an untruth - I used to write for them on a freelance deal and there are good reporters - they are probably pretty starry eyed about NASA and would believe what they were told by TPTB.
User avatar
Honeybee
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5634
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:37 pm

Next

Return to Social Space

  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron