What on Earth (or elsewhere) is the fuss about the Dr snogging his companion? Nowhere in the series does it *ever* state that the Doc is asexual (it's purely an assumption on the part of the fans) and the fact that he has a a grandaughter might lead the pedants among us to conclude otherwise (and no it wasn't a term of affection - that's just another assumption and an entirely baseless one at that.)
We know that humans and Time Lords are mutually sexually attracted (Susan and Whats-his-name, Leela and Thingummy, The Doctor and that-Aztec-woman) and that the Dr favours bimbos in mini-skirts (what, you think he was choosing them for their brains?) The most you could conclude from watching the show is that he's a little reticent about involvement (not surprising when your inability for commitment extends to your entire home planet!)
So if the Doc's vow of celibacy is a fan assumption which flies directly in the face of established continuity, why would you think a new series would pay any heed to it?
Steven Moffat
P.S. I mean, the guy has one snog in thirty years of saving our planet and you're all complaining! You utter, utter bastards!!
Very well put, Moffat -- of course, I disagree utterly, but I don't feel like going into the same old reasons right now. ;-)
But I would like to point out one additional reason why some of us are opposed to the Doctor even getting one smooch... it's because for those of us engaged in long-distance relationships, if the bloody DOCTOR is getting more snugglebunnies than we have in several months, then something is fundamentally wrong with the universe.
Missing Kate, Jon Blum ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "All this time you two thought you were playing some twisted game of chess... when it was just me playing solitaire!" D O C T O R W H O : T I M E R I F T
In article <4fk4ts$...@access2.digex.net> jb...@access2.digex.net
(Jonathan Blum) writes: > But I would like to point out one additional reason why some of us are > opposed to the Doctor even getting one smooch... it's because for those > of us engaged in long-distance relationships, if the bloody DOCTOR is > getting more snugglebunnies than we have in several months, then > something is fundamentally wrong with the universe.
Good point. Why does it make me want to giggle? Geez, I must be feeling cruel. ;-) -- jennika...@aol.com / j...@sirius.com work e-mail: rhad...@marinet.lib.ca.us "Make way! For I am the official keeper of the Emperor's penguins, and I must hurry because his majesty's laundry basket is on fire." The Doctor, _Transit_
In article <4fjaks$jn...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>, Steven Moffat
<100043....@CompuServe.COM> writes: >What on Earth (or elsewhere) is the fuss about the Dr snogging >his companion? Nowhere in the series does it *ever* >state that the Doc is asexual (it's purely an assumption on the >part of the fans)
'Nowhere in the series does it *ever* state that the Doc is sexual (it's purely an assumption on the part of certain fans).
> and the fact that he has a a grandaughter might >lead the pedants among us to conclude otherwise (and no it wasn't >a term of affection - that's just another assumption and an >entirely baseless one at that.)
According to Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible Gallifreyans are created from a sort of loom. If the NA's are canon, that's that. Time Lords are impotent.
Even if we disregard the NA's, the evidence for a completely asexual Doctor is rampant throughout the series: from "You're a beautiful woman, probably" to his not even realizing Cameca loved him. It's everywhere in the series. If the Doctor *is* sexual, it's extremely that we haven't seen even a hint of it, at least. And it's puts an entirely unwelcome spin on his relationship to his companions. As for Susan, it simply never says. I tend to think she *is* his granddaughter, but perhaps he had children before he became a Time Lord.
>We know that humans and Time Lords are mutually sexually >attracted
Susan was never stated to be a Time Lady. Andred wasn't a Time Lord, he was part of the guard (guards implied in The Deadly Assassin not to be Time Lords). Not all Gallifreyans are Time Lords - it's implied that most aren't. Every Time Lord we've seen has been asexual. Even the Master, which is pretty impressive. The Master seems understand human emotions (eg. The Time Monster) but not feel them himself.
>(Susan and Whats-his-name, Leela and Thingummy, The >Doctor and that-Aztec-woman)
The Doctor never loved Cameca or felt an attraction. *She* fell for *him* and he tried desperately to get out of the situation. When he discovered her father made Yetaxa's tomb, he took advantage of her feelings. He never loved her or felt romantic inclinations. If you'd actually *watch* The Aztecs you'd see that.
> and that the Dr favours bimbos in >mini-skirts (what, you think he was choosing them for their >brains?)
This statement is fairly idiotic. If you'd look and see how the companions join him, you'd see that he doesn't *want* Dodo, Ben, Polly, Zoe, Jo, Leela, Romana, Adric, Nyssa, Tegan or Peri. They all find other ways into the TARDIS and the series.
>The most you could conclude from watching the show is >that he's a little reticent about involvement
No, that's the most *you* could conclude. . .
>(not surprising >when your inability for commitment extends to your entire home >planet!)
>So if the Doc's vow of celibacy is a fan assumption which flies >directly in the face of established continuity, why would you >think a new series would pay any heed to it?
It's not a fan assumption, and it doesn't fly 'directly in the face of established continuity.' Are we even watching the same series here?
: In article <4fk4ts$...@access2.digex.net> jb...@access2.digex.net
: (Jonathan Blum) writes:
: > But I would like to point out one additional reason why some of us are : > opposed to the Doctor even getting one smooch... it's because for those : > of us engaged in long-distance relationships, if the bloody DOCTOR is : > getting more snugglebunnies than we have in several months, then : > something is fundamentally wrong with the universe.
let me say that i agree wholeheartedly. the words "fundamentally wrong" are a vast understatement.
nicole some kid who should be with gregg -- =========================================================================== === have you ever gotten on your hands and knees and thank god you have access to my dementia? -george costanza http://astro.ocis.temple.edu/~cunningh len...@netcom.com ftp.netcom.com pub/le/lennon =========================================================================== === WATCH DR WHO ON FOX IN MAY!!
? According to Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible Gallifreyans are created from a ? sort of loom. If the NA's are canon, that's that. Time Lords are ? impotent.
Actually, IIRC what "Cat's Cradle" implies is that all Gallifreyans are *infertile*, not impotent - that's something else entirely. This would stop them from having children, but wouldn't necessarily prevent them having sexual relationships (possibly quite the reverse - if there's no risk of an unwanted pregnancy...)
In humans sex is primarily a social and recreational activity - less than 1 percent of sexual activity is related to reproduction. Take that less-than-1-percent away and there's still have a whole lot of sex left...
______________________________ .--/O\--. ___ Nick Smale | .===. | (n...@smale.demon.co.uk) |||o o||| Manchester, UK || _ || -------------------------------- '___' -----
pat1...@aol.com (Pat1974) wrote: >In article <4fjaks$jn...@mhafn.production.compuserve.com>, Steven Moffat ><100043....@CompuServe.COM> writes:
>>What on Earth (or elsewhere) is the fuss about the Dr snogging >>his companion? Nowhere in the series does it *ever* >>state that the Doc is asexual (it's purely an assumption on the >>part of the fans)
>'Nowhere in the series does it *ever* state that the Doc is sexual (it's >purely an assumption on the part of certain fans).
Exactly. Both interpretations are equally valid, and Segal and Co. are choosing the more daring one. Drama 101: When faced with a choice of situations, always take the more interesting one.
>> and the fact that he has a a grandaughter might >>lead the pedants among us to conclude otherwise (and no it wasn't >>a term of affection - that's just another assumption and an >>entirely baseless one at that.)
>According to Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible Gallifreyans are created from a >sort of loom. If the NA's are canon, that's that. Time Lords are >impotent.
Yes, but it's been hinted that the Doctor is more than a Time Lord. The incongruity of TLs sterility (note: sterility, not asexuality) and the very existance of Susan is even brought up in a late chapter of CC:TC.
>Even if we disregard the NA's, the evidence for a completely asexual >Doctor is rampant throughout the series: from "You're a beautiful woman, >probably" to his not even realizing Cameca loved him.
Those instances are hardly proof of a lack of sexuality. One could make the argument that it shows a sense of humor on one hand and a slight naivete' on the other. (It's interesting to note that although he doesn't recognize Cameca's attraction to him, he recognizes the attraction between Susan and Campbell a few stories later.)
>It's everywhere in >the series. If the Doctor *is* sexual, it's extremely that we haven't >seen even a hint of it, at least.
One word: Romana.
>And it's puts an entirely unwelcome >spin on his relationship to his companions.
Oh, come on! You mean to tell me that you think of sexuality in purely polar terms? If an individual has any sex drive at all, it = entirely controls every single motivation in that person?
>The Doctor never loved Cameca or felt an attraction. *She* fell for *him* >and he tried desperately to get out of the situation. When he discovered >her father made Yetaxa's tomb, he took advantage of her feelings.
Actually, I believe that it was Ixta's father who built the tomb.
>He >never loved her or felt romantic inclinations. If you'd actually *watch* >The Aztecs you'd see that.
Read the brilliant novelization of "The Massacre." In it, the Doctor remembers Cameca and reveals that in retrospect, he'd come to appreciate her feelings (or words to that effect).
>> and that the Dr favours bimbos in >>mini-skirts (what, you think he was choosing them for their >>brains?)
>This statement is fairly idiotic. If you'd look and see how the >companions join him, you'd see that he doesn't *want* Dodo, Ben, Polly, >Zoe, Jo, Leela, Romana, Adric, Nyssa, Tegan or Peri. They all find other >ways into the TARDIS and the series.
Yes, but to use the vernacular, "He didn't kick them out of bed for eating crackers."
>>The most you could conclude from watching the show is >>that he's a little reticent about involvement
>No, that's the most *you* could conclude. . .
>>(not surprising >>when your inability for commitment extends to your entire home >>planet!)
Damn good point!
>>So if the Doc's vow of celibacy is a fan assumption which flies >>directly in the face of established continuity, why would you >>think a new series would pay any heed to it?
>It's not a fan assumption, and it doesn't fly 'directly in the face of >established continuity.' Are we even watching the same series here?
"'If' is the most powerful word in the universe."
>>P.S. I mean, the guy has one snog in thirty years of saving our >>planet and you're all complaining! You utter, utter bastards!
>>Oh, come on! You mean to tell me that you think of sexuality in purely >polar >>terms? If an individual has any sex drive at all, it = >>entirely controls every single motivation in that person?
>Not in the slightest. What an inane suggestion. But do you mean to tell >me that you think a person can be a sexual being and be happily celibate >for the duration of the series? The Doctor has never shown an interest in >anyone. If you make the argument that the Doctor has a sexual nature, you >must show instances where he displays one. You also need to take into >consideration that the Doctor tends to travel with young, provocatively >dressed females. If the Doctor is having hundreds of years of adventures, >is surrounded by attractive young girls and boys and never bats an eyelid >at any of them (or any othe
Aigh! Sorry everyone - my crap AOL account is cutting off longer messages even though I type the rest out - I apologize.
What got cut was:
(or any other character on the show).
The was also some stuff where I was pointed to The Massacre novelization for a take on The Aztecs and Cameca. To which: Okay - I'll look at that book again. But if the novelizations are canon (which means the actual series isn't! Some novels contradict televised events) then so are the NA's. And Human Nature categorically points out that the Doctor has no romantic or sexual inclinations whatsoever. And this is from Paul Cornell, no less. So let's stick just to the televised series (and Shada). If we use the books, I've already won (not that it's a contest or anything). . .
I had some other points that I replied to but without the original post I can't remember what they were. . .
In article <4fnmf4$1...@usenetp1.news.prodigy.com>, NNSS...@prodigy.com
(Joe Wesson) writes: >pat1...@aol.com (Pat1974) wrote: >>According to Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible Gallifreyans are created from >a >>sort of loom. If the NA's are canon, that's that. Time Lords are >>impotent.
> Maybe in your little 'whoniverse'. > Ho hum
Hee hee! Actually, I went back and reread sections of the book after seeing some of the responses. What I meant to say was that the Time Lords (at least from the Doctor's time until now) are incapable of sexual reproduction. Since I hadn't read the book since it was published, I mixed up the exact reasons. . .
mea culpa and accompanying sobs
t.o.Patrick - and for punishment I'll blurt out: "Oh no! Not the mind probe!" in the middle of the office. . .
pat1...@aol.com (Pat1974) wrote: >According to Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible Gallifreyans are created from a >sort of loom. If the NA's are canon, that's that. Time Lords are >impotent.
Maybe in your little 'whoniverse'. Ho hum
Buenos TARDIS jOe WeSsOn dokter...@aol.com "Remember me to Gallifrey"
pat1...@aol.com (Pat1974) wrote: >The was also some stuff where I was pointed to The Massacre novelization >for a take on The Aztecs and Cameca. To which: Okay - I'll look at that >book again. But if the novelizations are canon (which means the actual >series isn't! Some novels contradict televised events) then so are the >NA's.
Well, that's a canon debate, and as such, it doesn't have much relevance here (after all, the TV series contradicts itself in places. It doesn't need contradictions from the novels to confirm or refute its canonicity).
>And Human Nature categorically points out that the Doctor has no >romantic or sexual inclinations whatsoever. And this is from Paul >Cornell, no less. So let's stick just to the televised series (and >Shada).
I see Human Nature as confirming that the Doctor has an interest in romance. As a Time Lord, he had an interest, but didn't believe= himself capable of love. If he had *no* interest, then why turn himself into a human in the first place?
>>>What on Earth (or elsewhere) is the fuss about the Dr snogging >>>his companion? Nowhere in the series does it *ever* >>>state that the Doc is asexual (it's purely an assumption on the >>>part of the fans)
>>'Nowhere in the series does it *ever* state that the Doc is sexual (it's >>purely an assumption on the part of certain fans).
>Exactly. Both interpretations are equally valid, and Segal and Co. are >choosing the more daring one. Drama 101: When faced with a choice of >situations, always take the more interesting one.
I'm still not sure they're "equally valid." It may just be an IMHO sort of thing (which I doubt), but the proponents for a sexual Doctor have the burden of proof. . .
>>According to Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible Gallifreyans are created from a >>sort of loom. If the NA's are canon, that's that. Time Lords are >>impotent.
>Yes, but it's been hinted that the Doctor is more than a Time Lord. The >incongruity of TLs sterility (note: sterility, not asexuality) and the >very existance of Susan is even brought up in a late chapter of CC:TC.
As I said in a previous post: we have seen Gallifreyans with romantic/sexual natures. We have *never* seen a Time Lord with a romantic/sexual nature. There are dozens of possibilities as to why Susan calls the Doctor grandfather. I tend to think he is - possibly before he became one of the few Gallifreyans to be Time Lords?
>>Even if we disregard the NA's, the evidence for a completely asexual >>Doctor is rampant throughout the series: from "You're a beautiful woman, >>probably" to his not even realizing Cameca loved him.
>Those instances are hardly proof of a lack of sexuality. One could make >the argument that it shows a sense of humor on one hand and a slight >naivete' on the other. (It's interesting to note that although he >doesn't recognize Cameca's attraction to him, he recognizes the >attraction between Susan and Campbell a few stories later.)
Cameca - okay, I see your point. However, when he finally does realize what's going on, he's absolutely embarrassed and disinterested. In fact, as far as the series is concerned, he's never been interested in anyone. The "you're a beautiful woman, probably" line could be attributed to humor, but then one could use the humor defense to disregard everything the Doctor says from season 15 through 17! He honestly seems not to realize or feel these sort of things.
>>It's everywhere in >>the series. If the Doctor *is* sexual, it's extremely that we haven't >>seen even a hint of it, at least.
>One word: Romana.
Three words: defend your argument. When did the Doctor ever display romantic intentions toward her? It's possible to argue the opposite to some extent (eg: Shada), but if you're not even going to support one word statements. . .
>>And it's puts an entirely unwelcome >>spin on his relationship to his companions.
>Oh, come on! You mean to tell me that you think of sexuality in purely polar >terms? If an individual has any sex drive at all, it = >entirely controls every single motivation in that person?
Not in the slightest. What an inane suggestion. But do you mean to tell me that you think a person can be a sexual being and be happily celibate for the duration of the series? The Doctor has never shown an interest in anyone. If you make the argument that the Doctor has a sexual nature, you must show instances where he displays one. You also need to take into consideration that the Doctor tends to travel with young, provocatively dressed females. If the Doctor is having hundreds of years of adventures, is surrounded by attractive young girls and boys and never bats an eyelid at any of them (or any othe
>? According to Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible Gallifreyans are created from >a >? sort of loom. If the NA's are canon, that's that. Time Lords are >? impotent.
>Actually, IIRC what "Cat's Cradle" implies is that all Gallifreyans are >*infertile*, not impotent - that's something else entirely. This would stop >them from having children, but wouldn't necessarily prevent them having >sexual relationships (possibly quite the reverse - if there's no risk of an >unwanted pregnancy...)
>In humans sex is primarily a social and recreational activity - less than 1 >percent of sexual activity is related to reproduction. Take that >less-than-1-percent away and there's still have a whole lot of sex
left...
All right - good point. But the biological fact that they can have sex doesn't mean they do. Someone please point out a "for instance" and then we can start talking a little more smoothly. . .
"It's not a fan assumption, and it doesn't fly 'directly in the face of established continuity.' Are we even watching the same series here?"
All I was trying to point out, in a harmless and humourous way, was that nothing is directly established in the TV show about the Doctor's sexuality. There are implications in both directions (from actual progeny to seeming sexual naivety) but nothing is ever stated or demonstrated to prove your case or mine. Either intepretation (from simple emotional reticence to actual asexuality) is valid and so both options are open to the new production team.
Of course once they've decided that's rather it, isn't it?
And did you call me idiotic in the middle of an argument among grown adults about Doctor Who's sex life? Honestly!!
el...@usa.pipeline.com(Elsa Frohman) wrote: > On Feb 11, 1996 20:02:21 in article <Re: Sex and The Doctor>, > 'rjm...@haven.ios.com (Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier)' wrote: > >His choice of Adric and Turlough may also lead one to wonder about a more > >polymorphous orientation. But as FU would say, I couldn't possibly comment. > EEEEEWWWWWWWW!
Oh, Elsa, I agree!
> (This is not a commentary on the suggestion that the Doctor might be > bisexual. But Adric and Turlough?) > I think I'm gonna hurl!
Yeah, fine with me if the Doctor happens to be bi... but if you're saying he *wanted Adric*... <muffled scream> And Turlough? Um, I think we'd best behave ourselves. :-) -- j...@sirius.com / jennika...@aol.com work e-mail: rhad...@marinet.lib.ca.us "Make way! For I am the official keeper of the Emperor's penguins, and I must hurry because his majesty's laundry basket is on fire." The Doctor, _Transit_
On Feb 11, 1996 20:02:21 in article <Re: Sex and The Doctor>,
'rjm...@haven.ios.com (Randy/Jean-Marc Lofficier)' wrote: >His choice of Adric and Turlough may also lead one to wonder about a more >polymorphous orientation. But as FU would say, I couldn't possibly comment.
In article <4flp1q$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Pat1974 <pat1...@aol.com> wrote: >The Doctor never loved Cameca or felt an attraction. *She* fell for *him* >and he tried desperately to get out of the situation. When he discovered >her father made Yetaxa's tomb, he took advantage of her feelings. He >never loved her or felt romantic inclinations. If you'd actually *watch* >The Aztecs you'd see that.
Uh-uh.
If *you'd* actually understood The Aztecs, you would have seen that the Doctor *does* have feelings for Cameca. He doesn't want to marry her, to be sure, but I don't think anyone can watch that final scene and tell me he felt nothing for her.
I mean, he spends the whole episode telling Barbara that she cannot change history and then he takes the bloody brooch!
In article <4fnl3f$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Pat1974 <pat1...@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
>I'm still not sure they're "equally valid." It may just be an IMHO sort >of thing (which I doubt), but the proponents for a sexual Doctor have the >burden of proof. . .
We don't have to "prove" that the Doctor has some kind of romantic or sexual feelings - only that they might be possible for him. Heck, I didn't have my first crush until I was sixteen. :-)
It'll be hilarious if there *is* a snog of some variety in the show - from the howls of outrage from some fans to the fact that the Doctor's kissability has become CANON. Mwa ha ha...
[snip]
>Cameca - okay, I see your point. However, when he finally does realize >what's going on, he's absolutely embarrassed and disinterested. In fact,
He certainly isn't. Take another look at the story.
[snip]
>Not in the slightest. What an inane suggestion. But do you mean to tell >me that you think a person can be a sexual being and be happily celibate >for the duration of the series? The Doctor has never shown an interest in >anyone. If you make the argument that the Doctor has a sexual nature, you >must show instances where he displays one. You also need to take into >consideration that the Doctor tends to travel with young, provocatively >dressed females. If the Doctor is having hundreds of years of adventures, >is surrounded by attractive young girls and boys and never bats an eyelid >at any of them (or any othe
Hey, this means that no-one goes to the toilet in the "Doctor Who" universe. :-)
Maybe the Doctor's never found the right girl, boy, or model train set. Or maybe he doesn't want to involve someone else so permanently in his hazardous wanderings... it would be very easy indeed to make such a little expansion of the character seem like a natural progression.
Nick Smale <n...@smale.demon.co.uk> wrote: >In article <4flp1q$...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, >pat1...@aol.com (Pat1974) wrote:
>? According to Cat's Cradle: Time's Crucible Gallifreyans are created from >a >? sort of loom. If the NA's are canon, that's that. Time Lords are >? impotent.
>Actually, IIRC what "Cat's Cradle" implies is that all Gallifreyans are >*infertile*, not impotent - that's something else entirely. This would stop >them from having children, but wouldn't necessarily prevent them having >sexual relationships (possibly quite the reverse - if there's no risk of an >unwanted pregnancy...)
>In humans sex is primarily a social and recreational activity - less than 1 >percent of sexual activity is related to reproduction. Take that >less-than-1-percent away and there's still have a whole lot of sex left...
This is an *excellent* point.
We've never seen inside a Gallifreyan *home*, let alone a bedroom - who knows what these folks do for fun?
In the oration <4fokr4$...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, the orator known only as kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) orated thus to this newsgroup:
> We've never seen inside a Gallifreyan *home*, let alone a bedroom - who > knows what these folks do for fun?
Make up silly titles for themselves? Regenerate into a succession of elderly bodies? Wear large, totally impractical collars? Put the Doctor on trial every now and then, before making him President? Pontificate on the infallibility of the Matrix?
In the oration <4fokkf$...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>, the orator known only as kor...@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au (Kate Orman) orated thus to this newsgroup:
> Maybe the Doctor's never found the right girl, boy, or model train set. > Or maybe he doesn't want to involve someone else so permanently in his > hazardous wanderings... it would be very easy indeed to make such a > little expansion of the character seem like a natural progression.
Of course, the Doctor's propensity to regenerate at unexpected moments would probably put a dampener on any permanant relationship, giving new meaning to such trite lines as "You're not the man I married." :-)
>>Actually, IIRC what "Cat's Cradle" implies is that all Gallifreyans are >>*infertile*, not impotent - that's something else entirely. This would >stop >>them from having children, but wouldn't necessarily prevent them having >>sexual relationships (possibly quite the reverse - if there's no risk of >an >>unwanted pregnancy...)
>>In humans sex is primarily a social and recreational activity - less than >1 >>percent of sexual activity is related to reproduction. Take that >>less-than-1-percent away and there's still have a whole lot of sex >left...
>All right - good point. But the biological fact that they can have sex >doesn't mean they do.
Doesn't mean they don't either.
>Someone please point out a "for instance" and then >we can start talking a little more smoothly. . .
I think that when one is talking about a species that once used to reproduce sexually (something that Time's Crucible definitely proves) the burden of proof lies with your argument. Time's Crucible, ISTR, portrayed the pre-Time Lord Gallifreyans as relatively similar to humankind. If the entire human race were to be rendered sterile at this instant, and sex could no longer be used to produce children, do you expect that the sex act would die out altogether?
Clearly they retain the notions of gender (differentiation between Time Lords and Ladies) and marriage (while unions like Leela and Andred's, and Susan and Campbell's does not prove that Time Lords have sex, it does prove that the notion of marriage is still retained by some segment of the Gallifreyan population). Sexual relations are merely a hop, skip and a jump further.
|
